Archive for June, 2004

New US Military Uniform

Pretty much everyone has commented on this and I don’t really have much to add, but I thought I’d toss this link up since it has a decent visual and a pretty good summary of the new uniform that will be replacing the BDU.

J-Walk posted this photo on Monday.

He wrote:

It shows three soldiers: two in the new uniform, and one in the old uniform.

I think he’s just kidding, though. I don’t see anyone at all.

My initial impression is that the new uniforms are pretty cool, if only because most of the modifications have been made specifically to address issues raised by troops. The gray camo looks a little weird, but don’t worry. Everyone will be wearing green and brown body armor over it. Assuming they can get body armor.

I still haven’t heard a good explanation for why they continue to produce body armor in forest rather than desert colors, by the way.

Warner Bros. will finally release a widescreen anamorphic DVD of Prince’s PURPLE RAIN with remastered 5.1 audio.

Yes, kids, that guy with the once unpronounceable symbol for a moniker is now old enough to be your father, or even grandfather. But his name is still Prince, and he is funky!

I’m not kidding. I like Prince.

Remastered at last in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital 5.1 surround, extras include a new audio commentary with director Albert Magnoli, producer Robert Cavallo and cinematographer Donald E. Thorin, three new featurettes (on the Minneapolis music scene and Prince’s career prior to Purple Rain, a second on the making of the movie, and a third on Prince’s fans, his legacy and impact on pop culture), no less than seven music videos (four from Prince, two from the Time and even the immortal “Sex Shooter” from Apollonia 6), 1984 MTV premiere party footage, and theatrical trailers for all three of Prince’s Warner movies. Retail will be $26.95.

And if you just can’t get enough of His Royal Shortness, Warner will also release two other, rather horrrendous Prince flicks, Under the Cherry Moon and the Purple Rain “sequel” Graffiti Bridge, on the 24th. Each is remastered in anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital 5.1, and extras include four music videos on each plus theatrical trailers. Retail? $19.95 a pop.

Can’t say that I care for GRAFFITI BRIDGE, but I don’t have any problems with UNDER THE CHERRY MOON. I remember well heading down to the local theater to check it out on opening day in 1986. There were two other people in the theater. Ooftah.

The Undead Zone: Why realistic graphics make humans look creepy

Here’s a Slate article about the reaction that many people have when robots or computer animation get too lifelike. I’ve had this reaction myself, and I’ve tried to put my theory about it into words. I’ve never succeeded. This article is more or less what I think.

But when a robot becomes 99 percent lifelike—so close that it’s almost real—we focus on the missing 1 percent. We notice the slightly slack skin, the absence of a truly human glitter in the eyes. The once-cute robot now looks like an animated corpse. Our warm feelings, which had been rising the more vivid the robot became, abruptly plunge downward. Mori called this plunge “the Uncanny Valley,” the paradoxical point at which a simulation of life becomes so good it’s bad.

and

The Uncanny Valley can make games less engrossing. That’s particularly true with narrative games, which rely on believable characters with whom you’re supposed to identify. The whole point is to suspend disbelief and immerse yourself. But that’s hard to do when the characters create goosebumps. You fight searing battles, solve brain-crushing puzzles, vanquish enemies, and what are you rewarded with? A chance to watch your avatar mince about the screen in some ghoulish parody of humanity.

I think that CGI in feature films suffers from this as well. Space ships and effects aren’t too bad most of the time, but I find something just plain creepy about some of the better human characters when we see them close up. The first time I recall noticing it is in one particular shot in SHREK of Princess Fiona. The detail and texture of her face was so good it made me shiver in semi-revulsion. Since then I’ve wondered about it.

Why is it that the special effects in the classic 60′s STAR TREK, while cheesy beyond all get-out, seem to stand up better than most computer effects from just five years ago? Why do the plastic monster costumes in the original STAR WARS actually look better than the CGI creatures added for the late 90s Special Editions?

Don’t get me wrong. I love CGI effects and what you can do with them. But I think they’re best when used to “touch-up” real footage of real people doing real things. When it takes center stage, especially when portraying living things (and especially humans), it isn’t quite there yet, and we can be repulsed by things that are “close but no cigar”.

Thoughts?

Americans, Gun Controllers, and the “Agressive Edge”

Via James at Hell in a Handbasket comes this goodie about the ALIEN movies. Apparently, they went through 3,000 auditions of Americans living in Britain for the Colonial Marines and found two (count ‘em) actors to pull it off. So they called the Americans from America.

And Sigourney Weaver tries very very hard to make sure we know she doesn’t like guns, even though she isn’t always very convincing.

I’ve got the 9-disc DVD megaset, but I haven’t listened to the commentary track for ALIENS yet. I guess this means it will be sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: I wasn’t clear on one thing. The 3,000 tryouts for Colonial Marine roles that resulted in only 2 hires were all Americans who lived in England. They needed to get Americans from the US of A to fill out the platoon. I’ve modified my post make it correct. Thanks to Kevin Baker, who wrote the piece, for straightening me out.