Applied Procrastination

Learning the World

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:40:00 -0700

Thanks to Tom for another great loaner. This time, Ken MacLeod's [_Learning the World_](http://books.google.com/books?id=0RcZ62BFr-cC). One of my favorite bits (and one of many references to title): > Yesterday we were in a universe that included us _and lots of cool stuff_: stars, galaxies, plasmas, cometary bodies, planets, and cows and giraffes and AIs and blue-green algae and lichen and microorganisms. > > Today we are in a universe that contains us and lots of cool stuff _and alien space bats_. > > That's a different universe. > > A universe with a different history, different potentialities, different future from the universe we thought we lived in. We are not living in the universe we thought we lived in yesterday. > > We have to start learning the world all over again. He's absolutely right that this book bears more than a passing resemblance to Vinge's [_A Deepness in the Sky_](http://books.google.com/books?id=-t2y0JJ1ZYQC). The stories follow similar lines of slower-than-light trade and colonization making first contact with unexpected aliens. And there are similarities in the ideomatic translation we see. Vinge's book is more explicitly an adventure story, while MacLeod's seems more a novel of ideas. The conclusion seemed a little rushed to me, and smacked a little as either setting up for sequels, or just telling the whole story to make the point made in the last couple of paragraphs. But, overall, well worth the read.

First Time for Everything

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:29:01 -0700

It's strange to be reminded that there was, once, a time when you had no real conception of what it was to throw up. (Frankly, I wouldn't be so sad if that were still true....) I know that BA has some theoretical context--he's seen the damn dog puke up so many pairs of socks in his three years, how could he not?--but the look of sheer horror on his face yesterday when that became practical experience was so utterly pathetic. He just sort of sat there, looking at me like, "are you _kidding_ me?" Oh, man. In other news, he seems to be feeling better now.

Two Observations on American Idol

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:10:56 -0700

This is probably a familiar line: I don't really like _American Idol_. I watch it, a little, because I'm around when the wife is watching. And now that casting is done for this season, I have two things to say. __One__: Thanks to NPR, I now have the word for one of the things that has always irritated me endlessly about people auditioning for that show: [melisma](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6791133). I wish I had some idea why it is that people that can't even stay on the right tune feel that warbling all over the place like they're at some [Bizarro World](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World) gospel music championships is gonna get them a spot in Hollywood. __Two__: I would be very curious to how Simon's voting in casting correlates to how long someone lasts in the competition. It seems like a _lot_ of people make it through on two yeses from Randy and Paula. As much as everyone makes a show of hating Simon, I'd be willing to bet that his instinct is pretty good. (Not interested enough to actually re-watch the episodes, compile the list, and track the stats through the season, mind you. But if anyone feels so inclined, let me know!)

Innovation!

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:17:24 -0700

I tell ya, they were burning the midnight oil at LG to come up with this innovative menu design!

**Update:** John Gruber also has [something to say](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/january?sun-20-barton#mon-28-doomed) about this, too.

Indie Music Sometime Wins

Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:32:22 -0700

Go listen to this, and consider throwing some dollars his way. This song seriously made my week: [Re Your Brain](http://www.jonathancoulton.com/mp3/Re%20Your%20Brains.mp3 "Re Your Brains in MP3 format")

Super WHY? Heck If I Know!

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:00:00 -0700

So, as the parent of a three year old, I watch a fair amount of children's television. Some of it, I love. The best kids' TV does a good job of appealing to both youngsters and their parents. Lately, BA has dropped [Between the Lions](http://kids.pbs.org/lions/index.html) for one of PBS' newest shows: [Super WHY!](http://kids.pbs.org/superwhy/index.html) Much to my chagrin. Now, kids do well with structure. But saying that this show is "formulaic" is like saying that a paint-by-number gives you "a little guidance". In all seriousness, I think that they could dose the coffee in the writers' room with Rohypnol and Percodan, and no one would notice: it's all on the rails. 1. Wyatt greets us, and we are given the Super Big Problem. 2. The Super Readers are gathered and briefed. 3. They choose a book (by magic!) that will give them the Super Story Answer to their problem. 4. They do a sentai transformation sequence and jump into the book. 5. They read the story. 6. In the course to trying to find the Super Letters that spell the answer, they encounter two problems. Two of Alpha Pig, Wonder Red, and Princess Presto overcome these problems. 7. Super Why uses his power to read to change the story. He chooses the wrong option first, to comical effect. 8. The Super Readers save the day. They find the last Super Letters. 9. Back in Storybrook village, the Super Duper Computer gives them their answer, and they discuss what it means. 10. Finally, there's a coda in which the Super Story Answer is put into action. Oh, where to begin? In almost every episode I've seen so far, the Super Big Problem is actually some hideous social gaffe committed by one of the team. Wyatt messes up his brother's room, or Red Riding Hood takes one of Peter Piper's pickled peppers without asking. Sure, important messages to impart to kids. Manners, not quitting, helping out at home... but Super Big Problems? And, seriously, how much time, effort, and magic do these kids devote to basically telling each other to behave? The stories have familiar names, but the writers don't have any compunction about rewriting them into Super Obvious Parallels to the episode's issue. Take, for example, the Ugly Duckling: a tale about a young duck(!) who isn't able to swim, and, thus, cannot attend the swim party scheduled for later in the day. A heart-warming tale of perseverance! There's also the story of Hansel and Gretel, and how they ate part of the witch's gingerbread cookie house without asking. And the giant on the beanstalk, whose cries of, "fee fi fo fum," are a Super Big Temper Tantrum. Or the boy who cried wolf: there really was a wolf--who was friendly--but the townsfolk wouldn't believe the boy when he claimed to have seen him. Gah! And then there's my near certainty that Alpha Pig doesn't actually have a _name_ in his civilian identity (he only introduces himself by saying, "P is for pig!" and no one ever addresses him by name). There are so many things that I _want_ to like about this show. I'm sure that it's played at least some role in BA's growing ability to name all of the letters in the alphabet. Some of the educational design is quite admirable. And the animation--especially the way they blend the separate looks of the Storybrook characters and the worlds inside the books--is really pretty cool. But the whole package is _so_ saccharine and pat and omgi'mgoingtotearmyeyesoutifhewantstowatchanotherepisode!! Please, please, BA. Get over this soon.

The Romance of the Batmans

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:05:14 -0700

"Oh, hey, Batman!"
"Hey, Batman! I give you a hug!"
"Ohhhh, that's such a good hug!"
"It's nice to meet you!"
"Let's hit with spears!"
"There's spears!"

New Rule

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:56:35 -0700

After engaging in yet another one of those senseless mailing list conversations where, mid-way in, I found myself wondering how the hell I got there, I formulated the following rule, which I will now promulgate as "Otto's First Law of Internet Discourse": > **The dick that is half as long, waves twice as hard.** Crude? Yes. But you know the type. The folks who always rush the fastest to establish themselves as some kind of authority are almost always the same folks who don't actually have the first clue what they're talking about. The same sort of person who believes that this kind of statement compensates for being a condescending jackass: > Well... I've been building web applications, professionally, since > early 1995. I'd say it's not too surprising that my views on what > qualifies as a web app are a bit different than most. :) (For the record, it's _not_ surprising. But probably not for the same reason the author of that sentence believes.)

And a Piece of It Fell on My Head!

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:41:57 -0700

Since we have a child, naturally we read a lot of kids' books. One of the current favorites is the story of "Henny Penny" from the [_Treasury of Bedtime Stories_](http://www.amazon.com/Treasury-Bedtime-Stories-Jane-Jerrard/dp/0785379096). Which might be one of the worst abortions in the history of published children's literature. Now, I confess that I haven't read many versions of this story, despite being familiar with the general outline. I'm not sure what liberties the adapters might have taken in preparing the version that appears in this anthology. But let's review the plot: * Henny Penny--a chicken--is going about her chicken business when she's hit on the head by a falling acorn. * Being a chicken, naturally she assumes that the sky is falling, and sets off to warn the king. * In usually fairy tale fashion, she accumulates a group of friends on her trip. They are all also poultry: Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey. Her assertion that the sky is falling sways all of them to her cause without much argument. * They journey on a little, and encounter Foxy Loxy--a fox--who leads them off on a purported shortcut to the king. * When Foxy Loxy leads the friends into a cave, Henny Penny becomes frightened, and runs off. * She returns home, no worse for the wear, and lives happily ever after. The storytelling here is atrocious. I mean, sure, it's a kids' story. But there's no arc whatsoever: Henny Penny learns nothing, does not change or learn. She's [the Fool](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fool_%28Tarot_card%29) in the eye of the hurricane, traipsing along as the story happens _around_, but not _to_, her. The pivotal moment of narrative, when Henny Penny decides to abandon the group of friends that's she's gathered to their fates, comes totally out of nowhere. No explanation is given for why Henny Penny--clearly not the most perceptive of birds--should suddenly sense danger in Foxy Loxy's shortcut when none of her friends suspect a thing. And while the text specifically rehearses the places Henny Penny passes on her way back home, mentioning where each of her late companions joined her ultimately senseless quest, as though to mourn their passing, she shows no sign of recognition, or of guilt. The last line of the story mentions, almost nostalgically, that "the king never did hear" about the crisis Henny Penny initially set out to report. The thing that tips the story over the edge for me, however, is the illustrations. Three silent and unnoticed animals follow the group of fowl on their trip. One is a worm from Goosey Loosey's market basket, one a frog from Ducky Lucky's pond, and the third is the squirrel whose stray acorn set the events of the story in motion. They are appear aware of Foxy Loxy's ulterior motives, watching worriedly as he leads the group on his "shortcut," but make no move to intervene. Foxy Loxy himself is so villainously depicted as to be comical, with his long pencil mustache and--I kid you not--monocle. The last illustration is of Henny Penny at home, carefree in her survival, accompanied by all three of the mute chorus. She sips a drink (pink lemonade?), the frog luxuriates in a washtub, the worm enjoys a shiny red apple, and the squirrel fondly regards an acorn. Possibly the very same acorn that fell on Henny Penny's head. Or is he grinning because it was never an accident at all?

My Poor Childhood

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:55:01 -0700

The Transformers were one of my favorite toys as a kid. I was eight in 1984, and so right at the perfect age for all of those 80s toys that are coming back now: Transformers, GI Joe, the Thundercats, _Voltron_, _Robotech_. Robots were like the coolest thing ever invented by man. I regard the new _Transformers_ movie with some trepidation. It's got [Peter Cullen](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4tNz_3dGBA), but it's also [Michael Bay](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/armageddon/). But there is a worse threat to all of those warm, fuzzy memories. And, as usual, it's Japanese. The worst thing is, this is not a [Chinese knock-off](http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2007/07/chinese-transformers-knock-offs-in.html), or some [ecchi doujin manga](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dōjin#H_D.C5.8Djin). This is an actual Takara-Tomy product line: [Kiss Players](http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/TF/kiss/). Here's a summary from the [Transformers wiki](http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Kiss_Players): >"Kiss Player" is the title given to any one of a number of young female humans who abruptly gained the power to fuse with Transformers (and Transformer-like robots) in the Earth year 2005. >This fusion occurs when the human kisses the robot, physically combining (minus most clothing) and bestowing special abilities and enhanced regeneration upon the target mechanoid. The human gains some degree of control or influence over the robot's actions for the duration of the fusion. If the human remains fused for too long, she is involuntarily ejected from her robot partner. This can be a disorienting experience and often leaves the Kiss Player unconscious. And naked. And covered in goo. 'Cause, really, if Transformers aren't doing well, why _not_ abuse the license for some nice, wholesome [lolicon panty shots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanservice)?

Year Zero

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:45:08 -0700

The new Nine Inch Nails record, _Year Zero_, releases next Tuesday (the 17th). You can listen to it now streaming from the [album's web site](http://yearzero.nin.com/). After listening to the album four or five times, I have to say I like it a lot. Stand-out tracks for me are "Good Soldier," "The Warning" and "In This Twilight." Honorable mention to "Capital G." I'm not such a huge fan of "Survivalism," but as I think back, the first single off of most of his albums didn't really grab me, either. ("March of the Pigs" from _The Downward Spiral_, "The Hand That Feeds" from _With Teeth_... I don't remember what the first single from _The Fragile_ was, any more.) There's also quite the multimedia, [alternate-reality game](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game) going on concurrently with the release of the album. The nice thing about the internet is that there's always a group of fans more dedicated than you are who can [compile information](http://www.ninwiki.com/Year_Zero_Research) about stuff like that for you. Rumors of a [feature film](http://craveonline.com/music/articles/04647574/nin_year_zero_the_movie.html), as well.

Let It Be Known

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:38:05 -0700

I despise [Internet Cleverness Day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_fools_day). A lot.

Getting Into Miniatures

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:00:00 -0700

Not too long ago, some friends of mine were discussing miniatures gaming, and getting new people into the hobby. In particular, we were talking about folks that might not even know whether they'd enjoy those sorts of games. What would we recommend, then, to give those people a taste without asking them to go out and buy 2000 points of orcs? There are four main factors in choosing a miniatures game: 1. The toys. 2. The rules. 3. The network. 4. Cost of entry. The first two things there should be pretty self-evident, because that's how you choose any kind of product: you pick something that works the way you need it to work, and which appeals to you on an aesthetic level. The initial cost to get all of the stuff you need to play may be quite significant (especially if you're a new gamer). But the network is just as important if you plan to actually _play_ the game, since you need other people with whom to play. All of these factors are subjective--a game that's played by hundreds of people may still not be played by anyone with whom you want to spend time--and there are trade-offs to be made. But I'm going to attempt to give an overview of the stuff that's out there today, with an eye toward product offerings geared toward someone new to the game, or to the hobby overall. ### Warhammer 40,000: The Battle for Macragge [Warhammer 40,000](http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/default.htm) is the 500-pound gorilla of miniatures gaming. When it comes to network, this game has them all beaten. You probably can't walk into a decent game store on a weekend and _not_ run into a game of 40K. Since Games Workshop is one of the biggest game companies around (and, incidentally, are marketing mostly at boys 12-15 years of age), they can also afford to produce a starter product like [The Battle for Macragge](http://macragge.us.games-workshop.com/). This product is probably the cheapest (in absolute terms) and gentlest introduction you'll find to miniatures gaming. It's got the rules, dice & templates, plastic snap-together minis, and a bunch of simple scenarios specifically tailored to what's in the box. Quite a deal for $45. Why isn't this a slam dunk, then? As much as I love the "grim darkness of the far future" and the sort of World War I _in spaaaace!_ vibe that much of 40K has, I'm not sure that it's actually a good game. The rules aren't very robust, there are lots of fiddly special rules for all the different armies, it's not always very well-balanced, and I'm not really fond of the "[IGOUGO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy#Types)" turn structure. (Worth mentioning is that GW's other major lines have similar intro boxes. Warhammer has [Battle for Skull Pass](http://warhammer.us.games-workshop.com/), and Lord of the Rings has [Mines of Moria](http://moria.us.games-workshop.com/introduction/default.htm).) ### Collectible Miniatures Not one game, but a class of games I'm going to lump together, including products like [Star Wars Miniatures](http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars) and [HeroClix](http://www.wizkidsgames.com/heroclix/). These games occupy a strange middle ground between toys and games: they're really more like board games with randomized playing pieces. In a lot of ways, they have more in common with card games like [Magic: The Gathering](http://wizards.com/magic/) than 40K. I mention them really to say that a) the cost of entry is very low on these products (a starter set may cost you as much as $25 for one person), there's no hobby stuff like assembling and painting miniatures, and you can be playing in next to no time. But a lot of the things that are central to miniatures gaming in my mind (terrain and maneuvering and such) are entirely missing. ### Warmachine & Hordes Outside of Games Workshop's offerings, these two games from [Privateer Press](http://www.privateerpress.com/) might be the most widespread miniatures games on the market at the moment. Both are set in the same world, and use compatible rules. [Warmachine](http://www.privateerpress.com/WARMACHINE/) is a game of magitech mecha ("warjacks"), while [Hordes](http://privateerpress.com/HORDES/) replaces the technological heavy-hitters with monsters. Both games offer starter boxes for around $35-40 with a basic force for one player, and the "quick start" version of the rules. Typical games don't get all that much bigger than this, so a starter box can easily form the core of a larger army if you like the game. Privateer is also somewhat unique in that they continue to playtest new units and rules against starter box armies, so the escalation of forces that is often seen in Warhammer isn't as prevalent in these games. On the other hand, the models can be somewhat finicky for a new hobbyist, requiring more complicated assembly. And you don't get much help in terms of pre-built terrain and whatnot. ### Urban War Although 40K is the undisputed leader of 28mm sci-fi infantry games, it's certainly not the only player in the space. [Urban War](http://urbanmammoth.co.uk/um/html/uw_urban_war.htm) is clearly a descendant of the 40K rules, and to some extent the aesthetic, though its future is definitely cleaner, and higher-tech. Like Warmachine, the focus here is on smaller games of around 5-10 miniatures per side, though it can scale up. There's an intro [game box](http://www.urbanmammoth.com/um/html/urbanwar_gamebox.htm) that provides basic stuff for two players, including some terrain ($48 at the [TheWarStore](http://www.thewarstore.com/product5007.html)). There are "starter" and "booster" boxes for each army to make selection easier. All of the rules and army lists and such are available as free downloads from the Urban Mammoth site. On the other hand, I've never met another gamer that was aware of this game, so the network coverage may be sort of spotty. ### AT-43: Operation: DAMOCLES I include Rackham's introductory product for their AT-43 line, [Operation: DAMOCLES](http://www.at-43.com/produits_operation_damocles.php?lg=EN) because I think it exemplifies a growing trend in miniatures gaming. This big box isn't cheap ($80 MSRP, $64 at [TheWarStore](http://www.thewarstore.com/AT43.html)), but it has everything you need to get going, including _pre-painted_ miniatures--rare outside of the collectible games, and of a much higher quality in this product. It's probably too early to say much about the quality of the rules (though what I've read is pretty mixed), but what I've seen of the miniatures so far is pretty cool. And if you're averse to the hobby part of these games, you could do worse. ### The Battle of Five Armies Including this product is a marginal choice on my part. It doesn't have a very big network, it's not very easy to find, and if you want anything beyond the initial box, it's not all that cheap ($80 from the [GW Online Store](http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=304571)). But I think that Games Workshop's [The Battle of Five Armies](http://specialist-games.com/bofa/default.asp) is worth mentioning for a number of reasons: 1. It's based on _The Hobbit_, which might be an ideal hook for someone new to the hobby. 2. The rules are based on [Warmaster](http://specialist-games.com/warmaster/default.asp), which I've read many, many good things about. 3. It's very different from the other games I'm including in this list, and hearkens back to old-school historical wargames. ### In Closing There's no one right choice for everyone (nor is miniatures gaming even something everyone enjoys). But if you're considering getting into the hobby, I hope the foregoing helps you find something you might enjoy, without committing too much money and time upfront. Also, rules these days are becoming a commodity thing. It's _easy_ to cook up some simple (not to say _good_) miniatures rules to package with your figures. So most everyone does. More and more companies give away at least the basic version of the game on their web sites, because it's the miniatures that have the real profit margins. And there are a number of systems out there designed to work with whatever miniatures you have on hand. So if you like the figures, but don't like the game, don't despair! You can find new rules that suit you better.

Fall TV Thoughts

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:00:20 -0700

Now that we're a few weeks into the season (and especially now that _Lost_ has gone on hiatus until February), this seems like a good time to take stock. ### _Lost_ I'm not sure what to think, frankly. I've been a really big fan of the show. While it's nice to finally see some more of the Others, I'm getting sort of sick of watching the Jack, Kate, and Sawyer show. And, as much as it's nice to see [Nathan Fillion working](http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1196&pos=13 "officer Mal?"), the flashbacks have been pretty weak so far this year. I'd really like my [island mystery show](http://www.glarkware.com/securestore/c188252p16716379.2.html) back now, please. (Maybe the newly envigorated Locke will save us, the viewers, as well as the castaways!) ### _Heroes_, or _Rising Stars, Kinda_ I have a sort of love/meh relationship with this show. On the one hand, yay [superheroes on prime time TV](http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-American-Hero-Complete-Notebook/dp/B000GRUR4G)! And apparently with enough [ratings love](http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/16/news/companies/tv/index.htm) that it might stick around for a little while. On the other hand, the writing on this show seems really uneven. The speed and ease with which the characters and all of their family members and friends seem to be coming to terms with their powers seems... off. Hiro and Peter just seem to have decided one day that they had powers, and everyone around them is basically, "oh, OK, cool." And of _course_ the cute little [alterna-neighbor](http://www.heroes-pictures.com/displayimage.php?album=186&pos=288 "Eden") is a bad guy. \*le sigh\* ### _The Nine_ What ABC needed was another flashback-based drama about a group of strangers brought together by circumstances beyond their control, right? But, surprisingly, the show turned out to be mostly about what kind of people they _became_. And that show, just as surprisingly, is _good_. ### _Veronica Mars_ Jury's still out on the [several-mini-mysteries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_mars#Seasons) angle for this season, although it's an interesting turn when we seem to be getting even more serial dramas than ever elsewhere. And, yeah, it stretches credibility a bit for all of those people to be going to Hearst. But I think this show's still got it. ### _Torchwood_ & _Doctor Who_ Shockingly, I hadn't actually seen any of the new _Doctor Who_ until the last week or so. And, spoilerific as it may be to go this direction, it was the excellence of _Torchwood_ that convinced me to give it a chance. I'm happy to report that [Christopher Eccelston](http://imdb.com/name/nm0001172/ "IMDb entry") is an excellent Doctor (the stills of his [very serious demeanor](http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/gallery/doctor9/800/13.jpg) and leather jacket worried me, but his characterization still has the requisite goofiness mixed in). Heck, even my wife likes the show, and believe you me, _no one_ saw that coming! Oh, and as far as [Eve Myles](http://imdb.com/name/nm0616990/ "IMDb entry") is concerned... Gwen, Gwyneth? You can't tell me _that's_ a coincidence. Even if it is Wales. ### _America's Next Top Model_ Ah, guilty pleasures. Which twin will be first to go? Is it me, or are they making Tyra's hair bigger and bigger to camoflage the bigger and bigger Tyra? Oh, and for the record: my money's on Caridee to win it. ### What Else? I'm saving season three of _Battlestar Galactica_ until there are enough episodes to really sit down and just binge on it for an afternoon. This one week at a time business is for the birds. (But reading [RPGnet's fora](http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=29 "Other Media") and avoiding BSG spoilers are fast becoming incompatible.) I'm also woefully behind on [_Gray's Anatomy_](http://abc.go.com/primetime/greysanatomy/index), but that's more my wife's thing. Gotta get those episodes watched and off the DVR, though. :-) And starting next week... Taye Diggs is Bill Murray in [_Groundhog Day 2_](http://abc.go.com/primetime/daybreak/index.html)!

Batman Begins

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:43:49 -0700

We saw "Batman Begins":http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/ the other day. Not in the theater, of course, since "Serenity":http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/ is the one movie we've gone to see since BA was born, but on "newly-released DVD":http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000BUYP4Q. Spoilers ahead! I'm conflicted about this film. On the one hand, it was great to see some of the bits of the Batman mythos that we never get to see on film or TV. His wandering, his extensive training, the Falcone family, Ra's al Ghul, Arkham Asylum. The production design was great, and the casting was pretty much flawless. But there were problems. The first was the movie was very crowded, even at over two hours. It felt like it took a long time for the major conflict to develop. A lot of the supporting cast, like Lt. Gordon, got pretty short shrift. The whole Scarecrow plotline, while designed to be a red herring, felt pretty useless by the end. (Which is a shame, because he's kind of a cool villain, and seemed wasted here.) Ra's himself certainly underwent some significant changes from his "comic book self":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27s_Al_Ghul. "Katie Holmes":http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005017/ is not hot. Pretty, perhaps. Cute. But not smokin' hot like every "other":http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/catwoman.jpg Batman movie to date has had. That didn't help matters. As much as it tried to escape the trappings of the typical superhero movie, there were a few pretty glaring failures in that regard. The villain's eeevil plot, and the giant train model that it used, were like something out of a bad Bond film. (Couldn't they just rent a couple of crop-dusters, rather than construct this Goldbergian sequence of steps and stolen devices?) Let's not even talk about Batman and Gordon's last conversation, and possibly the cheesiest sequel villain setup ever. But most importantly, the film fell prey to one of the classic blunders: making everything _too_ interconnected. Why must Wayne tower be the center of the city, with all of the water mains meeting there? Why must Bruce's father have saved the city from the League before? Can't they just want to destroy it on their own terms? Yes, Mr. Nolan, it's all symbolic and circular and what have you; but it's also dumb. Just... dumb. All in all, it was a welcome reinterpretation of the Batman mythos. I enjoyed it, and I might even see it again if given the choice. But I do wish that they'd gone a little farther from the formula.