It's Snow Joke

Some musings on the current bad weather.

Over Complicated?

Do we make things more complicated than they need to be?

Reading In Bed.

Last night i got to the point where i couldn't work up too much enthusiasm for the Internet (shock, horror!) Well, it was cold & snowy.
What that has to do with the Internet, i have no idea. But, hey...
So, i thought, "i know what i'll do, i'll go to bed early & read my new book".

Now, anybody who reads in bed can probably guess what i'm going to say next?

Anyway, a few pages into the book & my eyes are starting to get tired & i find that i can hardly keep my eyes open! The book was fine, interesting & very readable, so why did this happen?
I'm afraid i can't answer that question, but it's something that always seems to happen.

You feel wide awake. But, as soon as you get into bed, open that book & start to read. Suddenly, it's as if a switch has been turned on & before you know it, you can't keep your eyes open.

Now, i know that i'm not alone in this happening to me. So, i guess i can console myself with that. But, nevertheless, it is bloody annoying.

One of the worst aspects is that you end up reading the same page, or pages over & over again. You have to keep going back, trying to find the place, or page that you can actually remember reading. Another aspect, is that it obviously ends up taking far longer to read a book, which may well end up putting you off bothering next time around.

So, is reading in bed a bad idea?
I tend to think not. At least you are reading in the first place. Which can only be a good thing.
It's far better, in my opinion, than watching the TV.

So many people watch the TV in bed & use it as an aid to sleeping. For relaxation yes, but as an aid for sleeping? I've even heard people say that they need to have the TV on to actually get them off to sleep. Personally, that's one thing that i just don't understand.
Maybe, somebody can tell me why that is?

I fully intend to keep on reading. After all, i enjoy it too much to stop. But, maybe i should try & do it before i get into bed?
That way i might be able to fool my eyes into thinking it's actually alright for them to remain open.
At least for a while anyway.

Is It Worth It?

A "new" video i've just posted to YouTube.
This video is one of several i found on my computer, that had never been uploaded. I'm not sure why.
This video was recorded in July 2009. I decided to upload it now, as i felt it was still relevant.

Running Free - A Jog Blog.

I posted a blog the other day, "New Years Resolutions - Why?", all about, guess what, New Years resolutions & the fact that i don't make them. Amongst other observations.

One of the aspects of that i talked about, was how many people at this time of year will be thinking about getting fit, or at least trying to lose weight. That is one of the most popular New Years resolutions that i hear & it's the same every year.
I suppose this is only to be expected, after the excesses of the Christmas period.

What made me think of this again, was that this morning i went out for a run. It was my first run of the new year & the first of the new decade for that matter.
As i've mentioned before, either here, on in my vlogs on YouTube, i have been running for over twenty years now.

I first started running when i gave up smoking, which was rather ironically around the New Year of 1985/86. I had tried to give up smoking on a number of occasions before. But, had always started again. I was only what could be termed a "social smoker", but a smoker nonetheless. For example, i never smoked at work. Maybe, for this reason, i found it easier to give up?

I gave up smoking, more or less, on a whim. It wasn't planned at all. I just woke up on the morning of New Years Day in 1986 & never smoked again.
Well, you know how it is on New Years Day morning? The last thing you want is a cigarette! So, i didn't have one. This went on for a fair part of the day & suddenly i thought to myself "why not use this as an opportunity to try & give up smoking for good?"

As mentioned in that recent blog, i didn't tell anybody i was giving up, or at least trying to. I just did it quietly on my own.
For me, this was the best method & it's a method i've stuck with when i've ever wanted to change anything about myself ever since.

A friend of mine had decided to give up around the same time & he suggested that maybe we should try running? To help us get a bit fitter & also to help us combat the evil weed.
I can still remember that very first run & i'm pretty sure my friend can too!
As is usually the case, you never feel that you are actually as unfit as you really are. So, that first run, even though it was for only approx 20 miuntes, was not easy. But, then what did we expect?

We continued these runs for a while & then my friend decided that he was going to stop. I can't remember why.
I now had a decision to make. Do i stop, or do i carry on on my own? Thankfully, i decided to carry on. This was partly because i had come to realise that i was actually enjoying running.
I realise that i am quite lucky to feel this way. So many people i know, who do run, don't really enjoy it & find it a real chore. I am one of the lucky ones who loves to be out there, running free.

I carried on running, gradually increasing the distances, for a few months & then an opportunity to run a real race came up.
On Sunday, May 25th 1986, myself along with millions of others across the world, ran the world for Sport Aid, an offshoot of Band Aid & Live Aid. It was only a 10k "race", but it set the ball rolling for me, as far as running races was concerned.

Since that day, in May 1986, i have run 7 full marathons, including 4 London Marathons, 23 half marathons & many more races of varying distances.
Those races are something that i am very proud of, especially the marathons.

I tend not to run races nowadays & haven't run a full marathon for over 10 years now. I always have good intentions of running races, but those good intentions are usually as far as it goes.
I do still "tick over" as far as running is concerned. I don't run as much as i could, or probably should. But, i still enjoy it when i do & that's the main thing.

I often look back very favourably to that New Years day in 1986, when i decided to give up smoking & also to that day when i forced myself & my friend out of the front door, to go for that first, life changing, run.

I fully intend to keep on running free, for as long as my body, or my heart, will let me.
Here's hoping that will be for quite some time yet.

Death Of The Movie Star?

I saw a piece in my newspaper this morning about the new film "Avatar" & the fact that it is already on course to become one of the biggest grossing films of all time.

But, as with all of these blogs & indeed my vlogs, thinking about this article led me on to thinking about another aspect of the film business.

What do you actually call a motion picture these days? Is it a 'film", or is it a "movie"?
This is one of those questions that pops up in my head whenever i refer to a motion picture.

As you can see from the beginning of this blog, i've started off by saying "film". This is probably because i'm British & this is what we still tend to refer to a motion picture as. Even in these days of American culture seemingly taking over the world, the term "film" is still hanging on by it's fingertips in the UK.

But, what is the correct term & does it really matter anyway?
Well, for me at least, it does matter. I, like a lot of people, spend an increasing amount of time online & a lot of that time is spent conversing with people from the USA. Now, as i'm sure we all know, the Americans always refer to motion pictures as "movies".

So, where did the word "movie(s)" come from in the first place?
Well, according to Dictionary.com (a very valuable website & one i have to use far too often), as expected the word "movies" is a shortened form of "moving pictures". And according to the site, the word "movies" was first used in around 1912.

The word "film" can be used to describe the actual filming process itself, what the motion picture is recorded onto & also the finished product. Apart from several other unrelated definitions too.

So, i'm going to make a unilateral decision & say that, in future, we should just use the term "movie(s)" to save us all a lot of confusion & debate.
Just think how much shorter this blog post would have been, if i hadn't felt the need to clear this up first!

Anyway, on to the main feature. As they would say at the movies.

As i was saying, the movie Avatar has already grossed over $745 million, or £460 million. So, it is well on it's way to becoming only the fifth movie in history to gross over $1 billion.

There is nothing too remarkable about this, i suppose. Especially as the director of the movie, James Cameron, is resposible for highest grossing movie of all time, Titanic ($1.84 billion btw)

But, what is different about Avatar though, is that it's "stars" are all, with one exception, relative unknowns. The exception being Sigourney Weaver, who is hardly the biggest movie star in the world. Although she's still a fine actress in my opinion.

Apparently, James Cameron wanted to concentrate on getting the technology correct, to enable the movie to be shot in 3D. This, as you can imagine, cost a lot of money ($237 million) & probably didn't allow too much to be spent on signing up "A" List movie stars.

So, is this the beginning of the end for the "A" List movie star? After all, if a movie can become one of the biggest grossing of all time & without the draw of any of the big name stars, will this send a message to other directors & movie production studios?

Yes, i accept that the 3D aspect of Avatar is a big draw in itself & i know of several people who have seen the movie more than once, to enable them to see it in 3D. But, i also know of people who have been to see Avatar, more than once, for no other reason than that they thought it was brilliant.
But, nobody appears to have been put off going to see Avatar by the lack of big star names.

Too often these days, any new movie seems to be more about the star names involved & less about the actual movie itself. For, me at least, this can be a big turn off. I don't go to the movies to see a star name, i go to see what i hope will be a good movie.

We all have our favourite movie stars. Just as we all have our favourite authors, or musicians. But, we soon stop buying, reading, or listening when those favourites stop producing good material.
I think, with the movie industry in particular, there has been far too much substandard material produced over recent years. With far too much reliance on big star names to try & attract us to go & see that substandard material.

Maybe another aspect of this is the actual cost of making a movie, when you have to pay top dollar to get an "A" List star, or stars to sign up?.
Avatar cost $237 million to film, without any of those big star names. Would that movie ever have been made if it was felt a big star name was needed? Could the cost of have justified? Or, would the production values have been lessened by the need to pay top dollar for that star name, or names?

Hopefully, in my view anyway, the huge success of Avatar, which i haven't seen by the way, will make movie makers sit up & take stock.
Maybe now is the time to start concentrating on original story lines & production values, rather than on those big star names? Or, on sequels & tired remakes?
Or, maybe, in these credit crunch times, the big movie stars will have to take a pay cut?

I don't expect many people will moan about that?

New Year Resolutions - Why?

It's that time of year again.
That time of year when everybody is busy making New Years resolutions. Resolutions that they will be determined to keep. But, which will probably be broken within a week, if they're lucky!

You know the kind of thing:
I will get fit, lose weight, stop smoking, read more, cut down on my drinking etc etc.

So, why do people make these resolutions in the first place?
My own theory is that most people make them because they feel that they should do so. There is almost an obligation to make those resolutions these days. After all, everybody else seems to be doing it, so why not me?

Maybe because i seem to have an inbuilt rebellious streak, i refuse to make New Years resolutions? But, not just because i don't wish to be told what to do. I also feel that for the vast majority of people, these resolutions don't really have much benefit.

As i commented to somebody on a YouTube video the other day. A video spelling out this persons own New Years resolutions by the way. Why wait for the New Year to try & change your life in some meaningful way? Surely, if something needs to change in your life, you should be making that change straight away?

We all need to re-evaluate aspects of our lives. But, this should be done all year round.
A resolution is for life, not just for the New Year.

As with most things in life, if you feel forced to do something, you will probably not carry it out. For something to work, so have to want to do it. Whether that be getting fit, or quitting smoking. If you are happy with the way you are, why change? Especially if it's just to please somebody else.
Of course, if there is a health issue involved & that person telling you to change is your Doctor. I suggest you listen!

I make resolutions all the time. But, i make them to myself.
Keeping them personal reduces the amount of pressure that you put on yourself to carry them through.
For example, when i stopped smoking, over 20 years ago now, i didn't tell anybody of my intentions. I just did it. That way, i didn't have people constantly talking to me about quitting smoking & asking how it was going.
You'd be amazed how much of a difference that can make to your resolutions success.

So, if you make one New Years resolution this year. Keep it to yourself, please.