Lenovo PSA

If for what ever reason you are contemplating buying a new Lenovo Think Pad go throw your money in a fire and let the warmth irradiate your skin, it will be a better investment. Why do I have such a hate for the new Think Pads?

Simple. The track pad on the new models was created by someone that doesn't have fingers and is designed to spite everyone who does. Yes it is that bad. You might as well use your elbow to control it. And if the primary function for controlling a device is so inherently flawed as to make it unusable then the entire device is ruined.

It doesn't matter how good of a deal you get. Don't be tempted by the technical specs. There are no circumstances where it is worth your money unless you are a self loathing masochist, then by all means go ahead. 

Timey Wimey Problems

Lets talk about time travel. For me there are two main types of time travel stories, ones which the time travel serves as a vehicle to set up the circumstances of a story, but otherwise plays no part in it, and those in which time travel dramatically affects the characters of the story. The first is what the original Sherman and Peabody cartoons were based around. Show up at a specific time and place, learn some facts, head home.  The second style is definitely the more interesting use of time travel but not the easiest to pull off in logical way. Looper is a great example where actions in the past, like torture, have dramatic implications from the characters in the future. In fact when it comes to visualizing the life altering aspects of time Looper is the best there is. But as the title indicates we are here to talk about a very specific example of time travel, so lets get at it.

I love Doctor Who and it has done countless episodes of both variety. The Girl Who Waited is the perfect example of the cruel mistress that is time travel. Maybe I am just sadistic but for me time travel should have serious consequences, it is Faustian choice, but there is no Devil to bargain with. In the episode Amy Pond gets trapped in an accelerated time stream. For her time is passing at the normal rate, but compared to the Doctor and Rory she is experiencing years in hours. It is the relativity issue focused and magnified to its full emotional potential. By the time the Doctor is able to accurately locate Amy and send Rory to rescue her she has aged 40+ years. Using the older Amy as a guide they gain the ability to go back into her timeline and rescue her when she has only been trapped for a couple of hours. The catch is rescuing young Amy will wipe old Amy from existence. The Doctor has to decide who if the young Amy he and Rory are familiar with is really the real her. Can they deny the 40 years of experiences old Amy has accrued? This is the perfect time travel conundrum, there are no correct answers, only consequences which the characters have to deal with. And the show doesn't let the characters off easy, you can tell the scars of this incident will continue to haunt the Doctor. 

Since Doctor Who is really a creature of the week type of show the plot is frequently revolving around keeping some scary monster in check. To me the Weeping Angels are conceptually one of the scariest creations ever and a example of Doctor Who at it's best and worst. There are two aspects of the Weeping Angels which make them unique. They appear like statues as long as they are being observed, but the moment they are unobserved they have the ability to move at insanely fast speed. And once they have grabbed a hold of you they can zap you back to a random point in time to finish off your life. From the first appearance their ability to overwhelm the characters if a vigilant watch isn't kept is put to very effective use. And while as scary as that cat and mouse aspect is, it is the consequence of being lost in time that elevates them.

My issues with Doctor Who are epitomized with how the Angels are portrayed on the show. The core idea behind them is so fundamentally scary that I am disappointed when it is not utilized to its full potential. Sadly, the more they appeared the more that seems to be the case. Unlike The Girl Who Waited the Doctor has not yet been forced to face the consequences of this aspect of time manipulation, outside of the Angels initial appearance in Blink. The Angels in Manhattan really drives the point home for me. Amy and Rory get caught by the Angels in a graveyard and Rory is zapped into who knows when. Amy chooses to be caught as well to rejoin him lost in time. The Doctor tells River it is impossible to go and rescue them because of timey wimey issues and is forced to say goodbye. It is all soften by the revelation that Amy and Rory live a happy life together in the 1920s with Amy becoming a successful author. The fact that the Doctor was more less unable to go back for arbitrary reasons has been a major source of grief for many fans. For me though that aspect of it is missing the point. I am much more upset with how the Weeping Angel's powers were misused, because if they had been honored than there would be no need to hand wave away a rescue attempt.

Here is how the episode should have ended in my ideal world. Once Rory is zapped into the unknown Amy again has a choice to make. The Doctor warns her that Rory could be anywhere and if she lets the Weeping Angels grab her it is highly unlikely that she ever sees him again. She says she has to try, closes her eyes and is zapped into the unknown. We end with Amy coming back to the spot year after year, hoping this is the day Rory will appear. This does the characters of Amy and Rory justice as the ultimate couple who refuses to let time get in the way of their relationship. It also honors the legacy of the Weeping Angels and their fearsome potential. Most importantly it honors the fact that time travel is cruel because it is impartial, which in itself is the fundamental reason the Weeping Angels are such great villains. The idea of Amy communicating to the Doctor one last time via book is still solid, but it should be her coming to terms with her existence that prevents the Doctor from going back to save them. Sometimes the struggle makes the reward that much greater and Amy finally reuniting with Rory one last time would be the ultimate reward. This lesson is one that the Doctor is in constant need of being reminded of because as a character he is simply the most impatient person ever. Time travel does that to you though.

The Hobbit: A Reflection

Mild spoilers if you haven't read the book

After seeing all three Hobbit films I feel like even though it is a simpler book than the LOTR trilogy it is the real unfilmable chapter in the series. Say what you want about stretching the film out into 3 movies, as a filmmaker I would probably make the same decision because Tolkien wrote a literary trap for film makers.

The reason LOTR was supposedly unfilmable was because of the sheer amount of content. But the core nugget in the story is pretty simple, there is a powerful weapon and the characters have to get from A to B to destroy it. Along the way the characters branch out and the world expands but the goal is still singular. All the action is based around how people are affected by this weapon good or bad, so really the only limitation to making it is you need time and money.

The Hobbit is different, on the surface the story arc is very similar. A group needs to go from A to B to reclaim a treasure. The problem is that the battle of five armies is in essence an act 3 bait and switch. This story that is supposedly about this hobbit's personal journey and growth all of sudden becomes an afterthought amidst the political gamesmanship of Gandalf v Sauron. The novel also gets away with a lot of this by giving us explanations after the fact from Gandalf or just not filling in the details. That type of exposition doesn't work in a film though.

So the question becomes do you cut the battle from the film and make the showdown with Smaug, which is the natural climax to the adventure story, the new ending or do you try to justify the battle. Peter Jackson went with the second option and it works as well as it can. The problem is all the exposition to justify the battle is scattered throughout the previous films in the form of the Gandalf B plot and if you don't already know what those scenes are building towards the film it's hard to put all the pieces together in the moment. Especially over three years of films.

So that's the problem. Is there a solution? I'm curious how two films would have worked. In the making of Smaug Jackson basically admits by stretching it to three he no longer had an ending for the 2nd film. I'd like to see what it would look like if you killed Smaug by the end of the first film (or at least the second) and moved all the Gandalf scenes into the the start of the third. By honoring the narrative arc of the book I think you are hurting the emotional arc of the film. If the final film contains the entire emotional arc of the battle of five armies, which is really Thorin's and Gandalf's story, I feel like it might be able to capture the power of LOTR. Or maybe not, it's hard to say but I'll be curious to see the recuts that appear online.

I do have to give Jackson credit for making three entertaining films. His visual gags are second to none for their creative energy and visual wonder, as ridiculous as they might be. I would love an emotional core that is just as strong, but for all the reasons I discussed, I just don't know if it's doable. The Hobbit seems simple but in many ways it's the most complex narrative of the series. Unless you take on the Silmarillion, then frankly you're just fucked.