Most summers, Vicki and I end up going to the big comic convention in Chicago, as our big "geek fest" for the year. Over the past decade, I've usually also been a panelist there, participating as one of the four fans in an annual "Pro Vs Fans" comic trivia contest that's about as geeky as you can get. A quartet of no-name victims, including me, gang up against longtime comic author Mark Waid in a battle to see who knows more minutiae about comics from the Silver Age (approx. 1956 to 1970). As luck would have it, Waid often wins... by often, I mean usually... and by usually, I mean, well, always. (One of these days we'll beat him. Or he'll drop dead at the microphone, and we'll grab the crown off of his still-warm, flop-sweat-soaked head!) Last year's almost-victory was posted on YouTube, so the truly-desperate-for-entertainment should search for "Pro Fan Trivia" there and lose an hour of their life that they'll never get back...
But anyway, Master Trivia Wizard Waid was interviewed recently about sundry comic book topics - all of which were of great interest to me, of course - but the comment he made that echoed exactly my own feelings came when the interviewer asked him his thoughts on Marvel's Civil War series. Waid said,
"Basically, what made me itchy about Civil War is that - whether intentionally or not - the message seemed to be "give up your civil liberties and stop fighting for the things you believe in and everything will be fine." I get enough of that from the Bush administration."
If you're interested, you can read the entire interview here.
I should also point out that, having sparred with Waid in person as many times as I have, that I can totally hear his voice whenever I read an interview with him. Note that I didn't say "his whiney voice." Really. I didn't!
Sunday, May 13, 2007
A Must Read For The Star Wars Enthusiast
I don't really count myself as a big Star Wars fan. I say this for a variety of reasons, the two most important of which are:
1) I only saw each of the original movies once at the theatre. Having seen each chapter, and enjoyed it as mindless entertainment, I had no desire to go back and see it again anytime soon. Your own experience, if you're old enough to have been around in the '70s and early '80s, may have been different. ;-)
2) I actually enjoyed the later 3 installments more than the original trilogy! Yes, blasphemy... I know! But there's just no comparison, in my mind. The effects are much better, the stories are more interesting, and the acting's better. People slam Episode I through III's dialogue, but I say: go back and watch the originals and stop mouthing along with the actors long enough to actually listen to the words being spoken! Most of it's campy as Helll! So basically that's a tie in my books. Similarly, complaining about Jar Jar Binks while gleefully loving the Ewoks - cute, cuddly teddy bears who also happen to be master warriors with hearts of gold! - just smells like denial to me! I also never gave a crap about Darth Vader, either as a villain or as someone who could find redemption, until I watched Anakin Skywalker's story unfold in Episodes I to III. That affected me! And to be honest: I don't really get all that excited about either trilogy, beyond (as PeterJ might call it) the popcorn fun they provide. None of them are likely to ever make my Favourite Movies of All Time list, but they're all just fine for what they are.
Having said all that, I do have a certain nostalgic fondness for the Marvel comic series that adapted and continued the original stories. For one thing, I had a letter published in one of the first six issues - the issues that provided the adaptation of the first film - and that provided a tie that I've never forgotten. Also, as the published letter describes, the only reason I ever wanted to see Star Wars at the theatre was that the comic had seemed interesting. The first two issues came out before the movie premiered, and considering the line-ups to see it in my hometown, I may've actually owned three or four of the comics prior to seeing the entire story on the big screen. Whatever the case, I definitely had more love for the comic version than the movie, and that's always been true (not surprising, considering my love for the genre).
With that as background, I read with rapt attention this article by comic writer Roy Thomas, as he recounted his own experiences leading up to providing the script for Marvel's comic adaptation of the first film. I think any die-hard Star Wars fan would find some of the early bits fascinating, unless of course they're common knowledge already. I'll leave that up to you to decide...
1) I only saw each of the original movies once at the theatre. Having seen each chapter, and enjoyed it as mindless entertainment, I had no desire to go back and see it again anytime soon. Your own experience, if you're old enough to have been around in the '70s and early '80s, may have been different. ;-)
2) I actually enjoyed the later 3 installments more than the original trilogy! Yes, blasphemy... I know! But there's just no comparison, in my mind. The effects are much better, the stories are more interesting, and the acting's better. People slam Episode I through III's dialogue, but I say: go back and watch the originals and stop mouthing along with the actors long enough to actually listen to the words being spoken! Most of it's campy as Helll! So basically that's a tie in my books. Similarly, complaining about Jar Jar Binks while gleefully loving the Ewoks - cute, cuddly teddy bears who also happen to be master warriors with hearts of gold! - just smells like denial to me! I also never gave a crap about Darth Vader, either as a villain or as someone who could find redemption, until I watched Anakin Skywalker's story unfold in Episodes I to III. That affected me! And to be honest: I don't really get all that excited about either trilogy, beyond (as PeterJ might call it) the popcorn fun they provide. None of them are likely to ever make my Favourite Movies of All Time list, but they're all just fine for what they are.
Having said all that, I do have a certain nostalgic fondness for the Marvel comic series that adapted and continued the original stories. For one thing, I had a letter published in one of the first six issues - the issues that provided the adaptation of the first film - and that provided a tie that I've never forgotten. Also, as the published letter describes, the only reason I ever wanted to see Star Wars at the theatre was that the comic had seemed interesting. The first two issues came out before the movie premiered, and considering the line-ups to see it in my hometown, I may've actually owned three or four of the comics prior to seeing the entire story on the big screen. Whatever the case, I definitely had more love for the comic version than the movie, and that's always been true (not surprising, considering my love for the genre).
With that as background, I read with rapt attention this article by comic writer Roy Thomas, as he recounted his own experiences leading up to providing the script for Marvel's comic adaptation of the first film. I think any die-hard Star Wars fan would find some of the early bits fascinating, unless of course they're common knowledge already. I'll leave that up to you to decide...
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Uh Oh, Buffalo!
Despite scoring yet another late tying goal - like they did in the pivotal Game 5 against the Rangers - the Sabres came up short in the second Overtime tonight, to fall behind 2-0 with the series now moving to Ottawa. As I said when they beat the Rangers in Round 2, anything short of a Cup victory will be considered failure for this year's Buffalo squad. And it's now going to take a comeback of epic proportions to avoid that fate. Or possibly it'll simply require Ottawa choking... again. I don't expect either to happen, but that's why they play the games!
I can't say as I'd be unhappy should Buffalo be ousted. They were pretty hard to take when they beat my boys, so the prospect of the shoe being on the other foot has some appeal. I'm always just happy when neither the Habs nor Isles are still playing at this time of year!
I can't say as I'd be unhappy should Buffalo be ousted. They were pretty hard to take when they beat my boys, so the prospect of the shoe being on the other foot has some appeal. I'm always just happy when neither the Habs nor Isles are still playing at this time of year!
Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?
Two recent events reminded me of things I'd hadn't thought of in awhile. The first occurred at the grocery store a couple weeks ago, when the couple in front of me had finished having their items rung through. The woman was rummaging through her purse, pulling out coin after coin, in an attempt to get to the total that the cashier had given her. She literally turned her purse upside down, in order to get the last few pieces of currency out, before finally admitting that they didn't have quite enough to pay the bill. They then started picking out the items to leave behind, and that continued until they got down to a figure that the small pile of paper and larger mound of coins could cover. I didn't have any small bills or coins on me, or I most definitely would've offered up the $2 or $3 they were short, if no for other reason than to speed up the proceedings! (I don't mean to sound heartless, and if you keep reading, you'll see this wasn't a first-time experience for me.)
The second, similar scene happened at a variety store, where I was waiting in line to pay for about $5 in gas that I'd bought for the lawn mower. The young guy at the head of the line had asked for a couple packs of cigarettes, along with a chocolate bar and several other items. When he attempted to pay for them via his debit card, the transaction got rejected. He didn't seem overly surprised, but instead, put the chocolate bar back and then tried again. This continued a couple more times, until he was down to just one pack of cigarettes, which he seemed to have enough in the account to cover. In this particular case, I didn't feel the least bit tempted to offer to help, since buying people cancer sticks isn't high on my list of Good Deeds I Might Do.
Both of these incidents reminded me of being a kid, and being out shopping with my mom. She was always (barely) living from payday to payday, so running out of money wasn't the least bit out of the question. In fact, it was a regular routine that, when we went to buy groceries, she'd ask me to keep a running total in my head, so that there wouldn't be any surprises at the checkout. I got really good at doing that, to the point where I'd be right, within a dollar or two, and she relied on that to make sure she didn't go the route of the people I described above. Knowing her as well as I did, I'm quite sure she did this because she'd have considered it both rude and embarrassing to get into that predicament. Rude, because you're slowing down the people behind you, and embarrassing, because.. well, I'd think that's obvious!
Having lived that existence, for years, while at the same time being a long, long way removed from that situation in the last couple decades, I have mixed emotions when I see it play out in front of me. I can, and did, certainly empathize with their plight, and I understand a lot of things beyond one's control can lead to running out of money. But I also couldn't help but remember my own past. My mother had every reason to be bitter when money was tight, and to think that the world owed her something, and yet she still acted in accordance with a belief that everyone around her was as important as she was. None of the people I observed recently being unable to cover their tab exhibited even the slightest concern for the fact that they'd brought their respective checkout lines grinding to a halt, nor the faintest embarrassment about it. Maybe this is just Grouchy Old Matt and nothing else, but that certainly reduced any sympathy I might've felt toward them. In fairness to them, I know nothing about their story. It's possible that, knowing more, I'd have completely understood their behaviour. But since none of them seemed to be wearing shabby clothes, or lacking in jewellery or other forms of discretionary spending, it just ended up seeming more like people living beyond their means, and getting in my way when the world called them on it.
The second, similar scene happened at a variety store, where I was waiting in line to pay for about $5 in gas that I'd bought for the lawn mower. The young guy at the head of the line had asked for a couple packs of cigarettes, along with a chocolate bar and several other items. When he attempted to pay for them via his debit card, the transaction got rejected. He didn't seem overly surprised, but instead, put the chocolate bar back and then tried again. This continued a couple more times, until he was down to just one pack of cigarettes, which he seemed to have enough in the account to cover. In this particular case, I didn't feel the least bit tempted to offer to help, since buying people cancer sticks isn't high on my list of Good Deeds I Might Do.
Both of these incidents reminded me of being a kid, and being out shopping with my mom. She was always (barely) living from payday to payday, so running out of money wasn't the least bit out of the question. In fact, it was a regular routine that, when we went to buy groceries, she'd ask me to keep a running total in my head, so that there wouldn't be any surprises at the checkout. I got really good at doing that, to the point where I'd be right, within a dollar or two, and she relied on that to make sure she didn't go the route of the people I described above. Knowing her as well as I did, I'm quite sure she did this because she'd have considered it both rude and embarrassing to get into that predicament. Rude, because you're slowing down the people behind you, and embarrassing, because.. well, I'd think that's obvious!
Having lived that existence, for years, while at the same time being a long, long way removed from that situation in the last couple decades, I have mixed emotions when I see it play out in front of me. I can, and did, certainly empathize with their plight, and I understand a lot of things beyond one's control can lead to running out of money. But I also couldn't help but remember my own past. My mother had every reason to be bitter when money was tight, and to think that the world owed her something, and yet she still acted in accordance with a belief that everyone around her was as important as she was. None of the people I observed recently being unable to cover their tab exhibited even the slightest concern for the fact that they'd brought their respective checkout lines grinding to a halt, nor the faintest embarrassment about it. Maybe this is just Grouchy Old Matt and nothing else, but that certainly reduced any sympathy I might've felt toward them. In fairness to them, I know nothing about their story. It's possible that, knowing more, I'd have completely understood their behaviour. But since none of them seemed to be wearing shabby clothes, or lacking in jewellery or other forms of discretionary spending, it just ended up seeming more like people living beyond their means, and getting in my way when the world called them on it.
The Countdown Has Begun
The first thing you need to know is: DC's new weekly series, Countdown, is being numbered like a true countdown. The first issue, which debuted this week, was # 51. Next week's will be # 50. And so on, right down to a penultimate # 1, before concluding with a # 0 issue (Hinckley would approve, I'm sure!) There are a couple reasons why this works for me: first, as mentioned previously, it reflects what the series is; second, coming the week after its predecessor weekly sibling, 52, finished with # 52, it provides the semblance of symmetry with that title. (1, 2, 3 through 52, and then back down through 1 again, plus that crazy 0 issue a year from now.)
The second thing you need to know is: this is being called the spine of the DC Universe over the next year. Unlike 52, which covered a "missing year" in the history of that world, Countdown's going to reflect whatever significant events are going on in the rest of DC's titles each week, while continuing to advance its own stories. I'm not sure how that's going to play out yet, but that's DC's claim. I'd take that to mean that, for example, the feverish violence of Amazons Attack, should show up in Countdown sometime over the next several months. We'll see if that happens.
The last important facet of the new weekly title, it seems to me, is that it promises to be at least one place where the new Multiverse will be explored. Certainly that's confirmed in issue # 51, as one of the characters showcased makes the offhand remark that she's from a neighbouring universe, like you or I might say we're from a nearby city or town. Also, we're shown a couple of very powerful Monitors - the original of which was prominently featured two decades ago in Crisis on Infinite Earths - who apparently are in charge of tracking down and... taking care of... beings who move from one Earth to another. (As one reviewer noted, this makes them the Border Patrol of the DCU, and that comparison of course reminds me of John Sayles' excellent film, Lone Star, and what happened to poor Eladio Cruz.)
In reading other reviews of this issue, it seems many readers were most impressed by the inclusion of Darkseid in the opening pages. Unlike the vast majority of my brethren - apparently - I've never gotten much of a thrill out of Jack Kirby's Fourth World characters, including Darkseid. Part of it is just that reading any of those original Kirby creations from the early 70s is more likely to induce cringes from me than oohs or ahhs, and the rest stems from the various interpretations since then. Even when the characters showed up on the Superman animated series a few years back, I couldn't drum up much enthusiasm. Maybe if Alan Moore had ever left his mark on Apokalips and the rest of Darkseid's entourage, he'd've shown me something more interesting than "evil guy who rules evil planet with iron fist and has scheming sycophants and an endless supply of cannon fodder soldiers at his disposal." It could just be that I don't get Darkseid. At any rate, that angle's hardly a draw for me.
But I'll certainly give the series another several weeks, in order to see where the multiple Earths storyline is going, before bailing on it. The first issue was okay, but not much better than that.
More Musings On The DC Multiverse
More than a week after my previous post about it, the return of DC's multiverse continues to be a hot topic among comic fans on the Internet. You can see some of that here or here or any number of other places where DC geeks mingle (including... right here, I suppose).
If DC's plan was to get everyone talking, then they should be happy! As is always the case where the Internet's concerned, people are jumping to lots of conclusions based on minimal data. Because the few panels shown in 52 # 52 raised more questions than they answered, everyone has been enjoying creating their own interpretations. One of the foremost questions seems to be: is this the old DC Multiverse, returned, or simply a return of the concept? My reading of the final issue of 52 was that these are brand new worlds that bear a striking resemblance to some old friends, but they aren't them. Having said that, they are amazingly familiar...
The next biggest topic of discussion revolves around how DC will use these 52 (51?) new, alternate universes. Personally, my concern is that they'll employ them willy nilly, without rhyme or reason, and it'll quickly become apparent that they were introduced simply to provide a vehicle to explain away all of the inconsistencies bred of bad editing. I'm not assuming that will happen; I worried it may. And the main reason for that concern is DC's history for playing fast and loose with continuity. Will DC do better this time around? One can only hope. A suggestion made somewhere that appealed to me was that DC clearly mark any tale that's set on an Earth other than "New Earth" (the main one) with something... Maybe a DC-2 bullet for Earth-2, and so on. One of the reasons I like this idea is that it reinforces the notion that, these worlds aren't just there to explain away stories you no longer feel like standing behind!
Bottom line for me: I'm excited about the return of the Multiverse. But most of what DC's done lately, starting with Infinite Crisis and continuing through 52, has been filled with potential that seldom got realized (for me, anyway). That certainly wasn't the case back in the days of Watchmen, Crisis on Infinite Earths, Sandman, Preacher, Starman, and The Dark Knight Returns, among others. This is a company that's reached some dizzying heights in the arena of superheroic/fantasy fiction... though not so much lately.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Did Anyone Else Notice Rena Sofer Was On Against Herself Last Monday?
It almost happened months ago, but this past week it actually came to pass: Rena Sofer had a brief appearance on Heroes, on NBC on Monday at 9:00, as Nathan Petrelli's wife returned with her children from some visit, while Jack Bauer's sister-in-law was among the hostages within CTU when it was attacked by bad guys, on Fox's 24, during the same timeslot. Both characters, of course, are played by the same actress, the lovely Rena Sofer! You'd think there'd be some sort of clause in the actors union by-laws to prevent that from happening, as it hardly seems fair to have to compete with yourself for ratings!
Ah well, it's not like the fans of either show are going to complain...
Ah well, it's not like the fans of either show are going to complain...
Why Do I Love NHL Statistics So Much?
I don't know why.. but I just do!
So, when a friend and former co-worker commented today, over e-mail, that he believed the Ottawa Senators had never won a Game 2 in a playoff series, I smelled a rat. The stat that Boneman and I'd been hearing was slightly different: Ottawa had never won a Game 2 after winning Game 1, in a series. Or, as Boneman would tell you, the Sens had never managed to go up 2-0 in the playoffs. And yet here was this Sens fan in Ottawa claiming that the stat was more incredible, namely that the modern day Sens had never won a Game 2. It didn't smell right to me, and so I just had to do some digging.
I went to a frequent source of NHL info for me, hockeydb.com and started poking around. I know that site is particularly handy for seasonal final standings (going back to 1918) and playoff series results, over the same period. I started with 1995/96, since I figured that's around the time Ottawa started making annual trips to the post-season. That particular year they finished with 41 points in 82 games, so there was no need to check the playoff results. But the following year, the Sens had improved to a respectable 77 pts, which actually got them into the playoffs at a time when 8 out of 13 teams would qualify in the Eastern Conference.
When I started looking into the series results that year, there was Ottawa playing Buffalo in the first round. Here's what was shown:
" Apr 17 Ottawa Senators 1- 3 at Buffalo Sabres
Apr 19 Ottawa Senators 3- 1 at Buffalo Sabres
Apr 21 Buffalo Sabres 3- 2 at Ottawa Senators
Apr 23 Buffalo Sabres 0- 1 at Ottawa Senators 00:02:34 OT
Apr 25 Ottawa Senators 4- 1 at Buffalo Sabres
Apr 27 Buffalo Sabres 3- 0 at Ottawa Senators
Apr 29 Ottawa Senators 2- 3 at Buffalo Sabres 00:05:24 OT
Buffalo Sabres win series 4 games to 3"
Now, this would appear to indicate that Buffalo won Game 1 by a 3-1 score, and then Ottawa returned the favour in Game 2, also 3-1. Assuming this data is correct, there, on my first playoff series review, was Ottawa winning a Game 2. Of equal interest was the fact that, while they won Game 2, they hadn't won Game 1, meaning that the stat Boneman and I were hearing - Ottawa had never won a Game 2 after winning Game 1 - was still intact.
Now that I'd come this far, I figured I'd finish the search. Moving forward, year by year, I saw that Ottawa had won another Game 2, this time in 2002, when they beat the Flyers 3-0, after losing Game 1 by a 1-0 score in O/T. So once again, no 2-0 lead in the series, but a clear Game 2 victory. The following year, they won Game 2 against the Islanders (3-0 again) after losing the series opener (by another 3-0 mark).
And that was the complete list of Game 2 victories by the Sens: 3 of them, all coming after dropping the series opener to their opponent. Clearly the friend in Ottawa had been hoodwinked completely, and just didn't bother to look into it. Which is hardly surprising, but as I say: I love NHL stats, so I felt obliged to track this one down!
(And yes, this is exactly the sort of thing Boneman and I talk about all the time! For nearly twenty years now...)
So, when a friend and former co-worker commented today, over e-mail, that he believed the Ottawa Senators had never won a Game 2 in a playoff series, I smelled a rat. The stat that Boneman and I'd been hearing was slightly different: Ottawa had never won a Game 2 after winning Game 1, in a series. Or, as Boneman would tell you, the Sens had never managed to go up 2-0 in the playoffs. And yet here was this Sens fan in Ottawa claiming that the stat was more incredible, namely that the modern day Sens had never won a Game 2. It didn't smell right to me, and so I just had to do some digging.
I went to a frequent source of NHL info for me, hockeydb.com and started poking around. I know that site is particularly handy for seasonal final standings (going back to 1918) and playoff series results, over the same period. I started with 1995/96, since I figured that's around the time Ottawa started making annual trips to the post-season. That particular year they finished with 41 points in 82 games, so there was no need to check the playoff results. But the following year, the Sens had improved to a respectable 77 pts, which actually got them into the playoffs at a time when 8 out of 13 teams would qualify in the Eastern Conference.
When I started looking into the series results that year, there was Ottawa playing Buffalo in the first round. Here's what was shown:
" Apr 17 Ottawa Senators 1- 3 at Buffalo Sabres
Apr 19 Ottawa Senators 3- 1 at Buffalo Sabres
Apr 21 Buffalo Sabres 3- 2 at Ottawa Senators
Apr 23 Buffalo Sabres 0- 1 at Ottawa Senators 00:02:34 OT
Apr 25 Ottawa Senators 4- 1 at Buffalo Sabres
Apr 27 Buffalo Sabres 3- 0 at Ottawa Senators
Apr 29 Ottawa Senators 2- 3 at Buffalo Sabres 00:05:24 OT
Buffalo Sabres win series 4 games to 3"
Now, this would appear to indicate that Buffalo won Game 1 by a 3-1 score, and then Ottawa returned the favour in Game 2, also 3-1. Assuming this data is correct, there, on my first playoff series review, was Ottawa winning a Game 2. Of equal interest was the fact that, while they won Game 2, they hadn't won Game 1, meaning that the stat Boneman and I were hearing - Ottawa had never won a Game 2 after winning Game 1 - was still intact.
Now that I'd come this far, I figured I'd finish the search. Moving forward, year by year, I saw that Ottawa had won another Game 2, this time in 2002, when they beat the Flyers 3-0, after losing Game 1 by a 1-0 score in O/T. So once again, no 2-0 lead in the series, but a clear Game 2 victory. The following year, they won Game 2 against the Islanders (3-0 again) after losing the series opener (by another 3-0 mark).
And that was the complete list of Game 2 victories by the Sens: 3 of them, all coming after dropping the series opener to their opponent. Clearly the friend in Ottawa had been hoodwinked completely, and just didn't bother to look into it. Which is hardly surprising, but as I say: I love NHL stats, so I felt obliged to track this one down!
(And yes, this is exactly the sort of thing Boneman and I talk about all the time! For nearly twenty years now...)
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Three Of The Most Hectic Days Of The Year (So Far)
Today was the third consecutive day spent with an Agile consultant at work. My days were typically about 9 hours long, which doesn't sound all that bad except that there was almost no "down time" whatsoever to be found! (Examples of what I mean by "down time" at work: reading e-mail, visiting buddies just to shoot the breeze, surfing the Web, blogging.. in other words, either things I get to do by myself, or activities not directly related to work.. or both!) I find days like that utterly draining, and having three of them in a row has left me the proverbial empty shell. And it's no coincidence that I managed a measly one entry here over the past two evenings!
However, the consultant is quite good at her job. She works in an Agile fashion without being silly about it - some of my co-workers could learn a lot from her on that score - and she absorbed an incredible amount of information in a short period of time. One of the realities of my job is that some of the people I work with respond better to expert opinion than they ever will to any other kind. I don't mean to imply by that statement that I think this consultant will simply point out all the same issues that I've already highlighted, or suggest all the same solutions that I've already proposed - neither of those is the case - but rather that, if she did, it would immediately carry more weight than it ever had coming from me! That's a perspective I can't relate to, because I tend to judge information as information, and couldn't care less if it came from a janitor or the president of the company. I'm as likely to buy into what the janitor's saying as anything out of the president's mouth, and every bit as inclined to challenge what the president puts forth as I would any proposal from the janitor. Valuing data based on where in the hierarchy it came from is a much more common approach at work, as well as assuming that anyone who's published a book on the subject must have better advice than anyone who hasn't. All of which means that, when the higher-ups arrange to have an expert consultant brought in, there's at least some reason to believe she'll be listened to. Which is a good thing.
Most of the three days this week was spent talking to product and project people to help the consultant gain an understanding of our environment and largest pain points, and then planning what to do the next time she's here (two and a half weeks from now). I was happy to see that this wasn't one of those deals where the consultant is busy trying to figure out how to drum up more business with us, but instead was focused on how to maximize the value we get out of her during the 5 3-day weeks we'll have her. That sort of thing goes a long way toward building trust, which is undoubtedly a strong pre-requisite to allowing an outsider to walk in and poke holes in our current processes.
She also paid me the compliment of saying that she thought, from what she'd heard, that I'd done a very good job with the Feature Teams in my role as Agile Manager. One of the ideas we floated was having another role like mine - but not me! - who'd be as involved with the various management teams as I've been with the Feature Teams. In other words, a second Agile coach within the organization, but focused more on the higher levels of the company instead of the ground troops. I love that notion, for a couple of reasons: first, we need it; and second, it'd give me a peer at work to compare notes with, bounce ideas off of, and generally ally myself with in the never ending battle against Waterfall Wally. The problem, of course, is imagining that we could find another person in the company who'd be willing to put his or her job on the line on a daily basis, like I do. Clearly that's not the sort of position you'd want to fill with someone who has career aspirations, because as I blogged about ages ago now it's hard enough finding Feature Leads who're comfortable having to occasionally stand up to their Product Owner, let alone locating someone who'd make a living at telling management and the executive team where they've screwed up!
However, the consultant is quite good at her job. She works in an Agile fashion without being silly about it - some of my co-workers could learn a lot from her on that score - and she absorbed an incredible amount of information in a short period of time. One of the realities of my job is that some of the people I work with respond better to expert opinion than they ever will to any other kind. I don't mean to imply by that statement that I think this consultant will simply point out all the same issues that I've already highlighted, or suggest all the same solutions that I've already proposed - neither of those is the case - but rather that, if she did, it would immediately carry more weight than it ever had coming from me! That's a perspective I can't relate to, because I tend to judge information as information, and couldn't care less if it came from a janitor or the president of the company. I'm as likely to buy into what the janitor's saying as anything out of the president's mouth, and every bit as inclined to challenge what the president puts forth as I would any proposal from the janitor. Valuing data based on where in the hierarchy it came from is a much more common approach at work, as well as assuming that anyone who's published a book on the subject must have better advice than anyone who hasn't. All of which means that, when the higher-ups arrange to have an expert consultant brought in, there's at least some reason to believe she'll be listened to. Which is a good thing.
Most of the three days this week was spent talking to product and project people to help the consultant gain an understanding of our environment and largest pain points, and then planning what to do the next time she's here (two and a half weeks from now). I was happy to see that this wasn't one of those deals where the consultant is busy trying to figure out how to drum up more business with us, but instead was focused on how to maximize the value we get out of her during the 5 3-day weeks we'll have her. That sort of thing goes a long way toward building trust, which is undoubtedly a strong pre-requisite to allowing an outsider to walk in and poke holes in our current processes.
She also paid me the compliment of saying that she thought, from what she'd heard, that I'd done a very good job with the Feature Teams in my role as Agile Manager. One of the ideas we floated was having another role like mine - but not me! - who'd be as involved with the various management teams as I've been with the Feature Teams. In other words, a second Agile coach within the organization, but focused more on the higher levels of the company instead of the ground troops. I love that notion, for a couple of reasons: first, we need it; and second, it'd give me a peer at work to compare notes with, bounce ideas off of, and generally ally myself with in the never ending battle against Waterfall Wally. The problem, of course, is imagining that we could find another person in the company who'd be willing to put his or her job on the line on a daily basis, like I do. Clearly that's not the sort of position you'd want to fill with someone who has career aspirations, because as I blogged about ages ago now it's hard enough finding Feature Leads who're comfortable having to occasionally stand up to their Product Owner, let alone locating someone who'd make a living at telling management and the executive team where they've screwed up!
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Character Development 101
If Lost has taught us anything, it's that people are actually much more complex than they're usually portrayed on TV. This week's insight into Benry's origins, as well as the revelation that Juliet had already ratted herself out to Jack - yay! - both point to depths that we've been trained to not expect in our television friends.
I had to hit Rewind and then slow-advance it forward to show Vicki that we did, indeed, catch a glimpse of Jacub, tonight. It was pretty freaky that Benry could hear and see him when it was all empty air to us, and yet couldn't hear the two words he said to Locke. Being responsible for the death of his own father, as well as an accomplice in the murder of dozens - hundreds? - more seems not to weigh much on Benry's mind these days, especially as he blithely added Locke to the mass grave he'd helped create. It's amazing how many of the people on the island have parent issues... maybe that's the real message of the show: work harder to get along with mommy and daddy!
Season Three, I'm happy to say, continues to rock!
I had to hit Rewind and then slow-advance it forward to show Vicki that we did, indeed, catch a glimpse of Jacub, tonight. It was pretty freaky that Benry could hear and see him when it was all empty air to us, and yet couldn't hear the two words he said to Locke. Being responsible for the death of his own father, as well as an accomplice in the murder of dozens - hundreds? - more seems not to weigh much on Benry's mind these days, especially as he blithely added Locke to the mass grave he'd helped create. It's amazing how many of the people on the island have parent issues... maybe that's the real message of the show: work harder to get along with mommy and daddy!
Season Three, I'm happy to say, continues to rock!
Monday, May 07, 2007
Critics Come Down Hard On Spider-Man 3
We watched this week's Ebert & Roeper review of Spider-Man 3 tonight, and it received 2 Thumbs Down. What struck me about their reviews, as well as some others I've read, is just how much they compared it to its predecessor! Spider-Man 2 is generally considered to be one of, if not, the greatest comic book movies of all time! So what are the odds of topping, or even matching, that the next time out? I went into S-M 3 expecting that it wouldn't be as good as S-M 2, and it wasn't. But that didn't really detract from my enjoyment, because it was still a very good movie based on a comic book character. It was better than Superman Returns, and better than the third X-Men movie. It was light years better than Ang Lee's Hulk nightmare, as well as Daredevil, the first Fantastic Four film, and either of Joel Schumacher's Batman bombs. Maybe all of the bad comic movies over the years have lowered the bar, in my mind, but that's no worse than comparing it to the last movie in the franchise, when that film's considered the top of its genre.
The other criticism I've heard repeated is that there were too many villains. Perhaps that didn't bother me because I know who they are, why they're there, and tons of backstory that wasn't even in the movie. It's possible that, coming in cold, having that many characters was too confusing to some. But I guess I struggle with understanding why three is "too many." What if they'd decided to adapt the story from Amazing Spider-Man # 1, which is the introduction of the Sinister Six? Oh. My. God. Six. Villains!!! There'd be so many that we couldn't even count them, to know if it really was the Sinister Six or not! That just seems like a silly complaint to me. Will Watchmen - if it ever gets made - flop because the audience will be expected to follow - and tell apart - Nite Owl (both of them), Silk Spectre (two, again), Rorschach, Dr Manhattan, Ozymandias, Molloch, and the Comedian... not to mention Dollar Bill and the Hangman, if they manage to include them? Are people that limited in their ability to follow multiple characters? (I follow about 40 monthly comic titles, and manage to keep their stories straight from issue to issue. Does that make me superhuman?)
Granted, there were some flaws to be found in S-M 3. I mentioned the comedy being over-the-top, and some of the more comic book-ish moments, involving Harry in particular, may turn people off who weren't raised on the genre like I was. But all things considered, the experience was way in the positive for me, and I'm looking forward to buying it on DVD in six months, and watching it many more times. It'll never compare to the genius of Doc Ock vs Spidey in the 2nd one, but who expected it to?
The other criticism I've heard repeated is that there were too many villains. Perhaps that didn't bother me because I know who they are, why they're there, and tons of backstory that wasn't even in the movie. It's possible that, coming in cold, having that many characters was too confusing to some. But I guess I struggle with understanding why three is "too many." What if they'd decided to adapt the story from Amazing Spider-Man # 1, which is the introduction of the Sinister Six? Oh. My. God. Six. Villains!!! There'd be so many that we couldn't even count them, to know if it really was the Sinister Six or not! That just seems like a silly complaint to me. Will Watchmen - if it ever gets made - flop because the audience will be expected to follow - and tell apart - Nite Owl (both of them), Silk Spectre (two, again), Rorschach, Dr Manhattan, Ozymandias, Molloch, and the Comedian... not to mention Dollar Bill and the Hangman, if they manage to include them? Are people that limited in their ability to follow multiple characters? (I follow about 40 monthly comic titles, and manage to keep their stories straight from issue to issue. Does that make me superhuman?)
Granted, there were some flaws to be found in S-M 3. I mentioned the comedy being over-the-top, and some of the more comic book-ish moments, involving Harry in particular, may turn people off who weren't raised on the genre like I was. But all things considered, the experience was way in the positive for me, and I'm looking forward to buying it on DVD in six months, and watching it many more times. It'll never compare to the genius of Doc Ock vs Spidey in the 2nd one, but who expected it to?
2007 Swimming Season: Now Officially Open!
Only a little more than 48 hours after starting the pool opening activities, there I am doing my first set of laps! The water was around 72 F (21 C), the air was slightly cooler than that, and the sun was shining (though low-ish in the sky). I'd had a gorgeous day off, sitting by the pool for part of it and reading many pages of Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys novel. I even took a couple comics out poolside, and read them there! Does it get any better than that?
Photo taken by Vicki.
(Neighbour dog, Darby, patiently waits for someone on our side of the fence to throw his ball. Later, while cutting the grass, I put him out of his misery.)
(By which I mean, I threw the damn ball several times!)
52 Covers of 52
Comic Book Resources has posted a collection of the 52 covers, all by the same artist - J. G. Jones - that adorned the weekly 52 series. Why don't you take a few minutes, click here, and then come back and let the rest of us know which one's your favourite. There's some real beauties in the bunch!
Hmmm, A Slightly Different Story
In the official announcement today, ABC reports that Lost will run for six seasons, not five. (I'd previously linked to article claiming that it would end after Season Five.) However, with each of the remaining seasons limited to 16 episodes - as opposed to the 24-ish that the first three seasons have had - it amounts to about the same number of future episodes. It'll just take us three more years to get there, instead of only two. Personally, I'm fine with that (delayed gratification and all that). It's also mentioned in today's announcement that each upcoming season will run uninterrupted, which is great news!
That leaves us about 50 new episodes of Lost to look forward to, as of now. And believe me, I am!
That leaves us about 50 new episodes of Lost to look forward to, as of now. And believe me, I am!
Sunday, May 06, 2007
This Was Pool Opening Weekend
A good chunk of our Saturday was spent in the Spring ritual known as "opening the pool." This involves getting the winter cover off - which can range from mildly entertaining to extremely frustrating - and then making all of the various equipment work once more (pump, filter, electrolytic cell for the salt, heater). We used to pay skilled professionals to do the latter task, but in recent years have taken on the whole kit and kaboodle ourselves. Complicating this year's plan was that Vicki had hurt her back last week and wasn't really up to doing any lifting or straining. We were lucky enough to have our next door neighbour come over to see how it was done, and then she volunteered to help with the cover removal. Also, we couldn't have asked for a nicer day, weather-wise, than Saturday proved to be.
Things went reasonably well this year, in that the cover came off without dumping any dirty water into the pool, I was able to get the pump hose re-attached without incident, and the heater didn't require a service call to get working as has happened twice before. Water temperature the first time I stuck the thermometer in was 47 degrees F (around 9 degrees C). As of when I turned the pump off tonight, it was up to 64 F (approx 17 C). I'm hoping to get it into the 70s tomorrow, as I'd probably brave it around that point, especially if it's warmer than the air (which it likely will be, tomorrow).
At one point I thought that I should grab the camera and take a photo, but never came of that. Maybe I'll get one tomorrow on my day off. In the meantime, you'll just have to use your imgination - or memory, if you've seen it before!
Things went reasonably well this year, in that the cover came off without dumping any dirty water into the pool, I was able to get the pump hose re-attached without incident, and the heater didn't require a service call to get working as has happened twice before. Water temperature the first time I stuck the thermometer in was 47 degrees F (around 9 degrees C). As of when I turned the pump off tonight, it was up to 64 F (approx 17 C). I'm hoping to get it into the 70s tomorrow, as I'd probably brave it around that point, especially if it's warmer than the air (which it likely will be, tomorrow).
At one point I thought that I should grab the camera and take a photo, but never came of that. Maybe I'll get one tomorrow on my day off. In the meantime, you'll just have to use your imgination - or memory, if you've seen it before!
The End Of A Great Run
With their gutsy 5-4 Game 6 loss today, the Rangers finally ended their impressive run through the 2007 NHL Playoffs. It might've gone differently if they hadn't given up that tying goal on Friday night, with 8 seconds left in the 3rd period, but we'll never know now. As it stands, they finished with a post-season record of 6 wins and 4 losses, meaning they won 60% of their games. By pushing the Sabres to six games in this Conference Semi-Final, they also managed to continue playing hockey longer than all but five other teams! When you consider that 12 teams finished the regular seson with more points than the Rangers, that says something about how they did this Spring! In fact, here's the list of teams who finished their 2006/07 campaign before the boys in blue did:
Philadelphia Flyers (finished 15th in the East)
Phoenix Coyotes (finished 15th in the West)
Los Angeles Kings (finished 14th in the West)
Washington Capitals (finished 14th in the East)
Chicago Blackhawks (finished 13th in the West)
Edmonton Oilers (finished 12th in the West)
Columbus Bluejackets (finished 11th in the West)
Boston Bruins (finished 13th in the East)
St. Louis Blues (finished 10th in the West)
Florida Panthers (finished 12th in the East)
Carolina Hurricanes (finished 11th in the East)
Montreal Canadiens (finished 10th in the East)
Toronto Maple Leafs (finished 9th in the East)
Colorado Avalanche (finished 9th in the West)
Atlanta Thrashers (swept by the Rangers in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Calgary Flames (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Minnesota Wild (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
NY Islanders (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Tampa Bay Lightning (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Nashville Predators (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Pittsburgh Penguins (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Dallas Stars (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Vancouver Canucks (lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs, in 5 games)
New Jersey Devils (lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs, in 5 games)
Whew! That's a lot of teams who had worse runs than the Rangers this year!
Good luck to the Sabres, Senators, Ducks and either the Red Wings or Sharks (whoever wins that series), as it's only going to get harder from here! In the Rangers' great run to the Cup in 1994, it was the last two series that really pushed them to the edge, so it should be interesting to see how the two Conference Finals play out. Definitely Buffalo vs Ottawa should be amazing to watch! And we could end up with # 1 vs # 2 in the West, if Detroit prevails against San Jose.
Philadelphia Flyers (finished 15th in the East)
Phoenix Coyotes (finished 15th in the West)
Los Angeles Kings (finished 14th in the West)
Washington Capitals (finished 14th in the East)
Chicago Blackhawks (finished 13th in the West)
Edmonton Oilers (finished 12th in the West)
Columbus Bluejackets (finished 11th in the West)
Boston Bruins (finished 13th in the East)
St. Louis Blues (finished 10th in the West)
Florida Panthers (finished 12th in the East)
Carolina Hurricanes (finished 11th in the East)
Montreal Canadiens (finished 10th in the East)
Toronto Maple Leafs (finished 9th in the East)
Colorado Avalanche (finished 9th in the West)
Atlanta Thrashers (swept by the Rangers in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Calgary Flames (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Minnesota Wild (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
NY Islanders (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Tampa Bay Lightning (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Nashville Predators (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Pittsburgh Penguins (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Dallas Stars (lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)
Vancouver Canucks (lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs, in 5 games)
New Jersey Devils (lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs, in 5 games)
Whew! That's a lot of teams who had worse runs than the Rangers this year!
Good luck to the Sabres, Senators, Ducks and either the Red Wings or Sharks (whoever wins that series), as it's only going to get harder from here! In the Rangers' great run to the Cup in 1994, it was the last two series that really pushed them to the edge, so it should be interesting to see how the two Conference Finals play out. Definitely Buffalo vs Ottawa should be amazing to watch! And we could end up with # 1 vs # 2 in the West, if Detroit prevails against San Jose.
If You Like Those Mac Vs PC Commercials
There's a whole series of these Marvel Vs DC parodies on YouTube. They're all pretty hilarious!
Thanks to the boss for pointing me in this direction...
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Ode To Gwen
Of all the Spider-Man 3 reviews I've read since getting home from the theatre yeaterday afternoon - and I've read a lot! - this one is my favourite so far. Warning: It contains many plot spoilers, so don't follow the link unless you want some stuff spoiled! What I liked most about it were the comments the reviewer had to make about Gwen, and her place in the Spider-Man mythos. Here're a couple spoiler-free excerpts that nearly made me cheer:
"Indeed, Spider-Man 3 betrays loudly the fact I suspect all Spider-Man fans know to be absolutely true: Mary Jane sucks and Gwen Stacy rules. In not one of the Spider-Man films - and even the Spider-Man comics as far this writer is concerned - is it ever made clear why Peter is so unflinchingly obsessed with Mary Jane Watson and her relentless narcissism and whining..."
and
"On the other hand there's Gwen Stacy, portrayed by Bryce Dallas Howard as intelligent, kind, compassionate and of upstanding character. Also, she's really hot and works as a model because people actually enjoy seeing her, unlike the apparently talentless and much-reviled Mary Jane Watson."
Amen, brother! Here's hoping Spider-Man 4 restores Gwen's rightful place and is subtitled Peter Finds True Love!
"Indeed, Spider-Man 3 betrays loudly the fact I suspect all Spider-Man fans know to be absolutely true: Mary Jane sucks and Gwen Stacy rules. In not one of the Spider-Man films - and even the Spider-Man comics as far this writer is concerned - is it ever made clear why Peter is so unflinchingly obsessed with Mary Jane Watson and her relentless narcissism and whining..."
and
"On the other hand there's Gwen Stacy, portrayed by Bryce Dallas Howard as intelligent, kind, compassionate and of upstanding character. Also, she's really hot and works as a model because people actually enjoy seeing her, unlike the apparently talentless and much-reviled Mary Jane Watson."
Amen, brother! Here's hoping Spider-Man 4 restores Gwen's rightful place and is subtitled Peter Finds True Love!
Lost To End After Season 5
For some reason, I always thought this had been established from the get-go: Lost was intended to run 5 seasons, and then be done. All mysteries would be resolved by then, and the show would have a definitive conclusion. I've even said as much to people, in conversation, though over time I wondered if I had just made all that up.
Now word comes that yes, indeed, Lost will stop after Season 5, and a formal announcement of that fact is coming shortly. Maybe it's the Babylon 5 fan in me, but 5 seasons feels about right to tell a complex story without allowing it to flounder. With Season 3 almost done, it doesn't seem like it's asking that much of fans to stick around for another two, assuming the stories continue to be of the high calibre we've seen recently.
Now word comes that yes, indeed, Lost will stop after Season 5, and a formal announcement of that fact is coming shortly. Maybe it's the Babylon 5 fan in me, but 5 seasons feels about right to tell a complex story without allowing it to flounder. With Season 3 almost done, it doesn't seem like it's asking that much of fans to stick around for another two, assuming the stories continue to be of the high calibre we've seen recently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
