iSphere

Apple is damn clever. They used a relatively small idea and turned it into another marketing feature for their massively popular iPod range. I tried podcasting - I hated podcsasting. Podcasting more than anything else, is extremely clunkuy. You have to download the content, then upload to iPod. It's far easier to receive the latest news through the radio or TV or even the net which is so easily available everywhere.

I, however, must give credit to Apple over the content. Many sites including some great blog sites have weekly and/or daily podcasts with some extremely good content. It is really impressive. But unfortunately as I wrote earlier, its near impossible logistically. So I just listen to all the podcasts on the computer.

Podcasts - good for one thing - not good for the intended purpose.

This picture represents my life-long relationship with Garfield the most wonderful, SADistic, nihilistic, sardonic, ethereal, egalatarian CAT I've ever known. As a kid I used to have heaps of his cartoons in the form of books, along the way they got lost. I never cut the cartoons out of the paper (unlike Alexa) - I so wish I did though - when I'm 60 they would be worth a fortune.

Well anyway the point of this was to tell all of you that you can purchase Garfield comics from most bookshops in the form of either Sunday-Strip compendiums, treasuries or FAT-CAT Three Packs - the last option is definitely the most value for your dollar and I bought two of them myself. If of course, you don't want to shell out cash to catch your favourite cat in action Garfield.com is a great site. It has every single Garfield strip since 1978 for your viewing pleasure.

Check them out - the CAT is BACK.

Have you noticed the quality of newspapers, TV news and radio news recently? It's appalling. Other than the a few exceptions (notably the wonderful NY Times), the quality of articles on newspapers as well as the news they are reporting are extremely sub- standard. Most broad sheets are lowering themselves to a standard that the so called tabloids exhibit. Take a look at the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald - it has the world changing news about Tom Cruise and his affair with some other actress, take a look at the Australian - who cares about Brad Pitt and his 50th marriage? I certainly don't and I'm sure my opinion is a reflection of thousands of other men and women. In fact good broadsheets are becoming so rare that the art of reading a fully opened broadsheet is slowly becoming extinct.

Articles have also been dipping in standard - the Good Weekend was once a good refreshment on the weekend with some insightful articles and interviews, its now advertisment fodder. It's not matter of truth distortion (ala Frontline) it's a matter of delivering quality news, quality editorials and having something called quality control.

I've noticed in the past 10years TV 6:00pm news has pitiful. Back in 1996 the news used to have a length of 20mins, followed by about 7 or 8 for sport then 2 or 3 for weather and the quirky fact of the day. In 2003 I saw Channel 7 news which lasted for 10mins - had 18 devoted to sport and then 2 mins to weather. From that day I have stopped watching TV news (indeed I have stopped watching TV altogether). ABC and SBS seem intent on delivering something - ABC is too politicised for my liking and SBS has its priorities all mixed up. As far as cable news is concerned BBC and CNN are quite good - FOX news is perhaps the single worst channel airing "George Bush has made a wise decision in not signing the kyoto protocol" is a quote i always remember from that horrid channel.

Radio news is far too commercialised for my liking and the radio reports that often air are so pitiful that major world events often turn into jokes about Howard's eyebrows.

In times like these I wonder how to be informed on major world events, get proffesional opinions, enjoy reading world class editorials and be enlightened on a day to day basis - the number of publications offering such facilites are dwindling but still we have hope - as long as The New York Times exists there might even be some proper reporting. (gasp).

After watching War of the Worlds and also Godfather so many times, it dawns upon me whether sometimes the novels on which many films are based are actually out done by these films. Take War of the Worlds for example - the film is just as chilling as the novel, is appropriate for a modern audience, is exciting and the outcome just as vague. While Well's version attacked the British Empire and its effect on various countries throughout the world - Spielberg's version is very much a recreation of the Holocaust if one looks deeply. On top of that of course, the version has sprinklings of terrorism and parenting. If anything the 2005 film is more powerful, relentless and acceptable.

While I haven't seen it, Jaws is also derived from a book and judging by critical and popular response to the film, it is an extremely well made and more importantly effective thriller. Having Spielberg at the helm does help in taking a good book and transforming into a superlative film - and Spielberg did just that in the 1993 Motion Picture (which can now unanimously inducted into the annals of cinematic legacy) - Schindler's List. The film is an extraordinary piece of movie making and once again it seems to overpower the prexisting novel in every possible way.

Mario Puzo crafted a rather poignant tale of the machinations of a Mafia don's family - only to see his work transformed into a cinematic event that is perhaps another candidate for cinematic legacy. With its innovating camera work, powerhouse performances and a rather wonderful musical score; The Godfather is another example where a novel has been appropriate into a film which in most aspects outshines the original. In fact the film was so good that the sequels on the film were impressive as well.

Even films like Orson Welles' Macbeth and Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood as well as Ran seem to be even more powerful than their original written texts. This is no easy feat considering the originals were penned by the bard himself - Shakespeare. Is cinema then a greater medium? Critics will argue that many of the finer nuances of a character are not adequately depicted in films and much of the imaginative essence of a novel or novella is a lacking in a film adaptation, this may be true but who can question the visual poetry Kurosawa employs in Ran - it dwarfs the iambic pentameter of King Lear.

Peter Jackson's rendition of The Lord of the Rings are however a case for the opposite. The filming is visceral and wonderful - even epic - but the characters suffer. In search of visual splendour Jackson forgets the inner dealings of his protagonists - so much so that by the third film in the series - more importance is given to the CG effects than is given to the pedestal on which the story holds - the plethora of characters. Kurosawa is perhaps the only man to have mastered both worlds, in Ran he as stated pours out "visual poetry" but his characters are never one dimensional, the acting never artificial and the story never weak - something that can't be said about LOTR.

While some films are more appropriate, visceral and beautiful (case in point Ran) others are just lavish. The greatest dervied films are the ones which adhere to the novel or novella, carve out meaty characters and all the while enhance the audience's appreciation by employing innovative cinematic techniques - only a handful have done all of these. I have listed and analysed only some - there are plenty more to research. Ultimately its a matter of personal choice - but no one can deny the quality of such films or their contribution to society. They stand as masterpieces on their own.