So here is the return of my Sunday NIght Movie postings. Last night I booted up the PS3, logged into Netflix and started the next of my Bond Movie series, Diamonds Are Forever. This is a Bond film that I have never seen in its entirety. I can recall seeing bits and pieces of this movie on cable as I flipped through the channels, But I had never sat down and watched the film from front to finish. Now, it turns our that I had seen very little of this film and most of it was a total unknown to me, a very pleasant unknown I might add. Continue reading
The danger of being a dreamer…
Experimental
A sentiment I heartily agree with….
The Wicker Man
Last March one of my Sunday night Movies was The Wicker Man a film I have enjoyed since I saw it on HBO back in 1979. Now when I watched it last year it was the ‘director’s cut.’ In actuality I’m not sure if this represents the director’s true visions but I know it is the closest surviving print of that version. Sadly, the studio accidentally destroyed the negative this cut was made from a 1″ videotape duplicate, so the visuals suffer.
Late laste year or early this year I picked up the theatrical cut on DVD so that I could have all the bonus material. (the boxed set I had purchased seven or eight years ago came with two discs, one with teh bonus material and the theatrical cut and the second disc with this ‘director’s cut’, sadly only one disc worked.)
Of course I had to watch the theatrical cut in addition to the bonus materials.
I am so torn. In a perfect world there would be a high quality print with material from both cuts. I can’t honestly say if one is better than the other. Each stresses different points, and each omits scenes that I think are really really important.
(Ignore the fact that there was an American *ah hem* remake. That was pure garbage and ignored the themes of the film replacing them with its own misogynistic malevolence.)
I doubt that there are many fi any people reading my blog who has seen both, but if there are, do you have a preference and if so why?
What I am really excited about is next year….
No Sunday Night Movie this week.
Life has been busy and my writing has taken up quite a bit of my time. (that’s a good thing for me, not so good if you enjoy content here. Sorry.)
I’ve got a couple of short stories in the fire, and my next Seth jackson novel, Command and Control is coming along nicely in the outline stages.
See you all later.
Headache Log 12/14/11
What happened? Updated
So last night I brought up the question what happened to the Republican dominance in California for Presidential elections. Brad theorized that it was a demographic change that lead to Claifornia becoming a safe state for the Democratic Party in presidential elections. I expressed some doubt, but he may be right. Be low the cut is a graph I made of the popular vote totals in California for both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. For comparison I also graphed the popular vote totals for both parties nationally.
The Democratic part has been gaining steadily in the Golden State since about 1980, this did not translate into victories until 1992, but the trend is plain. What I found even more surprising was that the trend was mirrored, though delayed in the national vote totals. From 1952 through 2008 in general the Democratic Party has been gaining popular votes and the Republican Party has been bleeding them.
If this is demographics, then it could spell massive trouble for the Republican Party. The Tea Party revolution will be carrying the party into the wrong direction for electoral victory. Note that the Republicans did not lose votes totals, slipping behind the Democrats when the total losses became too great, but rather votes moved from the Republican ledger to the Democratic ledger. It is hardly likely that those migrating votes are of a Tea Party mentality. As such moving towards the Tea Party is unlikely to bring those votes back to the Republican party and is therefore unlikely to help in the long term electoral prospects of that party. (there may be short term swings such as 1964 or 1994 but the trend lines continue.)
Becoming a lite version of the Democratic pArty is no answer, rather the Republicans are faced with a generational challenge of finding a philosophical stance that agrees with their principles, and is flexible enough to sweep in votes from the growing Democratic wave.
So what happened?
A friend of mine is fond of saying that his vote, nationally, doesn’t matter because he lives here in California and no matter what he thinks, wants, or votes California is going to be in the Democratic column come election night.
Today that is true, but it hasn’t always been that way.
From 1952 through 1988 California was a reliable Republican state, only once 1964 ending up in the Democratic totals during the Goldwater Disaster. However from 1988 through the current day, five straight elections, California has gone Democratic and teh Republicab’s haven’t had a ghost of chance at the electoral college votes locked up in the Golden State. Why?
Did California turn that Liberal in 1992?
Did the Republicans move that far right in 1992?
Was it a combination of both?
