Tuesday, December 5  
7:26 PM : :
it's a text, text world. i have to rant here, because it bothers me so much. cell phones used as major plot devices in movies; totally ridiculous. in collateral, one of the (many) reasons i hated it so much was that at the climax of the film, jamie foxx is in a bad situation because his cell phone has no reception. his "bars are low." wait, you're telling me that the drama from this scene hinges on whether or not jamie can get reception? wow, exciting.

also, in the departed, texting plays a major part in the script. in the latest example that irks me so, casino royale, we see more shots of text messages than we do of the villain in question.

now, i love text messaging as much as the next guy -- i have unlimited texting, which is a godsend -- but i do not love the way text messaging and cell phones are incorporated into movies. i understand how difficult it can be to plot movies given our ultra-convenient and near-instant communication nowadays; many of our best dramatic moments -- in film, literature, real life -- are due to not being able to find somebody when we need them.

however, it's just lazy to use texts to convey critical plot points. would major drug dealers really rely on text messaging to confirm details and to provide security passwords? text messaging is a totally insecure method of communication and it's wholly unreliable. how many of you would trust your service provider with your once in a lifetime drug deal? not me.

the caveat here is that if drug dealers and criminals really did rely on text messaging and rock-steady reception to conduct their business, then i'd switch over to whatever service provider they relied on. "verizon: trusted by careerr criminals everywhere." sold.

if movie writers are going to use cell phones as an exposition crutch, then why not just give assume telepathy so we don't have to waste screen time showing cell phones ringing and texts being checked? telepathy is just as believable as consistent worldwide coverage isn't it?

it gets even worse when a character has been relying on his mobile phone the entire film and then suddenly the writers realize that having a phone would eliminate their "cool" dilemma. then we're forced to believe some inane reason for why the cell phone doesn't work -- or even worse, they forgot the phone at home. i can count on one hand the number of times i've left my sidekick at home, and i'm not a super hero, movie villain, financial hotshot, or drug dealer.

cell phones in movies, what do to, what to do?

Labels:




Monday, September 25  
10:20 PM : :
other people's money. so i've taken a job. the loan consultant one. i've already undergone one week of training, two more to go. no crazy hours yet, just shock at how wholly unprepared some of my potential employees are. out of an initial class of twelve temps, we're already down to seven. keep in mind, they've already done an online skills test and an interview. in fact, the interview experience i had with this company took a little over two hours. some of that was waiting in a small room by myself but most of it was spent talking to three different representatives of the company. the job itself is as entry level as it gets and here they are, spending lots of man power hiring temps.

when they offered basic arithmetic questions (subtracting, adding, multiplication) on the online assessment, i was curious why they needed it. i mean, the test was open book, who can't use a calculator correctly? well, now i know who can't. not to knock anyone's intelligence or general education level but when you can't do basic math and are easily confused by the simplest of addition problems, that's probably not a good sign. keep in mind, we're to advise people on mortgage loans -- usually teh biggest financial commitment in someone's life. on one test my neighbor asked me what i had for my answer. and then she asked "what is that you did there?" um, long division?

nice people though.

Labels: