GenV - a frustrating second season (review)

Extended review to link from this tweet. GenV S1 previously covered much more briefly, here. Maybe I've been unreasonable, levelling so much criticism at a show that's a spin off of another that was always a little throw-away in terms of overall plot and production (more making pithy points, initially). But this showed promise that it squandered...

+ Tragedy: the actor playing Andre died in a motorbike crash, paid tribute throughout the season, following rushed rewrites. But, as far as I can see (having done little digging) the father character may have been given a bigger role to cover the same abilities. And I didn't feel like this could totally excuse the mess of continuity and pacing. Perhaps production timelines and financial pressure preventing sufficient delays to recalibrate..?

+ Plot hole [major spoilers]: Mid episode 4, Marie clocks Dean Cipher as *definitely* non-supe (just human) and tells the others. This key fact is inexplicably not mentioned in later episodes; the cast totally buys the bizarre explanation Stan pulls out of his arse about Godolkin being Cipher's 'trophy'. Mentioning, but ignoring, the fact he'd be too old at >100, especially for a burnt husk of a human. (Whether Stan deliberately deceived them is beside the point, but I didn't see reason he would help Godolkin, even if he could should have known, as former Vought intel.)

All a bit awkward and lost...

+ Unbelievably dumb!: So, Marie rushing to heal Godolkin (end of Ep7) without hesitation is ridiculous. For what? So he can quickly divulge Cipher's weak spot..? How about punching him in the head real hard?! If Polarity (now at full strength) can block his mind control, then he's a squishy target, as far as they know. Why over-complicate things?

Even when the ensemble cast stupidly pile in, giving Cipher bodies they *know* he can control (eg Jordan), the obvious move was to just rush Cipher (well, his main puppet, Doug) all at once. Instead they stand about like NPCs so we can watch him play whack-a-mole.

UK Election 2017 - Why we need Corbyn's Labour (but won't get it)

Blog Post Contexts Index: ➤ Setting the Scene ...WHY CORBYN'S LABOUR NEEDS TO WIN: ➤ Inequality ➤ Xenophobia ➤ Economic stimulus ➤ Housing ➤ Shift focus towards environmental issues ➤ Stabilising financial markets ➤ Towards a Universal Basic Income (UBI) ➤ Positive Money (creation) ➤ Brexit ➤ Voting Conservative doesn't even benefit *anyone's* financial self interest ➤ Ill gotten gains ➤ Ironic hypocrisy ➤ The UK's Sanders ➤ Gentler kinder politics ➤ Think of the children ➤ Life or death (or exacerbated disability) ➤ Terrorist Attacks ➤ "1984" isn't an instruction manual! WHY CORBYN WON'T WIN: ➤ Not enough time! ➤ Biased press (the right wing legacy filter bubble) ➤ Memetics ➤ Thought free ➤ Personal appearances ➤ Lies and dirty tricks ➤ Censorship ➤ Gagging ➤ Gerrymandering ➤ Voter suppression ➤ Non-voters (in general) ➤ Party funding ➤ Dark money ➤ Dark ads and big data (I.e. the Facebook factor) ➤ Polls ➤ Committed to the big lie ➤ Terrorism ➤ Rained off ➤ Not mentioned, but not overlooked WHAT HAPPENS NEXT (SPECULATION): ➤ Tory majority ➤ Hung parliament

➤ Setting the Scene:

I've never voted Labour. Historically I have decried the traditional right vs left (Conservative vs Socialist) tug of war, in UK politics. It has ignored the liberal axis of debate - the need to protect the individual, our liberties (which have been ignored or actively trampled) and democracy itself. Hence railing for the Liberal Democrats in many previous elections (including back in 2010). But our politics has drifted so dangerously far to the right, now, that I feel a sizeable socialist swing is currently what's most desperately needed.

Also, the national Lib Dem party currently still resembles a smoking crater in the ground, having (unfairly) received all the blame and none of the credit for 5 years of relatively stable, but austere, government in coalition with  the dominant Tories. While the Greens (for whom I voted in 2015), are in no position to swing things (due to our hopeless electoral system), resorting to valiant tactical efforts, stepping aside to support other progressive parties, regardless.

The manifestos: Conservatives | Liberal Democrats |Green party | Labour Condensed summary of the Labour manifesto (by @LabourEoin, also here).

Under Ed Miliband's lukewarm leadership in the 2015 election, the Labour manifesto promised an uninspiring flavour of austerity-lite, having been painted into a corner by our right-wing press and their pet government's dominant (though bogus) 'paying off the national credit card' narrative.

Thankfully, this time, there's a very stark difference between team red and blue. Labour finally crawling out from the shadow of Thatcherism, after the pleasantly surprising result of their internal leadership election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015. It was pretty miraculous, given the many interventions from high profile 'Blairite' party members (and the media), branding him as unelectable. Who were bizarrely proposing that the party failed to prevent David Cameron's Tories gaining a full majority due to Labour not being 'centrist' enough.

The 2 years since has seen almost non-stop infighting, with the legacy 'New Labour' guard, refusing to back their new leader, attempting a coop and forcing a second leadership election that Corbyn subsequently won, again, with a large majority of votes. This, despite internal manoeuvres aiming to shut out his ground swell of supports from voting (by banning new members from recent months and, perversely, levying a new fee).

This mirrored the frustratingly outrageous shenanigans in the run up to the 2016 US presidential election, within the democratic party, when Bernie Sanders was stupidly shut out of the running by the party establishment in favour Hillary Clinton. Despite him polling far better against Trump. Of course this lead to the death of real hope (for me anyway) and, of course, the disastrous result.

So anyway, we're very lucky to have a candidate, here, who seems prepared to genuinely push back against some of the worst excesses of the neo-liberal consensus. Although, years of devastating press bias against him, fuelled by suicidal party infighting, means he has started from a massive disadvantage. But with Labour having shrunk the Tory's 25 percentage point head-start, in the polls, down to (perhaps) as little as 3%, there is now arguably hope for change. And this is...

...WHY CORBYN'S LABOUR NEEDS TO WIN:

➤ Inequality:

Despite the global 'occupy' protests of 2011 being a distant memory, wealth inequality has only worsened here since. Ongoing cuts and pay freezes have held the majority back, while quantitative easing (QE) has pumped huge amounts of money upwards, inflating the assets of the already wealthy. (In addition to the usual factors still ticking along.)

In 2015 Greece's radical left alliance, the 'Syriza' government, bravely attempted to battle the brutally crushing austerity handed down to them by the EU (ultimately capitulating), as their central banks effectively laundered the Eurozone debts through the country. I blogged at length about this, siting the writings of Yanis Varoufakis, and tying in many other aspects of global macro-economics, finance, debt, etc.

Must of the Western world seems to have, in fact, exacerbated inequality, rather than redressing it. Obama's initially hopeful stimulus went some distance, but he was thoroughly shut down by endless dirty tricks by the Republican dominated congress for the rest of his 6 years.

➤ Xenophobia:

I think the rise of right-wing, anti-immigration sentiment (that fuelled Brexit, for example) is a direct result of this economic squeeze on the population's living standards. At risk of being overly reductive, I imagine this link stemming from an evolutionary instinct for tribes of hunter-gathers to disperse into smaller groups when the pickings are lean (ensuring that at least some survive).

Elysium Dreams Unrealised

Quick Review

The story was straight forward, vanilla but never unbearably dull. Exactly as advertised on the tin; the trailer can be taken as complete crib notes. The special reserve was Sharlto Copley's maniacal "Kruger", also the only enjoyable character, demanding stage presence.

It felt horribly under-ambitious, especially compared to the inspired District 9. I think Neil Blomkamp was aiming for the kind of perfectly well rounded movie that translates very well into international sales. Blomkamp openly admits that this film was supposed to be his great big Hollywood blockbuster, like he's collecting a set. I guess that's a little like Stross's tendency toward a different pastiche for each book, particularly in styling his Laundry novel's. In the process Blomkamp has shaved so many edges smooth that the kernel of all his ideas barely remained...

• There were zero laughs, perhaps occasional snorts of acknowledgement. The most amusing part, for me, was that the Elysium leadership seemed to be named after Harry Potter characters: (Fleur) Delacourt, (Padma and Parvati) Patil/Patel.
• It was not nearly as bloody/gory/ugly as expected; virtually sterile, even for a 15 certificate, certainly compared to some of the gut wrenching, watching-between-fingers, type scenes in which Copley previously stared. I guess I just take exploding people for granted...
• No full-on action-gasm; no pig gun equivalent. There was a bit of an OooOOoh, here we go! moment in the middle, during the (abduction) action sequence, but it felt like a bit of an aborted fumble in comparison.
• Totally non-sexual, unless you count the CGI porn of the perfectly manicured orbital habitat. Which is fine; interesting purely for *not* ticking that box. The romantic connection was underplayed too, though. Perhaps it was just a little too unsubtle. That does fit with the earthy, realistic aesthetic though; not at all the quick fling, fantasy Hollywood romance.
• The film does do pretty well (for an American blockbuster) at including an international flavour, with a Brazilian love interest, strong hispanic (Mexican) presence, and French, South African (and British?) villains. Bechdel test was "squarely fail[ed]", however, but then it wasn't exactly a very talky movie.
• Emotionally un-engaging, with no real personal journey for Max, played by Matt Damon, who I've decided I like, but here he felt like a laminated cardboard cut-out.

As Wired reported: "...Blomkamp is a longtime [Michael] Bay fanboy..." due to his "inspiring" action composition. Despite deriding contemporary sci-fi's "...exploding and spaceships and stuff", he also claims "Elysium doesn’t have a message either,". This is more that he personally has no political agenda; supposedly he just genuinely revels in the dystopian slums of present day Johannesburg and LA. They hold an enthusiastic fascination for him. Certainly it's best for sales to avoid shoving political/humanitarian agendas at potential customers, but a brutally neutral take on these topics is also going to be the best way to bypass people's mental defences and get them actually thinking about our world's flaws.

Orbital Speed?

Discussion of Topics Raised and Avoided

The Elysium space habitat seems to exist in a total vacuum, in more than the literal sense; the setting is starkly prosaic, with a straight up, straight down world. Deliberately so, I think, going for symbolism. 'Elysium' (the Greek/Roman afterlife for the relatives and friends of gods and the most virtuous) perched there above the clouds, so those below (in Hades) can look up at it's glowing halo, as one might do in prayer today. Witness, too, the religious orphanage the protagonist grows up in, etc.

My point is also that the film very carefully avoids mention of anywhere else on earth besides the LA sprawl, which seems more a quaint, contemporary, shanty-town in comparison to the Neuromancer (1984) style sprawl (seen breifly in the opening exposition: right).

15 Big Reasons to Vote Liberal Democrat This Year

[Section A] A Lib Dem vote is not wasted this year - they will gain power in one way or another:

1. The Obama Clegg Effect:

I am genuinely excited that they could win this election outright! After the 6 pack of whoop-ass Clegg doled out on Cameron and Brown in the first debate, the press is talking about it as a possibility. A new, enigmatic leader, a plausible protest vote against the expenses lunacy, Iraq and slapstick politics. Dissatisfaction with Labour hasn't transferred to great enthusiasm for the Tories, leaving an apathetic balance where neither has much chance of an overall majority.

Last week, 'swingometers' were recalibrated for a third direction and colour, with news presenters talking of a 16% swing necessary for an overall Lib Dem majority. But that's nonsense talk!: With only 60% of the electorate voting in the last two elections, a couple million *extra* votes would make up the necessary difference. The extra 10% turnout that voted in New Labour, in 1997, would be sufficient. However, the BBC are now showing Lib Dems in second position, 3% behind the Tories, and the recent Yougov/Sun poll states that if people believe a Lib Dem government is possible, not only do we get a Lib Dem Prime Minister, the 49% popular vote would yield the biggest majority seen for decades.

2. Victory next time through electoral reform in a hung parliament:

If the popular vote goes the way the opinion poles currently show (split fairly equally 3 ways) the Lib Dems will still trail far behind on seats, due to the 'First Past the Post' voting system for Mps. (Their support is about the same right across the country, where as Lab/Con policies produce a strong bipolar City/Country split; a Tweedle Dumb vs Tweedle Disingenuous act that has kept sensible parties out of 65 years.) This guardian article thinks a 3 way tie would spell the end for 'FPTP'.

Premptive Warning to Virgin Media

Dear Sir Branson, Virgin Media Chief Executive Neil Berkett, Virgin Media Employee or Whomever it may concern,

Recent news articles have brought to my attention the possibility (perhaps already realised) of new policy, on the part of Virgin media (referred to henceforth as VM): to give written warning to customers thought to be transferring copyright infringing materials. This followed by disconnection if they are perceived to have perpetrated further legal violations, if my understanding is correct.

On the face of it, VM seem to be perusing the moral high ground, especially seeing as Mr Branson has already ditched his record label and high-street music stores (prudent in my opinion). There is not currently any precedent in UK law to induce ISPs to 'police' customer's transferred information. But, given Branson is usual a savvy businessman, there must be some (fairly substantial) incentive for VM to patronise, threaten and wilfully loose hard won customers.

Given that the only entities expecting to gain any direct monetary benefit from this new policy are 'record companies', as represented by the BPI (British Phonographic Industry), one might assume there would have to be some form of repayment from the latter businesses (BPI) to the former (VM). As BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor states in a BBC online news article: 

“We believe that ISPs, far from being a simple pipe, can become significant distributors of digital media, and share in the tremendous value that would be unleashed if more music were accessed legally online” [my emphasis – i.e. share BPI's tremendous profit].

VM (and NTL) had seemed, thus far, to have shied away from prying on customer's information, and rightly so. Such a practice would be just as utterly abhorrent as if the postal service where to begin systematically opening the letters it delivers. Even done in the name of enforcing any number of laws, from copyright to blackmail, such practice would provide massive potential for corruption and general abuse, on a nationally catastrophic scale.

VM's get out is that BPI are proposing to perform this dirty task for them. This seems pretty generous, especially considering previous outcries by ISPs that such an undertaking would be prohibitively expensive, or nigh on impossible. Of course, BPI claim that they will only use “publicly available” information, so, persevering with the previous analogy, they would no longer be post office workers opening letters, but instead, private detectives stalking customers and spying on them as best they can without actually breaking into their homes or wire-tapping.

If this transpires there would be an unsanctioned, unsupervised corporate entity, with the interests of particular businesses as it's raison d'etre, paying an entirely separate company to deny services to specific customers. If other UK ISPs followed suit, it would amount to the wholesale rebuttal of citizen's free speech, rights to assembly and expression, for as little as exchanging a couple of songs. And that's only if the system is operated perfectly flawlessly. In practice, abuses such as maliciously framing of a innocent internet user, by a 3rd party, would be trivially easy. In an era when digital communications are increasingly relied upon, the consequences for said user could be everything from disenfranchisement to destitution.

Pursuing the current line of action is a step onto a very slippery slope away from internet neutrality. Customers, UK citizens, will be the first to feel their rights curtailed, but there are plenty of major pitfalls for ISPs too; If Virgin Media are prepared to take responsibility for some of the content distributed by their equipment, will they also be culpable for information loss (or other damages) attributable to malicious code delivered to, or sent from, customer's machines?: Viruses, phishing scams, denial of service attacks, etc.

If customer sentiment, such as my own, is not sufficient to dissuade VM from this these new tactics, in the same way customer service-call charges were dropped (provided the customer has a working VM land line), then I am sad to say I will be forced to end my 8 year long period of loyalty. That includes 4 separate student houses concurrently with my parent's, despite the customer service that was acknowledge as being “crap”!

Yours sincerely,

Richard R Lewis BSc

(Valued customer?)

---

Incited by: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7452621.stm

Not found any addresses to send it to yet though!...