adrift

It has become more and more in my face that I need to either adjust my attitude or figure out how to live in this world. Seriously though I cannot find my place. This might be charming for a teen or even a twenty something but I'm looking at two score years.
It isn't even that I do not know what i would like or what I'd settle for it is just that there seems to be no bridge between here and there. I can accept that this is my own doing if not just my responsibility but that isn't solving the issue at hand.

So I need to be brave and strong and what ever trite little words you want to put in there. Something needs to happen one way or the other.

This isn't what i wanted to say or talk about.

Despite all the crap in my life I am in a position to make it what I want. One of the issues is that I cannot see where the line between Just my perception and the reality of the situation is. I am also saddled with a provincial world view. I cannot see past getting a job (which has somehow become a huge issue). AHHHHHHHHHH
I'll post this but I am not saying what i want to say. sorry.

the same old question

I am going through a "creative suite for dummies" book and realize that I need to actually do this to learn it. I have no doubts I can do it but I am directionless as to what to do. This is a question that plagues me and am often asked with out an answer. "What do you want to do?"

With out getting into the question of whether or no this question is relevant, I can never answer this question.
Left to my own device I can keep busy, but to move forward in life and learning is not easy for my as I have some sort of near sightedness or imagination break down.

I need to break this cycle. As of this writing the whole aforementioned dummies book on digital media will be my .......voodoo doll of my own larger life. By leaving my comfort zone and doing stuff for my own sake (not that I don't do that anyhow but if I am not with my own agenda or someone else's it is hard to press forward) I can affect those changes in my life at large. At least that is a theory.

So what will I do? I don't know. How to fix my life, I don't know.
ttfn
r.

pretty ballons ala cgi

Normally I do not go in for the CGI. I think my main problem is that there are too many movies or what have you that are made solely as a vehicle for the technology. Maybe that is the only way it can develop. There are certainly bad movies that have nothing to do with the technique so they have no monopoly on my disfavor.

I do enjoy animation and try not to be too critical. I think though I was stunned by the ubiquity of the usage of computers. As is often the case it was used like a blunt instrument rather than the oft better choice of subtlety. However, either I am getting desensitized or there seems a better use of it to be found these days.

This posting springs from my seeing a preview for the movie "up". It isn't the movie itself, though it seems fun and well made it is probably par for these types of movies. It was a second long scene as a large mass of balloons float past a girls window and we see the effect of a deluge of color as the sun light is filtered through the balloons. I though found the scene charming and recognized that the effect would not be easily done any other way. In other words, it looked good. It seemed to hold its own as a piece of animation outside of the fact that the whole of the movie was an animated feature.

Couple this with my recent watching of Lemony Snickets and the remake of Charley and the Chocolate factory. Particularly with the former movie, I felt the mood and scenery really added to the movie. There are of course other ways to accomplish such things but the point is that the CGI was used to add to the movie (in my eyes) successfully. It wasn't annoying, disjointed or obnoxious it simply was part of the movie.

Pax

superman

I do not know why but I have been reading a lot of Super Man comics from the Library. I am guessing it involves some combination of nostalgia and the appeal of simplicity. Simplicity in terms of right and wrong, good and bad. I none the less have been enjoying catching up on my Super Man comic reading.

As a long time reader of comics and Superman specifically, I have noticed a new thing. The Superman of old (pre 1986) was so very super and the near godlike superman. He could do the impossible. Then the re-vamped him in the eighties, powered him down and made him more man than super. He couldn't travel through time or need no air, he couldn't do the impossible. He was vulnerable to more than kryptonite. This went on for a while.

Now it seems (there was a hiatus in my super man comic reading) they have fused the two ideas together. There seems to be a recapturing of the super mystique but still make the man part of the stories. There is the grand excitement of old as Superman battles Monsters, Villains and alien armadas. The newer stories seem to allow him doing the impossible stuff without it being so contrary to an interesting story. So maybe I am saying the writings better but it seems still a different thing. The zeitgeist of the 80's revamping was to do exactly that, rewrite the history not just improve the writing.

To restate: I am unabashedly reading superman comics. There seems to my long reading eye a fusion of the idea of Superman that was from my and previous generations and the one remade to be more reasonable, more "realistic" in bent. I am enjoying the return to an older flavor but without the dryness bred over decades of .........I don't want to say limited imagination, because it wasn't but it was weird, and hobbled some how.

I understand the the whys and significance of when the stories where written but they tended to repeatedly and over time to paint themselves into a corner. How many stories can you write about avoiding exposure of your secret identity. Who is your challenger when you are impossible in everything.

I'd need to think this through more to keep going.
r

Discovered

I suppose i am jaded and a little tired of the world's ways if not the hypocrisy. I was doing a crossword and the clue was the director who "discovered"( the quotation marks are mine) Bardot or some such actress.
Discovered is such an annoying concept here. Some creepy older director found some young (underage) girl and thought she was hot. That simple. I do not consider myself a prude (I can't even say that I would not do the same thing if I had the option to do so.) even if I am I am just saying that this is a case of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Not Ms. Bardot or whomever the actress was in the puzzle, the situation.
I think I am just saying I am a little tired of both the way things are done and the need to act like that isn't the case.
Just a thought.
r