Will Bueché

»

Blog

I don't blog much 

This is an ad, supposedly

Posted in Personal by Will on Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 ~ 12pm

I’ll just be sitting here awhile, thanks. Though I do worry she’ll catch a cold.

Best part? The tv — but I don’t want to catch you doing that to my tv. The ad is for Extended Stay hotels.

The Real Stan Romanek video

Posted in Personal by Will on Monday, July 28th, 2008 ~ 11pm

The “real” Stan Romanek video has finally leaked. The background music, and the fact that the framing has been pushed in (zoomed in) a bit compared to the actual camera footage, suggests this is lifted from the upcoming History Channel special.

Earlier, there were several “fake” versions of this video made in an effort to show that it is easy to fake videos. And that is an important fact to keep in mind. Personally, I’d like to see the beginning and ending of this clip, since if it is a puppet (enhanced with some cgi) the moving of it to the window, and later away from the window, would be when it would look most puppety.

That said, it gets the adrenaline going a little bit, doesn’t it?

This is not an endorsement. From what I’ve heard, the story is a bit sketchy and convenient — a camera set up to catch a peeping tom? Unlikely cover story, but a story that would be needed if this is a fake. But if this video is real, looks like the poor fella got somethin’ in his eyes or maybe allergies near the end there (with all that eye blinking).

My suspicion going into this is that it is not possible to videotape the kinds of aliens that visit Earthlings, for simple practical reasons, such as, perhaps time is moving at a different pace when they are present, either because that’s what happens naturally when two realities touch, or because a different pace may be useful to the extent that they don’t want to be interrupted. No photos, no video, no physical traces left behind – because even when they’re “here”, maybe they’re not in the “here and now” that we typically expect to be in. Just close enough to meet sometimes.

Still cheaper than women's, I'm told

Posted in Personal by Will on Monday, July 28th, 2008 ~ 7pm

Not many people say “I’d buy underwear!” when they talk about what they’d do if they won a million bucks. But they should. Price: $26:

Clever Underwear Basic Cut Boxer Brief

(I spent the day rolling through underwear, er, rolling through page after page of underwear, on Amazon.com today and other shopping sites, since I had lots of downtime today.)

I believe I have a new favorite underwear now. Partly just ’cause I would like being asked if I am indeed “clever”. But this brand (which is available without artwork too) runs small, so, I am fortunate that I only got 1 to try. Am reordering in a size larger. With some hunting, the price is lower.

I’ve pretty much learned now that boxer-briefs such as this always run a bit small. I have to order a size larger when I get this style in any fashion brand. No, not for the best reason (sadly). Just for the waist and leg girth to be comfortable.

I’ve also learned that although the Clever brand is nice, and has many designs, the leg length may be a bit longer than I’d like (despite the style already being a nice 1960s square cut, it is still a bit long), and there are some other brands I could try.

C-IN2 Lo No Show Army

The C-IN2 brand actually fits nicer (although I do not like the brand name “C-IN2” on the waistband, it sounds like an explosive or an exceptionally lame way of sounding out “see into”).

Immediately after I ordered some C-IN2 “Lo NoSho Army Trunk” from Amazon for cheap, the price doubled – but C-IN2 is much lower quality than Clever so it should cost much less. The other brands went up in price too. Lesson is: these things are over-priced, so just always keep on the lookout for sales.

Update: Ok, some weeks have passed and I’ve figured out my sizes and my decisions about the styles.

  • ***** CLEVER Basic Cut Boxer Brief, I am Medium and they are a nice, smooth brief. Fits perfectly and feels great. They’re also the most expensive. The cheapest place to get them is everythingtrini.com. Watch for sales. Stock up on these, they fit perfectly.
  • *** C-in2 Lo No Show Army, I am Small, and they are more of a thick cotton kind of brief, nice cut, and they are a little small on me (and similarly the Mediums are a little large on me) so I should be cautious about getting more. The grey color one (pictured) is acceptable as less-fashionable underwear for times when I don’t need my best underwear. But aside from checking for occasional sales of the grey one, I will abandon C-in2 since the money would be better spent on Clever.
  • **** 2(x)ist Men’s Soy Trunk, I am small, and they are a nice form-fitting brief, albeit one designed to obscure rather than show off, and the waist is a bit too high for low-cut jeans and the legs a bit long — probably good for winter, when one wants to cover up more. Since the usage is limited to winter, best to stick with Clever unless these go on massive discount, in which case, get 2 or 3 more max. The material also feels fragile. Probably best not to bother with this one.

Batman B-

Posted in Personal by Will on Sunday, July 27th, 2008 ~ 6pm

Well I saw Batman2 today, and is was alright. I don’t think the audience made a peep. Not any applause, nor any gasps of anticipation, just careful observation of the film. You could sense the audience loving whenever the joker was on, because he gave them an opportunity (ironically) to relax, in contrast to Batman/Bruce Wayne, who was so solemn that you could never really care for him.

I don’t feel it was a memorable film — nothing particularly “cool” happened in it, it was more of a crime drama, and I respect the risk of taking that direction. I appreciated that the film did not have a loud finale like I’d recently been complaining tend to be the way comic books films end.

The film dropped a lot of the style that had been established in the first film. Much of this film, for instance, took place in the daylight rather than night. Gone was the enigmatic question of “what decade is this taking place in? The near future? The present?” — they made a point of telling the audience that it was present day (they mentioned the “90s” as being out of style).

In my opinion too much from the last film was chucked out the window – the city is different, there’s no elevated sky subway, there’s no Wayne Enterprise building, nothing. All gone. Kind of disappointing. All the hope that Arkham Asylum would be in this film? For naught. No mention of the nerve gas from the first film.

I’ll give the film a B-, which includes kudos for trying something new — a crime drama — and condemnation for leaving the style of the first film out of it. I am tempted to say it went too far in leaving the Batman element out of the film. As others have noted, “You could easily replace the main characters…and still have a great movie.” Indeed, this could have been Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible character instead of Bruce Wayne/Batman, and it would not have made any difference.

Oh, and Christian Bale needs to get that white mole on the side of his nose (near his right eye) removed. Even on a small tv screen it is distracting, but on the big screen, it is just crying out for a doctor’s visit.

Best part of the film: The preview for “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. And the Joker’s trick.

Here’s how I wrote it elsewhere:

Re: *** Official THE DARK KNIGHT Discussion Thread
It’s been a few hours since I saw the film.

I am feeling that the problem with the film is that it did not need to be a Batman film. The protagonist could as easily have been Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible character. And while I respect that this was the brave choice Nolan made with this film — to make it a crime drama — ultimately, I feel like he left too much of the character of the first film out of this one.

He proved you can make a good film without most of the Batman elements. He successfully dropped Gotham City (Wayne Enterprises building and all), he managed to avoid continuing the story of Arkham Asylum and the various asylum inmates that escaped, dropped all memory of the nerve-gas affected citizens of the Narrows, and he even dropped the use of nighttime. That he decided the mansion wouldn’t be completed yet, and that there’d be no batcave yet either, were also choices which he could have gone either way on but chose to omit to prove he didn’t need them.

All are bold choices. But ultimately I am disappointed that he chose to make a statement rather than make a film with more elements of Batman.

Reply from DE: “I have to agree with Will_B on this point – I very much respected the film and everyone involved in it’s creation but I too was somewhat expecting to see some Batman elements pop up in a Batman movie. For us comic readers on the forum, to me TDK felt like a fill-in arc written by a hotshot crime novelist who felt the need to ‘shake everything up’ and remove all of the ‘cliche’ Batman ‘baggage’ and ‘make it his own.’ i.e. transpose Batman et al into a situation more comfortable to what the writer was used to doing rather than playing around in the (forgive me) Bat-thology and exploring a forgotten gem or making us look at an old one in a different way.”

past »