Soylent Green movie review (is the story plausible today?)
I finally got the chance to watch this.
Soylent Green is a movie made before I was even born, so I could not have watched this when it was first released, obviously.
The first time I even heard the phrase "solylent green" was on Saturday Night Live. It was a skit where Phil Hartman would just run in periodically and yell out the catch phrase the movie is known for. I can't say the phrase here because it would spoil the movie if you've not seen it. The guy did a damned good Charlton Heston impersonation.
Now oddly enough, soylent does exist for real. It's meant to be a meal replacement and can be had in liquid or powder form to make the liquid. I find this to be disturbing to say the least.
The opening scene of the movie has this text on screen:
THE YEAR: 2022
THE PLACE: NEW YORK CITY
THE POPULATION: 40,000,000
At the time I write this, 2022 is - get ready for this - just 6 years away.
You will be happy to know that NYC's population is nowhere near 40 million. And I seriously doubt the population would spike up that high in just 6 years.
Does the movie hold up today?
No. It looks and feels old. Remember, this is pre-Star Wars science fiction, a time when sci-fi movies were just bad. As in Logan's Run bad.
But let's forget all that for a moment.
Is the story, or at least the story told in the movie, plausible?
I don't think so.
The film is, rather loosely, based off the 1966 book Make Room! Make Room!, and because of that you really can't say, "The book is better than the movie" since the film really doesn't follow the book story.
In other words, Soylent Green is its own story as a standalone film.
My take on the flick is that the story is about the damning effects of overpopulation. But I don't think the way the story was told really works.
I simply can't buy the idea that NYC would be able to operate with 40 million residents in it. To think that many people could be crammed inside 469 square miles is just something I cannot wrap my mind around.
If you watch this movie (or watch it again), ask yourself this question: How in the hell could New York City staff or even afford a police force capable of handling 40 million residents? How would that even be possible? That's the kind of stuff going through my head while watching Soylent Green. It's like a big FORTY MILLION PEOPLE is flashing like a loud neon sign in my mind during the whole movie, and I just can't forget it long enough to enjoy what's going on.
The way the film explains how NYC can operate with that many people is that everything has been cut down to the bare minimum of what humans need to survive. Since the population is so high, food supply is affected negatively, so the solution is to have one big-ass corporation, Soylent, produce a food-like substance that everyone can afford, even if just barely. Other things like water are in short supply, as are simple things we take for granted such as soap and even forks and knives.
While the movie is a fun watch for what it is, the story isn't believable.
Did I like the movie? Actually, yes, I did just for the art of it. It has that gritty, milky '70s film look to it where some scenes are way too dark and others lit way too bright. The pacing is weird, the audio echoes too much in some spots and is compressed to hell in others. The whole movie is Old Hollywood and filled with the stuff they could get away with back then.
On a final note, if Soylent Green isn't your thing but you like a '70s cop thriller/drama movie, see Serpico. It was released the same year, 1973. It's not sci-fi at all, but wow, what a movie. Same gritty look, but way better story that keeps you in the pocket from beginning until end.
Casio A158, the "steel" version of the F-91W
I figured I'd give a dedicated article to this since it's currently my daily wearer.
The Casio A158 is functionally identical to the F-91W in every way. Why did I buy it? I wanted a "steel" version of the F-91W.
Now while true the A168 with its electroluminescent backlight is far superior to the wimpy green backlight of the A158, the A168's styling doesn't agree with me. That, and I wanted a copy of the F-91W in a more steely/shiny form, and the A158 is it.
Does the A158 keep time as good as the F-91W? No, but most people wouldn't notice it. I only notice it because.. well.. I just do. The A158 loses a few seconds a week. Not a big deal. Sync it once a week or once a month and you're good to go.
Currently, yes, the A158 is my daily wearer. I was wearing the F-91W as my daily, but the A158 just grew on me. The more I wore it, the more I didn't wear the F-91W until the point came where I just wear the A158 every day now.
Why?
Two reasons.
First is the fact that the A158 just looks better. Having something shiny on the wrist just looks better than flat black.
Second is the metal bracelet.
With watches, you have choices of what material and style the band is. A metal bracelet is something that is just really comfortable. The Casio A158 in particular has a very thin metal band that just has a nice feel to it.
The A158 does not suit big-wristed people. Not at all. Since I have small wrists, the watch works really nice for me. I can wear it slightly loose and it's not really a bother. It doesn't weigh much, either. Granted, it's not nearly as light as the F-91W, but it is still light regardless.
There's really nothing I can review about the A158 because like I said, it's functionally identical to the F-91W. If you know that watch, you know this one.
Basically, if you know and love the F-91W, grab an A158. Or if you want something with a better backlight, the A168 - but pay attention to the styling. As noted above, the A168 styling doesn't agree with me, but you might like it.
Guitar of the week #50 - ESP E-II Eclipse
This is what happens when a guitar company does a Les Paul copy correctly but at the same time makes it their own.
The ESP E-II Eclipse has pretty much has everything a Gibson Les Paul does and is a real-deal Japan import. This is not an LTD brand guitar. This is a true made-in-Japan ESP, and the price tag reflects that.
So what do you get for the cash you put down for this axe? Extra jumbo fret wire, a thin U-shape neck (with set-neck construction), Gotoh locking tuners, Gotoh bridge and tailpiece a pair of Seymour Duncan pickups (SH-1 and SH-4)... but all those goodies don't accurately describe what playing a real ESP is like.
If I were to pick one word to describe a real-deal ESP from Japan, it would be solid. Japan just knows how to build an electric very well. The E-II Eclipse will exhibit absolutely none of the typical problems a Gibson Les Paul would. The Eclipse is built to last, and moreover built to be played. This is not a guitar that's meant to sit in a case and stay pretty forever. Rather, it's meant to be played day after day, night after night and keep coming back for more.
In other words, this is one of the very few guitars with a high price tag where I can say yes, you are getting what you pay for. The Eclipse is a guitar you can depend on whether for studio or stage use or both.
In the end, if you have the money to spend on a high-end electric, you basically can't go wrong with a Japan-made ESP.
There is no such thing as an HSS guitar
You may think there is, but there isn't.
The vast majority of players out there not only identify pickups incorrectly on an electric guitar, but also identify obvious electronics incorrectly as well. But I will admit that a large part of the blame here can be pointed squarely at Fender themselves for this. More on that in a moment.
Which body side is which?
The side of the body where the neck connects is the FRONT. The bridge, given it's usually the furthest thing away from the neck pocket, is the REAR side.
When looking at the entire area of the guitar where the strings bridge are, that is the OBVERSE side of the body. If you flipped it over, you would then be looking at the REVERSE side of the body.
Is there such a thing as a "bridge" or "neck" pickup?
NO.
Now before continuing, yes I have made mention in a few articles here of "bridge" and "neck" pickups. But I've known all along that identifying a pickup bridge or neck is wrong.
Where the neck connects is the front of the guitar body, so on an electric guitar with two or more pickups, the pickup closest to the neck pocket is the FRONT PICKUP.
The pickup that is furthest away from the neck on a guitar with two or more pickups is the REAR PICKUP.
Is there such a thing as an "HSS" guitar?
NO.
This is something that can be completely blamed on Fender.
Fender has over the lifespan of the company renamed things and has totally gotten away with it even though being blatantly wrong the entire time. The classic example of this is the Stratocaster "tremolo" system. It's not tremolo. Never has been and never will be. It's a vibrato system. The tremolo effect happens with changing back and forth the volume of the sound while vibrato happens with changing back and forth the pitch of the note(s). A Strat's "tremolo" system in reality can't produce a tremolo sound effect at all. Vibrato, yes, but tremolo? Not possible.
A literal "HSS" (humbucker-single-single) pickup configuration doesn't exist and to the best of my knowledge never has. But according to Fender, yes it does.
The SSH pickup configuration is what it's supposed to be identified as. When using proper front-to-back body naming convention, the first pickup at the front of the body is a single-coil, followed by another single-coil and then finally with a dual coil (humbucker.) That's SSH and not HSS, yet Fender flipped that around backwards when naming the configuration.
5 is actually 1
Using the Stratocaster guitar again, the way Fender identifies blade selector positions is, again, wrong.
The "fifth" position on a Strat is actually first. Yes, this means "fourth" position is actually second, third remains the same and "second" is actually fourth.
Being the blade selector position closest to the front of the guitar activates the front-side pickup, and being the front is where things begin, that is why the "fifth" position is in fact the first.
"What about guitars with vertical (up/down) movement pickup toggle switches?"
Although you can call these positions front and rear, neither position points to the pickup being used, so the alternative is to call the positions rhythm and treble - which does in fact make sense.
The most well-known example of this is the Les Paul with its "poker chip" surrounding the pickup toggle switch that openly states the "up" position is rhythm (front pickup) and "down" position is treble (rear pickup).
And as I said, yes it does make sense to call these positions as such. A rhythm position has more bass in the sound and blends in a mix better as a background instrument. A treble position has less bass and literally much more treble to the sound, which is why some call it the "lead" position, as in "the lead instrument heard".
Will we ever get back to identifying pickup and pickup selection positions properly?
Unfortunately, no.
Fender has calling things wrong for so long that it's now become assumed that what Fender names things is true even when it obviously isn't. "The lie becomes the truth" actually happened with electric guitars because of the way Fender names things. Heck, they've even convinced other guitar companies to use their wrong way of naming things.
How can knowing the proper names of things on the electric guitar ultimately help you?
If you ever plan on building a guitar yourself or even just repairing one, identifying things by their proper names makes the build/repair go along a lot easier. You know exactly what front, rear, obverse and reverse means. You have a much better idea of where to wire things. A lot of confusion is eliminated.
Confusion is bad when building a guitar or performing a guitar repair. You want things to go as smoothly as possible, and the last thing you want is to potentially create problems just by calling things by their wrong names.
workout buddy: the wristwatch timer auto-repeat feature
If you do any sort of workout that involves repetitions, a.k.a. reps, you need a watch with this very specific feature.
This is kind of a follow up to my last post and the Which Casio keeps the best time? post.
Although my Casio B640WD keeps the worst time (as in worst "for a Casio," which isn't bad at all really), there is one feature it has that none of my other Casio digitals have. A countdown timer with auto-repeat feature.
On the B640WD, the timer with auto-repeat means that when the time elapses, the timer starts over again along with 10 seconds of beeps to let you know of a timer restart. And yes, you can toggle the repeat on or off, your choice.
I personally use this feature for my workouts now. What the auto-repeat timer feature allows me to do is go from exercise to rest to exercise and so on without having to stop and reset the watch. This is a very convenient feature.
Do all Casio digitals with a countdown timer have the auto-repeat feature?
No. You have to specifically seek them out. For example, my AE1200 is packed with a ton of features including a countdown timer, but without auto-repeat.
These are the models (at least for the US market) that have countdown with auto-repeat:
- B640WD (as noted above)
- AE1300
- WS220 (this is a really fancy one with timer-to-timer with 10 repeats!)
- W734 (this one can count down from 100 hours, others are limited to just 24)
- F201WA
- AQ160W and AQ160WD (this is an analog-digital model)
What about G-SHOCK models?
The classic DW5600 model has the countdown with auto-repeat. However, the super-ritzy (and super-expensive) Casio GWG1000GB G-SHOCK model does not have a timer with auto-repeat. It has everything else you could think of except that one function.
In other words, where Casio is concerned, getting that auto-repeat timer function is a mostly-digital-only thing. Not exclusively. Just mostly.
Is the auto-repeat timer good for anything else besides working out?
Yes. If you're the forgetful type that needs to be reminded to do something every X hours (you set the interval,) a watch with an auto-repeat timer is a godsend.
Which model is the best?
For men, I'd recommend either the AE1300 or the DW5600 G-SHOCK.
For ladies or for guys with really small wrists, the F201WA is the best choice. It's also the cheapest watch of all the models mentioned here. Some really like this model because it has 4 alarms with 1 snooze alarm, 10-year battery life, dual time feature, stopwatch and full time/weekday/month/day information displayed on the face all at once. It's packed with some fairly decent goodies for being so cheap.