Movies Blog : government

"Who Watches the Watchmen?"

PotionsMaster@evpl — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:36:00 GMT

I did. Last night, actually. I'm usually all over graphic-novels-turned-movies because I like to see how the film industry interprets the books and how accurate the sets are. On this one, I was going to wait to see the movie until I had read the novel, but at the urging of a Watchmen-loving friend, I was lured to the grandeur that the film claimed to give it and saw the celluloid version first. "The movie will be more interesting to you if you don't know what's happening," he said, "The movie is the book practically frame for frame."

The opening was well done to hook a person in; it's not every day that you see someone get hurled through a window off a tall building. After that big of a bang to start off with, I thought that's what the rest of the movie was going to be like, but it then did flashbacks to explain the Watchmen's origins. While interesting, it started to drag out a bit as it set up the rest of the doomsday plot. It is set in an alternative universe where Nixon has been elected for 5 consecutive terms (scary thought all on its own without the 'end of the world' threat), America has won the Vietnam War, and Cold War is very much about to become a reality. After the Masked Vigilante golden era, people dressing up and fighting crime are banned and outlawed. That provides some problems for the Watchmen.

The fight scenes, on the other hand, were everything you'd expect from Zack Snyder; especially after 300. Those are what made it worth sitting through the history lesson in the beginning. I didn't quite understand where the super strength of the Watchmen came from, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan. They seemed to be like Batman on superhero juice, every day Joes with an unusual amount of power packed into their punch.

All in all, I liked the movie. The fight scenes were glorious, but I wouldn't spend money to see it on IMAX; you'll get the same effect on any size screen. I'm glad I saw it before reading the book, though I hear tell that a giant squid is missing from the movie. It gave me more of a reason to sit through the 163 minute long film. My friend was right on that point. However, my friend had also told me, "You'll never guess who the bad guy is." As soon as I saw the costumes, I had to shake my head and smile. I don't know as much about comics as some people, but I do know one truth.

Bad guys almost always wear purple.

DTV Transition OFFICIALLY DELAYED til June 12...well, kinda

professor.knowsitall@evpl — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:51:00 GMT

While previous efforts to delay the DTV transition failed, on Wednesday the House of Representatives approved a delay until June 12. That's right, folks: the mandatory cutoff date has officially moved from February 17 to June 12.

HOWEVER, while stations are encouraged to wait until June 12 to cease their analog broadcasts, they are not required to do so. Following FCC guidelines, they are free to go digital-only anytime beginning February 17. So some stations may continue with their planned transition on February 17, some may wait until June 12, and some may switch anytime between then. BRILLIANT!

As broadcasters are wasting thousands of dollars broadcasting in both analog and digital, I'm thinking most will still opt for the February 17 date. If that happens, what did the "delay" accomplish (besides being a waste of taxpayer money)???

So what about our local stations? I can't find anything official yet, but most of their websites are still claiming February 17. If/when anything formal is announced, I'll post it here.

The only good news out of this mess is that funding for the Converter Box Coupon Program will (supposedly) be replenished. If you need a converter box, but haven't purchased one yet, head over to DTV2009.GOV to apply for a coupon. You'll be added to the waiting list, and coupons will be sent out to all these folks once the funding comes through. Cross your fingers.

While I understand the motives behind the delay, I would consider the implemented plan to be flawed, at best. What do you think?

The day that never comes: The DTV Transition (UPDATE: House says "No!")

professor.knowsitall@evpl — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:51:00 GMT

UPDATED 1/28 2:00PM: Earlier today, House Republicans defeated the proposed delay of the DTV transition. It's still set for February 17.

Below is my original blog post, published on January 27.

ANOTHER delay. Yesterday, the US Senate voted unanimously to postpone the DTV transition from February 17 to June 12. The proposal, supported by President Barack Obama, could receive Congressional approval very soon.

On January 1, the Commerce Department announced that they'd run out of funding for government-subsidized vouchers toward the purchase of digital converter boxes. There are currently 2.6 million Americans on a waiting list, in case additional funding comes to fruition. The goal of the four month delay is to find the funds to make this happen.

According to a Nielsen report published last week, more than 6.5 million households are not prepared for the DTV transition. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, author of the bill to push back the deadline, stated "I firmly believe that our nation is not yet ready to make this transition at this time."

That "6.5 million households" sounds awfully large, but it makes up only 5.7% of American households. Even if the deadline is pushed back, and the voucher program is reinstated, will these households stop procrastinating and actually purchase converter boxes? Or will they simply have another four months to put it off?

Of course, broadcasters don't like the idea as they'll have to continue broadcasts in both analog & digital, which is more costly; in fact, some have already scheduled the dismantling of their analog broadcasting equipment. But Rockefeller managed to ease some of these concerns by allowing broadcast stations to make the switch from analog to digital signals sooner than the June deadline if they choose. Um, what?!? Won't most stations switch to digital-only immediately? If so, what's the point of moving the "transition" to June?

Nothing is final yet, but we should know the fine details if/when Congress approves it.

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know what you think by posting your (non-political) comments below!