The blog of a Sci-Fi Geek

Sat 2 January , 10

The Films of 2009

Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , , — SFG @ 17:36

For those not familiar with the concept, I keep track of all the films I watch (I’ve been doing this since 2006) on a monthly basis over the course of the year, just so I can post the list up on my blog at the end of December. Due to personal circumstances I’m a little late with the post.

After starting to give the films ratings in 2008 I carried on this tradition in ’09 but life events got in the way and due to my mood in the second half of the year I decided to not rate those films, because I’d probably be under rating the films, and I didn’t want to unfairly judge films that I more than likely enjoyed. So the first half of the hear has ratings, the second doesn’t.

Highlights of the past year include Watchmen, In Bruges, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
Lowlights included Southland Tales and Star Trek
Special mention goes to Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus and Where the Wild Things Are.

June and July have been lumped together because I totally lost track of when one month ended and when the other started, so there’s no solid line I can draw between those two months.

I said last year that I’d like to watch more sci-fi pictures as well as see more films at the pictures. I think both those two comments can be rolled over to 2010 though I don’t think I’ll have the money to see more at the pictures, but I’d certainly like to see more science fiction films this year than I did in previous years.

Follow the link below to get to the film listings for 2008.
Happy New Year to all my readers.



Thu 3 December , 09

Patently Crazy(?)

Filed under: 1051 — SFG @ 08:34

Let’s get the definition out of the way first, shall we?

noun |ˈpat(ə)nt| |ˈpeɪt-|
1 a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention

Right then, with that in mind I would now like you to read this article.

So what exactly is it that the patent covers?
In the film it’s a bit of paper that’s found in an unearthed time capsule that contains numbers. These numbers are then analysed and found to be of historical significance.

So, I’m guessing that for this patent to actually be used as grounds for suing then it must cover the writing down of numbers on a bit of paper.
I’m sorry, when did that become grounds for suing? I’m pretty sure there’s at least one or two examples of prior art concerning the use of written numbers on a bit of paper.

I’m sure the people that got the patent granted to them did so on sound knowledge and principles of originality *cough* but come on!
For crying out loud, everyone from mathmaticians to bingo players would have to be sued to uphold the rights of this particular patent holder.

I’m all for the intellectual property of originators to be upheld if proper infringing of those rights has taken place, but I really do hope that this case gets laughed out of court.

Sun 15 November , 09


Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , , , , , , — SFG @ 15:59

This article prompted my thoughts on this film.

It’s one of those occasions where you have to assess what you want to do beforehand.
Do you want to believe the hype and go and see it on that basis.
Do you want to go and see another James Cameron film, where the acting is okay at best, the effects and world realisation are second-to-none and the script is bilge.
Do you want to go and see a saccharine love story, the likes of which you’ve already seen hundreds of times anyway.
Do you want to go and see the most expensive film ever made just so you can, many years from now, say that you saw the film in the cinema.
Do you want to go and see a film that could quite possibly sink a major Hollywood studio.
Do you want to go and see a film that could, quite possibly just blow your mind.

I’m sure there’s also other reasons you may want to go and see it for as well.

I’ve tried to avoid all of the marketing hype surrounding this film.
I caught a very early teaser trailer for it, and I’ve seen nothing else of it. This article was the first one I’d read about the film for years, and I’ll likely not read any more until the film comes out.
I’ll probably go to the pictures and see the film, but not in it’s opening week, as the marketing buzz will be driving hordes of people to go and see it during that time.

I have no expectations of this film but I’ll post back with my views once I’ve seen it.

Fri 2 October , 09


Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , — SFG @ 07:55

Judges have overturned a legal ban on science fiction fans naming their son ‘Q’ after their favourite Star Trek character.

John De Lancie as Q in Star Trek : TNG

John De Lancie as Q in Star Trek : TNG

The parents, from Jamtland, Sweden, appealed to the Swedish Supreme Court after two previous hearings upheld a court order saying the name could cause the boy “mental anguish”.
Appeal judges have now lifted the ban saying there was no proof the boy – now nearly one year old – would suffer because of the name.
Dad Rickard Rehnberg said: “He’s been called Q almost since day one. He listens to the name and can actually say his own name.
“He is a unique child and we thought he should have a unique name.”

Original story : Ananova

Sat 19 September , 09

100 Top Sci-Fi Films

Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , , , , , — SFG @ 08:18

I’m looking for submissions to help compile my personal top 100.
I already have a long list of films to sort through, some of which won’t make the cut, but I’ve found it tough to come up with all the sci-fi films I’ve ever seen, so I’m looking for submissions to see if (a) there’s any I don’t already have in my list and (b) if there’s any good suggestions made that I haven’t yet seen so I can try and hunt them down and watch them before the list gets compiled.

I’m not just looking for Hollywood sci-fi either, U.K., European, Russian, Hong Kong … in fact any film that you think is seriously worthy of being in a top 100 I’m willing to accept as a valid submission.

The genesis for this idea came from another top 100 films that I’ve been following all this past week being published by Anthony Quinn of The Independent.

Click the link below to see a list of titles that I’ve already compiled and to see if you can think of any films that I don’t already have.
Please leave any title/s in the comments that you think worthy of inclusion that I’ve overlooked.


Mon 8 June , 09

Terrorism Act & Photography

Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , , , , — SFG @ 09:50

A document by the National Policing Improvement Agency gives guidance to police officers accross the UK.

“The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital
images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not
prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is
prevented by other legislation.”
“If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist
reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the TerrorismAct 2000 or an arrest should be
“Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them.”
“Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device
on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.”

Further more The Metropolitan Police have issued a tactical review of procedures of section 44 of the Terrorism act.

Mon 1 December , 08

Nikon D3x

Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , , , — SFG @ 19:23

The rumours and speculation had been circulating for a while. Originally rumoured to have an anouncement on the 20th of November, that date was pushed back to the 1st of December, and today Nikon deivered.

The much rumoured D3x is here, in all it’s 24.5 megapixel glory. It’s not all about the big numbers though. ISO is down from the D3, as is the maximum FPS – which isn’t really a surprise given the amount of data that has to be written for each file.

There’s also no mention of the anti-dust mechanism being present in this camera either, which is a bit of a big ommission. I think the D3x is being aimed at the studio photographer, but as a mate of mine observed, “why deliberately limit your camera’s appeal?”. I can see their point.

For all intents and purposes this is simply a D3 with a beefed-up image sesor and a couple more bells and whistles. It’s not so much an upgrade to the D3 as it is a complimentary stable mate.
After a year of owning it, I’m still very happy with my D3.
There’s nothing in the release of the D3x which makes me want one.

For some of the specs on the D3x and sample images click the link …


Sat 28 June , 08

Car Accident

Filed under: 1051 — Tags: , , , — SFG @ 14:21

I think I need a new car. (8+(

Yesterday morning, about 11:30 I was driving in the right-hand lane on a dual-carriage way and someone in the left-hand lane driving a truck decided to change lanes without looking in their mirror.
Side-swiped me and spun me 180º.

I was taken from the scene to hospital where I stayed strapped to a spinal board with a neck brace for 5 hours while they took many X-rays of my skull, neck and spine. The first 3.5 hours of that stay I simply could not stop myself from shaking. After being released, I now have a gash on the back of my head, sore legs and back and a very sore neck.

I was hoping to speak with the the police officer in charge of my case today, but she’s not back on duty until 10pm on Monday, I’ll know more specifics then, but all I know at the moment is the other driver is foreign *shrug*.
I called the recovery company and asked if I can get personal belongings from the car, which they said was okay. I took my camera along to get images of the damage.
It’s not a pretty sight.
The damage I ascertained in my very shaken-up condition whilst still at the scene of the accident was …
Rear bumper half hanging off
Driver door jammed and window shattered (because my head hit it)
Windscreen broken, but not shattered
Passenger door pretty much wrecked
The actual damage can be seen in the images at the foot of this post.

Yesterday I was really hoping that it wasn’t beyond economic repair.
Today, after assessing the damage, I’m not so hopeful.
I’m also hoping that the driver of the truck doesn’t claim I was in the wrong, because I’m not.
We shall see.

Passenger Door Damage Interior Destruction Driver Side - From Rear Driver Side - From Front

I have informed work that I will not be going in for the next week and I have an appointment booked with my GP on Wednesday afternoon.

I’m going for a rest now.

Blog at