I think it's safe to say that Nicolas Cage will take on any role. Also, we still don' know the answer to the much-debated topic on whether or not he's a brilliant actor, or just simply out of his gourd. I think a little bit of both. At any rate, he is set to star in a scripted 8 episode series that is centered on Joe Exotic. CBS TV Studios and Imagine Television Studios are producing it, and it's been optioned. This will be Cage's first regular TV role.
I just can't see him in this role. Then again, I can at least see him in Joe's ridiculous getup. I just wonder where it will stream. You'd think Netflix would be all over it given the success of the docuseries. Apparently this is the second series that is being done on this crazy story. I guess people can't get enough of the Tiger King. Does anyone else see this being a good fit for Cage? Who would play a better Joe Exotic? I hear Dax Sheppard and Edward Norton have both said they wanted the role in Kat Mckinnon's miniseries.
The cons to listening over reading are you don't ever see the character's names written down, so you often have no idea how they are spelled. That's just a small thing I have noticed. But an even bigger one is, at least for me, you don't get the same value of learning from how to write well by reading. You miss out on seeing and learning from good writers' sentence structure, punctuation and a lot of other stuff that helps readers in turn write better.
But I do think I remember the books just as well as when I read them. If not better because I am not stumbling or having to worry about staying focused. Especially if the voice narrator/voice actors are good. That makes all the difference too.
That's a good point. I haven't thought about the spelling of names issue before. One remedy to that would be to listen to a book on a kindle. Many books have both the narration and the print.
I totally agree that you do miss out on a writer's style and technique. Although, I'm a very auditory learner. I tend to pick up a lot on pacing and overall flow more by listening.
We are lucky to live in a time where there are numerous ways to entertain ourselves. Used to be where the whole family sat around a wooden radio set in the living room, and listened to serials. Glad those days are over. Audiobooks have come a long way. I remember audiobooks coming in a sizable cardboard boxes with 4-plus audio cassette tapes inside, and the pain of having to flip the cassette once one side was done. Now all we have to do is tap an app on our phones and we are off. So how do they stack up against other forms of media such as reading and movies? Let's dive in.
Audiobooks vs Print
Personally, I enjoy both reading and listening. Like most folks who enjoy audiobooks, I don't have time to sit down and read a book. Purists will say that it's "cheating" or lazy, but I beg to differ. I can accomplish many of my daily tasks while listening to a good book. It's a perfect way to get my mind off of menial tasks such as washing dishes or driving. Another plus side to listening over reading is that I find myself consuming more books over the course of a year. Also, I notice that I retain the information just as well as reading it. Don't believe me? I found something interesting that supports my argument.
In 2016, researchers at the Gallant Lab published their first interactive map of a person’s brain after they listened to two hours of stories from “The Moth.” It’s a vibrant, rainbow-hued diagram of a brain divided into about 60,000 parts, called voxels.
Coding and analyzing the data in each voxel helped researchers visualize which regions of the brain process certain kinds of words. One section responded to terms like “father,” “refused,” and “remarried” – social words that describe dramatic events, people or time.
But the most recent study, which compared brains when they were listening and reading, showed that words tend to activate the same brain regions with the same intensity, regardless of input.
Audiobooks vs Movies
I enjoy both immensely. I still think that audiobooks get the win in the productivity/versatility category. You get the benefit of not having to keep your eyes glued to a screen. Audiobooks, aside from music are some of the best forms of mobile entertainment. Another thing that should be addressed is the book vs the movie argument. It's an age old debate that movies have been losing. How many times have you read or listened to a book then watched the movie and were disappointed? I have many times. I would say 7 out of 10 times the movie never does the book or story justice.
World War Z
I heard that the Atlas Shrugged movie was a bummer.
Who agrees? Do audiobooks stand toe to toe with print and movies? Also, feel free to throw in some other disappointing movie adaptations.
Very nice list, sir. I've been meaning to get into all of them. I've only finished Manhunt, and Board Walk Empire, which are both incredible shows. I ran into a problem with Peaky Blinders though. I think it's good, but I have a hard time with the thick dialect. Do you have any advice? Does it get easier to understand as you watch it? Or are subtitles a must throughout?
Austin's Mayor, Steve Adler made the cancellation official. The two week film and music fest that brings a huge national as well as international crowd was canned due to growing concerns over the spread of the coronavirus. It goes without saying that this is a huge blow to entertainment and fans a like. The festival rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year. The major as well as a Travis County Judge declared a local state disaster which gives public health officials the authority to review mas public events and decide whether or not to can them. Needless to say, local residents and businesses where shaken by the decision. Festivals throughout the globe are shutting down as well. Japan's famous Cherry Blossom festival was one of them.
Even though this is a big bummer for many people, there is still a silver lining here, although a small one. After the decision came through, a band of Austin businesses formed a coalition to keep at least some of the festival going. Establishments such as the Far Out Lounge took matters into its own hands and will put on their own unofficial South By Southwest.
A Tweet from Lawrence Boone, Talent Buyer at Far Out Lounge:
“Everybody’s trying to rally and do the best we can to still produce events, during the week that would’ve been SXSW -- fill in the blanks from bands that can’t make it anymore, help bands who had their shows get canceled find a place to play, make some money while they’re here, so they’re not traveling to Austin and not making money.”
Other venues and restaurants have been putting in similar efforts as well.
So was it a good decision to cancel this decades-old tradition in the first place? Or where they jumping the gun here? If not, is it irresponsible for businesses to make efforts to move forward despite the local government's decision? Perhaps it's too early to tell.
Good point. The musical numbers are quite long and boring at times. I still think there are too many awards to go through. 3 hours is way too long for an awards ceremony on TV.
NeoLogic Wrote: Really sucks when you find out a live performance was lip synced. Such a dumb decision to me. That's a very quick way to lose fans. I think you are better off cancelling a show then risking people finding out you faked one.
Agreed. One would think it only hurts a musicians credibility and popularity. Or do fans really not care all that much about realism and talent?
It seems like every televised event these days is getting the axe. When I say axe, I mean runtime. Major League Baseball is a good example. For the sake of viewership and ratings, the game itself was shortened by cutting corners here and there. Some would argue it was a good move on their part, and that it would bring in more viewers. The jury is still out. When it comes to the Academy Awards, many complaints can be made about not only the length of the show, but the flow of content in general.
Last year's ceremony was 3 hours and 23 minutes long. 29.6 million viewers tuned in. Which was a 12 percent boost from 2018's numbers. Yet it was still the second smallest audience to date. One main cause is that people prefer to watch the highlights online the next day. That says something. Just to give us some comparison. Back in Titanic's hay day, 57 million people tuned in.
One way the show could improve is by having exclusive movie content that viewers would have to tune into, such as never before seen movie trailers etc.
Matthew Belloni, the Hollywood Reporter's editorial director said it well:
"The fact that the Oscars are so boring is a colossal failure on the Academy's part."
I agree, I think the Oscars are a bit boring, especially for those who aren't big movie buffs. I doubt general viewers care about who wins Best Cinematography, or Editing. We have 24 categories to get through. Many are categories like I mentioned.
"It's after midnight on the [US] east coast by the time they get to best picture, and they're running through it to get it done because they're already late. It is crazy."
He also pointed out that the Academy has been nominating films that fewer people are watching.
"You don't see as many of the Titanic or Gladiator-style movies that win best picture any more. It's smaller films, films with niche audiences. There's less of an incentive for viewers to tune in, because they don't feel like they have a horse in the race".
I must admit, I had to make a special effort to watch the majority of the films nominated this year. I can see what he's saying.
Last but not least, what makes the ceremony drag is the endless line of long-winded 'thank you's' that we have to sit through. This issue is an old one for sure, and a remedy has been attempted many times. One guy won a jet ski for having he shortest speech.
Organizers last year attempted to remedy this once again by giving awards for categories such as Cinematography and Editing during commercial breaks. It was reversed because Spike Lee and Martin Scorsese complained.
Something should be done. The Oscars will continue to lose viewership if they don't change with the times. Advertisers are leaning towards social media more and more every year. It's just a matter of time until they'll have to make changes. Does anyone else agree? Or am I jumping to harsh conclusions here? What other steps could be taken to remedy the issues this ceremony has?
Yeah, that's true. I'm the same way, I don't very much care for sequels decades later either. But if you're going to see an action movie like this, it should be in theaters.
If you've been living under a rock, the sequel to Top Gun has been made and is set to release this summer. For those in the know, there's been lots of excitement about this long-awaited sequel. It still seems like we have more questions than answers. Joseph Kosinski, the director of the film, finally spilled SOME of the beans to Entertainment Weekly.
I'll go ahead and get this important detail out of the way. The film is set to release June 26, 2020. I think it definitely belongs with the other summer flicks expected to come out this year.
The film is taking a different angle as far as the story goes. Tom Cruise's Pete "Maverick" Mitchell is the teacher this time, but his students aren't new boots. They're actually previous graduates of the Top Gun school who have come back for specialized training. So this time, their level of experience will be higher than the first film.
The actors are actually in the jets. They of course, have a Navy pilot in the other seat flying, but they're actually filming while flying. In fact, they had to go through intense training just to be able to handle the physical burden that flying in a jet fighter brings.
One thing I found interesting is this quote from the director:
“There’s no crew up there,” he adds. “I’m not up there with him, there’s no cinematographer, no hair and makeup. They are responsible for every aspect of the filmmaking process when they’re up in those airplanes.”
The plot will greatly center around Maverick and Goose's son, who is all grown up and goes by the name of Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw.
The big question I've had this whole time is: Where is Iceman? There's been a lot of speculation as to whether or not Val Kilmer would be able to make it back into the film due to his battle with throat cancer. They've been very hush hush about this, but according to the director, Iceman has returned to the film, but we're still not sure if it will be Kilmer. I hope so.
Thought I'd get the conversation going. Is anyone else excited about the sequel? Do you think it will hold up to the first one? Also, feel free to share any other info that you might have come across.