Junyo

Member since: Oct 30th, 2005

Junyo's Latest Comments

Blog Activity

Blog	# of Comments
Autoblog	3 Comments
Card Squad	1 Comment
Joystiq	1 Comment
Gadling	2 Comments
Engadget	11 Comments
AOL TV	40 Comments
Cinematical	7 Comments
Download Squad	7 Comments
Joystiq Xbox	1 Comment

Recent Comments:

Mozy kills unlimited backup, time to take matters into your own hands (Download Squad)

Feb 1st 2011 9:39AM Stuck a junk PC at my friend's house, running autorsync on Gbridge to an external. Get's my backup's offsite like a cloud service, but if something catastrophic happens, can have my backups in hours, rather than the days it would take to download a significant amount of data.

'Stargate: Universe' Cancellation Puts Kibosh on 'Atlantis' Film (AOL TV)

Dec 30th 2010 7:18PM Just when you thought SGU couldn't suck any worse, it's actually created it's own suck well, that's pulling in other programs.

Monday Night Poll: Where Did 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' Go Wrong? (Cinematical)

Aug 17th 2010 12:04AM "Seemed to be aimed at a niche audience"

I saw it with my fiancée, and while I loved it, she was bored and confused. The video game/manga/super hero movie shorthand that the movie relies on for a lot of it's storytelling was lost on someone who actually saw real daylight in high school. Which is a shame because it is a really smart movie precisely because, unlike a lot of movies that assume the audience is stupid and dumb down the story or bog it down with constant exposition, Pilgrim assumes that you already understand this world or can catch up, that you understand why it makes perfect sense that enemies die, consequence-free, in a shower of coins.

Google outlaws Windows, but what if Microsoft outlaws Google...? (Download Squad)

Jun 1st 2010 10:38AM "Crying "IE8/Win7 are more secure!" is irrelevant -- they were not secure enough."

If they are MORE SECURE than the platform that Google is moving to, then logically they pretty much are.

You comment makes about as much sense as if you were to say "I'm selling my 1978 Chevy Vega and buying a 2010 Jeep Wrangler because I want something with more safety features...", having me reply that a 2010 Chevy Equinox is probably an even safer car, and than have you respond with "But it's not safe enough."

Review: White Collar - Free Fall (AOL TV)

Dec 6th 2009 1:12PM Two words; Fake Burke.

Review: Stargate Universe - Justice (AOL TV)

Dec 5th 2009 1:02PM ...and this is the problem with the show. Actions of the crew are clearly designed to manufacture "drama" and "tension", which doesn't work for a scifi program. It works for a soap opera, and since they're obviously following in the footsteps of BSG, itself an overwrought soap opera, presumably that's what they're going for. But it makes the show face-palmingly unbelievable, and thus prevents any real level of suspension of disbelief. Suspension generally requires the character's actions to be believable and reasonable, despite or within their odd or fantastic circumstances.

Young picked an amazingly stupid course of action, a course which virtually no reasonable, rational, moderately intelligent person would have chosen. Of course, Young seems to think the solution to a lot of issues is punching someone. Baltar.... oops, I mean Rush... is the foremost expert on the tech of the vessel upon which you and the people under your charge depend. And you basically decide to summarily execute him because of insubordination. An egregious case of it, but still. And even if that seemed like a reasonable plan, there's the issue of the crew not knowing. To their minds, there's still a person who tried to frame the captain on board, since no one bothered to clear that up. Distrust, dissension, etc. Also, when Rush inevitably gets back aboard (and you know he will), the whole "crew can't trust the Captain because he might have killed a crew member" vibe (you remember, the one Young absolutely wanted to avoid) will be completely validated. So even if you were going to kill him:
a) Just kill him. Bullet in the face, done. You have to have seen at least one Bond movie in your life Young.
b) Wait until the heat's off.

Video of the suicide and Rush lifting the gun. Kino over the hill, taping the confession. Get back aboard, show to crew. Crew ostracizes Baltar.... dammit, Rush, I meant Rush... even more, captain completely vindicated, no lingering doubts about his judgement; power struggle between him and Rush, him and IOA, over. Rush is restricted to quarters and work station, under armed escort at all times when he's not in his quarters. That's what a reasonable person would have done.

Don't even get me started on the black hole of stereotypes that is Greer. I'll take menacing black thug, with a side of gruff NCO, and a helping of loves him some sweet potato.

God, why do I subject myself to this show?

The new Star Trek flick has started a Trekkie civil war (AOL TV)

May 10th 2009 6:15PM Let's call a spade a spade. "Reboots" aren't about storytelling, or revitalizing a stagnent series. They're about marketing, plain and simple. Abrams could've made the same movie as an original story, and it would have been just as good, and just as fun, and had no plot issues to deal with. But what he did was piggyback his story on the characters and universe that Rodenberry created to enhance his audience. Now that's understandable. But it's also understandable that the fans of Rodenberry's original vision might be somewhat pissed that the story and characters that they came to love were appropriated, gutted and discarded to sell tickets. One of the prime draws of the Star Trek canon is it's consistency; once you suspend belief and accept certain Trek "facts" the story is internally consistent, and what's made it verge toward science fiction versus fantasy. To abridge the entire timeline, the entire story, with such a cheap plot device like time travel is insulting; might as well just be magic. If you couldn't tell the story within the existing framework, don't tell the story.

Well I have to go now, and get back to work on my screenplay for Titanic 2. Don't want to give to much away but what if the Titanic was actually a submarine in search of Nazi gold?

Fringe: The Road Not Taken (AOL TV)

May 6th 2009 9:50AM Yep, Clint Howard, Ron's brother. Which of course is cool, because Clint was on Star Trek as a kid ("The Corbomite Maneuver" episode), and because Nimoy will be ojn the show.

It was a decent episode. I don't think the "dimension shifting" would be massively disorienting, at least at first, because you'd dismiss it as having seen it wrong, or daydreaming or some such until it happened a few times; I think that aspect was portrayed perfectly. I think Harris, doing an experimented which separated him from a person he was hoping could project fire by a short distance and a piece of clear glass, was kind of stupid. Looking forward to seeing how the Bell connection develops.

Janet Jackson's breast is costing me money (AOL TV)

May 6th 2009 12:39AM All the people posting "what's the big deal about a breast" are missing the point that it's not your kid, and therefore your judgement as to what is or isn't a big deal asically doesn't mean beans. If you don't want their values imposed upon you, then you can't turn around and insist that they adopt your values.

Seeing the breast isn't the issue. Not being given the choice as to whether you wanted to is. If viewers had been allowed to make an informed choice - "this sporting event may contain nudity and awful music" - then anybody complaining can STFU. But the fact is, the surprise represented someone imposing their moral judgment and values upon millions of households without any warning or consent. If a Christian group hijacked the public airways in the middle of "Family Guy" I doubt it would be cavalierly dismissed with a "what's so awful about hearing about Jesus". And it shouldn't be. Insuring that citizens don't violate the rights of other citizens is pretty much a cut and dry governmental function, the government has a vested interest in making sure this sort of thing doesn't happen via a state regulated media. Which means this is one of the few things the government has done is recent memory that actually is a legitimate use of tax dollars.

Tribeca Review: Outrage (Cinematical)

Apr 27th 2009 5:16PM It seems funny or odd that one's sexual identity is assumed as the sole legitimate arbiter of one's political outlook. If a gay person chose to not disclose their sexual identity that seems to be their business. And as the elected representative of a group of people, their vote should reflect the sensibilities of their constituents. So it would seem entirely logical (and proper) that a person should vote against their own personal interest in the service of their responsibility. We wouldn't (and don't) accept that since a politician is rich, he's justified in only holding viewpoints beneficial to other rich people. So why do we assume that a gay politician can ignore the concerns of the non-gay community?

Further, it's far from certain that the behavior is even "hypocritical". It's entirely possible to simultaneously hold the views that:
a) Anonymous man sex in an airport bathroom is great.
b) Allowing two men to get married is not.
You can argue that those viewpoints are wrong, but they're logically independent. I'm hetero, and think sex with 2 women is great; doesn't mean I support polygamy. Now, if a person caught engaging in bathroom man sex had supported a law against bathroom man-sex, or man-sex in general, that would be one thing, because they'd be attempting to deny others a right they claim(ed) for themselves. But that's not really in evidence here. We merely have a couple of people who's personal lives didn't jibe with their political outlook in an expected or popular fashion, and who tried to keep them separate. It seems a rather limited outlook; you're gay therefore your opinions are fixed and immutable.