Summertime Movies

So, I'm not usually a big fan of summer movies -- they tend to be
lower-quality, I think, than autumn movies because what else are you
going to do with the free time summer brings? -- but I'm actually
interesting seeing most of These
Movies.

The Hulk 2 is right out; the only reason I didn't walk out of the
first one was that my friend Olivia was loving it, and that says something
because I really don't walk out on movies. Hulk 2 could be a
better movie than Hulk 1 (it certainly can't be worse, can it?), but I don't
see any indication that it will be.

I'm lukewarm on Iron Man, mostly because I don't know a lot about
what's in the movie: who the villain is, what's the conflict, that sort of
thing. The same sort of thing goes for Speed Racer, too; but Speed
has a Monkey, so he's a leg up on Iron Man. (I also expect both of those to
be borderline action-comedies and, believe it or not, comedies have a low
batting average with me.)

I expect very little from the new Indiana Jones movie, mostly because
I've been consistently disappointed in Harrison Ford's acting since, what,
1990? This movie gets higher marks than the others, though, because --
well, because it's Indiana Jones. I was (am) a huge fan of the
earlier movies (and even enjoyed some of that TV show, the young adventures
or whatever), and that's a lot of momentum to overcome.

I probably shouldn't like Hellboy 2, but I do. At least in theory.
I saw Hellboy 1 about a month ago at one of Chris's movie nights (after
intending to never see it, because it looked dumb) and rather enjoyed it.
It wasn't great, but it was interesting, and the semi-dry,
almost-clever comedy didn't grate on me. I had a mostly-positive experience
with the first one (though, maybe mostly due to Miss Jayna), so I'd be
interested in seeing the second.

I am shocked that they're doing another X-Files movie; I thought the
franchise was dead. I was never able to get into the series when it was on
TV, though I'd LOVE to make up for that with DVD sets (if they weren't so
crazy-expensive). I don't remember the first movie, but I don't-remember it
with tinges of positive emotions, so I must've liked it; the mid-90s were a
long time ago for me. I want to see it, even if only for Gillian Anderson.

I anticipate nothing more than The Dark Knight. I'm a lifelong fan
of Batman, even suffering through Ahrnold as Mr. Freeze (worst casting
ever), and Batman Begins is one of my favorite (non-philosophical) movies in
the last decade. The Joker, as I've known him, is half of what makes Batman
so great. The only thing that gets me down is knowing that Heath Ledger has
died, one part disappointment that there will never be this Joker
again, and one part disappointment because I always felt Ledger had real
potential. I'm very critical of what I think makes a "good" actor, but I
think Ledger had it.

So, there it is. As a note, definitely let me know if you want to go to any
of these (even Hulk 2; I need to get out that badly). I like going
to see movies, but I loathe going to the theater by myself.

Whee, Global Warming.

I'm getting a bit bored with Global Warming/Global Cooling badminton, and
I'll readily admit that I'm biased: I don't believe the dogma of Global
Warming, I do believe this is just natural climate cycling, I don't believe
that humans have a terribly significant hand in mucking things up, I do
believe the world has an amazing ability to recover from our mistakes. I
don't belive we should be irresponsible, but all things in moderation
(including moderation). And I admit I only pass along articles which
I tend to agree with. i HIGHLY encourage you to go elsewhere to find
information from the other side of the fence, as I would on any topic I
discuss here, and humbly ask that if you find anything interesting
(particularly if it refutes me) that you pass it back to me. Intellectual
honesty and all that.

That being said, onto the drudgery of another article
about Global Warming. This one is interesting because it actually looks
at the data that people are using to draw their conclusions: two
terestrial-based sets of data and two satelite-based sets. And the
interesting thing is that NASA data is the only one that shows a significant
upward-slope in temperatures. The other three sources make a case that
current temperatures are at or about the 30-year average, and predict that
we might be due for a bit of 'global cooling.'

In particular, NASA's data published in 2007 (covering 1930-2000)
disagrees with NASA's data published in 1999, which is the main
thrust of the article. It appears that pre-1970 temoperatures were adjusted
down and post-1970 temperatures were adjusted up, making an exagerated
slope. In particular, temperatures from 1986-1998 are adjusted up by more
than half a degree; when claiming the global temperature has rises a full
degree in recent years, adjustments of more that half that amount are
notable.

More concerning in my opinion is the fact that the man in charge of NASA's
temperature data at the time (and now?) was the same guy who was Al Gore's
science advisor and the most vehiment advocate for Global Warming. Not that
there could be any conflict of interests, or an agenda to push.

Anyways, like I said, it's getting to be a boring topic, but I thought this
article worth noting.

Slow news day...

Most of my news come to me from many different sites through my iGoogle
webpage. It's a wonderful little tool that lets me see at a glance the top
stories from (right now) over a dozen news sites (and many of those sites,
like Techdirt and Slashdot, draw from even more news sites).

Anyways, I just went to add more feeds to it and, looking for an application
to give me "Wired News," I accidentally added something for "weird news."
Yay dyslexia.