Television Aerial Installation, Get the Answer to Your Poor TV Reception

There are still a great number of households nowadays who haven't been upgrading or switching to a more advanced TV watching. They are certainly being contented with what they currently have.

But do you know that there is an easier way for you to enjoy television watching and staying away from poor TV reception on your TV set?

Getting a new improved television aerial installation is one great solution in having a clearer TV picture. You only have to choose from the variety of TV aerials and see which one works for your location.

In most cases, you are getting contented on the kind of TV reception. But if all the chances are there to improve it, then why not make a difference now.

In making a start, you initially need to look for a TV aerial installation company that can make the proper assessment of your aerial installation needs.

Since there are many options when it comes to the kind of TV aerial that can be used, you need to have someone to check which one will work for you.

If you currently have an existing aerial that you used at home, then you may only need to get some upgrade. There will be no new aerial installation needed, just a simple upgrade will do.

Depending on the location that you are at, there will be a certain television aerial that would work. Thus, getting the help of the expert to make a preliminary survey of your area is a better idea.

It is never too late to get the answer to your TV reception problems. You can always get a solution from the right people and company around you.

You just have to go along with the latest technological advancements if you want to enjoy your TV watching most. And getting the right television aerial installation is what you need to do.

Keep in mind as well, that you only need to seek the help of the proficient television aerial company. It is the only way to have the best assistance you want.

Make up your mind now. You can get the right answer to your poor TV reception needs today. Be ahead of the TV aerial advancements coming in the next few years.

With a little effort and a small amount of money that you have to spend, you will get the best TV reception and enjoy your TV watching the most. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

JJ Abrams' Lost Revolution

There may not have been a more compelling pilot on television than the initial episode of JJ Abrams' Lost. The first scenes of the airline disaster, played over and over from the points of view of the different characters, demonstrated the incredible tapestry of interwoven lives and connections at that single moment in time, and foreshadowed the way in which, throughout the series, the larger island story would be told.

Lost was simply made for DVR and internet technology as fans searched for and found connections left behind for them by the writers and directors. You did not just watch the show. You participated in it by scanning the background for information or comparing dialogue. Every episode was a source of clues in a world-wide puzzle contest.

I fear that Abram's newest offering, Revolution, created by Eric Kripke and currently on Monday nights on NBC, may suffer a similar activity for just the opposite reason. Revolution presents us with an alternate reality. The initial moments of the pilot episode jerk us immediately from the world in which we live, into a pre-Thomas Edison existence in which items using electricity have been rendered useless. Cars, planes, lights, televisions, computers - all of it fades to darkness. Then, after a pause to sell us car insurance or whatever, the story advances 15 years into the future. The United States government has fallen. Strong arm militia groups vie for control of their little piece of the country side. What population that has not killed itself trying to stay alive has huddled together in little xenophobic groups spattered about the countryside.

On the island in Lost, everything about the story could be controlled by the writers. Want a smoke monster? No problem. Want time travel? No problem. Move the entire island? Again no problem, because the framework of the laws associated with the island were entirely in the minds of the writers to be revealed, as needed, to the audience. We accepted the premise that we did not have complete information about the island so we allowed the story to take us where normally we would refuse to go.

Great pains have been taken in the first episodes of Revolution to inform the audience that the setting of the story begins, near our own time, in the United States of America - mostly in and around Chicago, Illinois. We see shots of a rundown Wrigley Field and Michigan Avenue as our heroes trek from an equally dismal and overgrown O'Hare airport.

And therein lies the problem. We know things about this world that the writers apparently do not. We see a small stockade in a suburban cul-de-sac with a few gardens of corn surrounded by countryside gone wild and we think, "What are these people eating?" I don't care if there is no electricity, 15 years implies that they might just have learned a little something about survival.

If they are resorting to being hunter-gatherers, then the little group would not be in permanent dwellings. Permanent dwellings imply food production and we do see some little gardens planted with corn. Now corn may indeed currently be the most significant crop in the country but, as Scientific American blogger Melissa C. Lott points out in this post from October 2011, only 20 percent of all the corn produced in the US is for human consumption, a quarter of which is for highly processed syrup. The other 80 percent is split between livestock feed and ethanol production. Besides, according to the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory, as a staple, corn is a poorer cousin to wheat, containing less protein and fewer minerals. And considering we see no livestock, why do we see so much corn in the food supply?

Or should I say so little. In 1862, Congress passed the Homestead Act, giving an individual 160 acres of land as long as he lived on, and improved the property for five years. Much of the middle portion of our nation between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains was placed under cultivation, to varying degrees of success, by men and animals plowing up these 160 acre tracts, all done without electricity. By all rights then, the little outpost we see at the end of the cul-de-sac should have been surrounded by 800-1000 acres of wheat, corn and livestock.

Then, just as in 1862, trains, with steam engines, using no electricity, could collect those crops and bring them to feed hungry people in the cities. And finally, between 1861 and 1865, the United States government transported hundreds of thousands of soldiers along rail lines, using steam locomotives to wage war and defeat a civil uprising, mostly without the use of the emerging electric telegraph. And let's take a close look at some of the equipment used to defeat that uprising. The catalyst for the action in Revolution is the death of Ben Matheson, the father of "Charlie" who is the heroine of the story. Ben is shot by a muzzle-loading rifle in an encounter with a local warlord's militia. The muzzle- loader appears to be standard issue amongst the soldiers. Assuming that the equipment of the militia represents the highest average available technology, it represents yet another serious failure of the eye-test of plausibility.

The modern muzzle-loader looks nothing like the guns Fess Parker carried playing Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket on television. But on Revolution, Monroe the warlord's soldiers appear to be carrying a weapon that looks very much like a Model 1842 Springfield caplock musket.

Why? What prevents the militia from all carrying a modern firearm? The caplock has all the component parts of a modern rifle. Earlier flintlock muskets used a flint and steel combination to ignite a small portion of powder which, in turn, ignited the gunpowder within the chamber forcing the bullet down the barrel and on to the target. But the caplock improved on that design, replacing the awkward flint and steel combination with a nipple that held a small cap containing fulminate of mercury. Yes, the caplock was a cap gun. The hammer struck the cap and the cap ignited the powder and shot the bullet. The process of firing this weapon uses up bullets, gunpowder and caps. A flintlock would use up bullets, powder and eventually, flints, which being rocks, are pretty readily available.

Creating caps, or primers, requires a chemical process involving the metals mercury or silver, combined with nitric acid, and in a technically reduced society it might make sense that they become scarce enough to force the flintlock's return as the typical firearm. However, the appearance of caplocks, not flintlocks, on the show, implies that there exist adequate supplies of gunpowder, bullets and caps.

So what is missing from a caplock that is contained in a modern firearm? Oddly enough, the only difference of consequence is the cartridge. Every muzzle loader takes the three individual component pieces - bullet, propellant (gunpowder), and ignition (cap or flint and steel) and places them together within the weapon. The brass cartridge brings the bullet, the propellant and the ignition primer together and holds them in readiness, separate from the weapon itself. When the cartridge is placed in the chamber and the gun is fired, the action which occurs at that time is essentially identical to the caplock, destroying the component pieces and leaving the empty casing.

But ironically, this is what the writers of Revolution have missed. The key item that has brought technology backward to the caplock in the story is in fact, the one item that is actually recyclable. Clean it up, replace the primer, pour in powder, press on a new bullet and you are ready to fire again. Technology has made the process easier certainly, but the lack of technology does not make it impossible, or even difficult.

And these are only a couple of problematic background points. What is being used for currency at the bar the group visits in Chicago? Where does the sugar come from for the bar's whiskey making operation? The list just keeps growing.

There are many good, alternate history stories where the authors seem to have actually done a little research. And when we read Harry Turtledove, or Orson Scott Card, we are swept along for the ride, amazed at the small moments in time that result in major swings of history's pendulum. Abrams and Kripke have failed to sweep us along with Revolution. Their blatant disregard for reality is overwhelming any possible chance for their story to become compelling.

My prime reason to watch, after the first ten minutes, was simply to find fault with it. What might have been another Lost is just lost. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Blame It On The Movie

A couple of months ago after watching a rather strange, yet superb offering from Greek cinema titled 'Dogtooth'; I decided to browse the IMDb website to see what other people thought of the film. Eventually I came across a thread on the message board which was discussing disturbing films; being a dedicated follower of controversial cinema I read on and found that a number of people had mentioned a film called Murder Set Pieces and so, after reading how 'horrific', 'sick' and 'extreme' this film was supposed to be, I added it to my 'LoveFilm' rental list!

A few days later, I was on the 'LoveFilm' website checking to see which films I was waiting for, when I noticed that amongst someone's review for Murder Set Pieces were the words 'You won't get to watch this film, as it's banned in the UK and cut by 20 minutes in the US' in big, bold lettering. Highly irritated, I decided to check whether there was any truth in this and after some research, I discovered that the film was in fact rejected by the BBFC in 2008, thus making it illegal to supply the film in the UK. Apparently, this was a film that in the BBFC's words 'may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification' something which is apparently 'reflected in research and consistent with public opinion'. And which members of the public might they be exactly?

This was not the first time that I, a grown woman, was being told what I could and couldn't watch (two summers ago I had planned to watch A Serbian Film at Frightfest, until it was pulled due to BBFC cuts). Apparently I am responsible enough to vote, have a mortgage and supervise a classroom full of children, but when it comes to planning my Sunday night in front of the TV, I am far too stupid to be left to my own devices and clearly need some assistance. Why was it that as a university educated adult, with the ability to make financial, political and religious decisions, I was having my viewing habits dictated by people who had never met me, knew nothing about me, yet chose to lump me under the term of 'the general public'? It was because my choice of films were those that fell into the category of movies which had the potential to harm- now I was always under the impression that it was humans who harmed other humans? I don't ever remember a case of a person being bludgeoned to death by an axe wielding video cassette!
Yet the concept of the media having a harmful and corrupting effect on the general public is nothing new. In the past we have seen a whole host of films, computer games and songs demonised because it was thought they had some influence on a particular crime. In the 1970s it was reported that gangs of teenagers dressed as 'Droogs', were committing acts of violence similar to those depicted in A Clockwork Orange, and many say that this, along with alleged death threats, are what led to Stanley Kubrick banning his own film.

The early 1990's saw copies of Child's Play 3 removed from the shelves, after it emerged that the stepfather of one of Jamie Bulger's killers had rented the movie; yet it was never confirmed whether either of the boys had actually watched it.

More recently the computer game Manhunt became the latest target, after it was alleged that the murderer of Stefan Pakeerah- who was stabbed to death, had mimicked behaviour from the violent computer game. And who can forget the 1984 Video Recordings Act with its notorious Video Nasties; films apparently so vile, so violent and bloody that they were considered harmful to watch, on the grounds that they could deprave and corrupt (anyone who has actually seen one, will know that the majority of them are most likely to either send you to sleep or have you wet yourself with laughter).

What is worrying is that few people seem to challenge this perception that life imitates art, (and yes I am aware that many of the texts I have referred to here can only very loosely be described as art!!). What is startling is not the fact that more and more films are crossing boundaries, dealing with taboos and pushing the limits, but that the real problems behind violent crime, anti-social behaviour, promiscuity and immorality are often ignored. When will we start to talk about bad parenting and a decline in community values? When will we acknowledge the fact that sometimes violence does not have a reason, that we can't blame the media or society and that in fact some people are just downright evil?

Did Jack the Ripper remove the intestines of Annie Chapmen because he had just watched Cannibal Holocaust? Can the murder and sexual assault of the victims of the Moors Murderers be blamed on the killers having a penchant for films such as Saw or Hostel? No, these horrific acts happened because the killers were sick, twisted and evil; period. Perhaps a film, DVD, computer game can give ideas, but the evil needs to be in the killer's mind already; a serial killer will maim and dismember regardless of whether they watch a violent film, because they are cold, calculating and often mad. We cannot censor, ban or withdraw a text simply because it might give someone 'ideas'. Where will we draw the line? Are we going to ban school children from studying Macbeth because if features violence and murder or The Colour Purple because of the rape scenes?

Any sane and remotely intelligent person knows that it is not right to copy the acts they may see in the Saw films, in the same way that a person who may enjoy watching extreme films is not necessarily a pervert. I love controversial and so-called disturbing films; I have grown up on a diet of Uwe Boll, David Cronenberg, and Larry Clark. I have sat through The Human Centipede, Irreversible, Martyrs and such like. As a child I was obsessed with horror films and throughout my teens and adulthood, I have set out to watch every film dubbed disturbing, sick, and ultra-violent. But I don't go out and commit random acts of violence, I don't get turned on by watching these films, they don't make me want to go out and rape, murder, or eat other people, why- because I am not a lunatic! Because I am intelligent enough to know right from wrong, because I am one of the many sensible people who can watch a film and know that it is just that- a film.

I overheard a comment from a fellow teacher at my school recently, apparently one of her Year 9 boys has been getting into lots of fights recently because he seems to be playing too many violent computer games; umm no, he isn't doing too well in school because his parents couldn't care less about his education and he is a little trouble maker. I'll end on this note; there is no freedom when it comes to choosing which film to watch- censors, governments and councils have all made sure of that and yet it remains that anyone can choose to become a parent... I'll let you decide how that works. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Best Scary Flicks for Family Fun

The latter part of 2012 featured the release of a trio of films that delivered family friendly frights. "ParaNorman" followed a young boy as he learned to adapt to his ability to communicate with the dead. "Hotel Transylvania" features hotel owner Dracula, who invites all of the famous monsters to his daughter's birthday party, only to find a human in the mix. In "Frankenweenie," a young scientist uses the power of electricity to bring his dead dog back to life. Though these movies are all animated, the list of scary movies suitable for children includes both live-action and animated classics.

Tim Burton directed "Frankenweenie" as well as "Beetlejuice," a 1988 film that sounds rather dark on paper but is comedy, right down to its unforgettable dinner dance scene. Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin star as the Maitlands, a married couple who are killed in a car accident and return to their former home as ghosts. When a new family moves in, led by insufferable parents (Catherine O'Hara and Jeffrey Jones), the Maitlands decide to spook them out of the house. The couple's gothic daughter Lydia (Winona Ryder), who can see ghosts, complicates matters. Michael Keaton's titular character is a smarmy "bio-exorcist" the Maitlands hire to help get rid of the family. Keaton is only onscreen for about 20 minutes, but those are the most iconic scenes of the film.

Tim Burton was behind another hair-raising family friendly film, though he served as the co-writer and co-producer on this title. "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is a stop-motion animated film featuring Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King, as he pursues his dream of being Santa Claus for a change in holiday pace. The residents of Halloween Town are darkly rendered but have a wide range of personalities that make it easy for children to find a favorite. Sally, Jack's love interest, assembled like Frankenstein's monster out of rag doll parts, has a sweet and protective disposition. The only character that might spook small children is Oogie Boogie, a singing and dancing bogeyman who threatens Santa. This film achieved cult status, and is particularly popular around the Halloween season.

"Hocus Pocus" is another popular film with a Halloween theme. The 1993 live-action movie starts in the past, during the times of the Salem Witch Trials, and introduces the Sanderson Sisters. The trio of sisters (Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy) is caught sucking the life out of children to gain eternal youth and beauty. While attacking one girl, the witches turn her brother, Binx, into a cat. The witches are killed by a mob, but issue a curse that if a virgin lights a candle during a full moon, the sisters will return. That happens in the 1990s when Max (Omri Katz) lights the candle to impress a girl and lures the witches onto the trail of him and his kid sister Dani (Thora Birch). The children, aided by the talking cat Binx, attempt to outwit the witches.

"The Witches," Jim Henson's classic film based on a Roald Dahl story, is much more sinister than "Hocus Pocus." A young boy (Jasen Fisher) stumbles upon the fact that a group of women has formed a witch society and is planning to turn all the world's children into mice. It is up to the boy and his plucky grandmother (Mai Zetterling) to take down the head witch, portrayed by a delightfully evil Angelica Huston. There are some genuine scares in this film as the witches' true appearances are less than pretty.

"Gremlins" has a pair of teenagers spending the night evading creatures somewhat more scaly than the characters in "Witches." After Billy (Zach Galligan) receives a mysterious Mogwai named Gizmo, he's told three rules for the upkeep of his new pet: don't get him wet, don't feed him after midnight, and never expose him to sunlight. After the first two rules are violated, Gizmo sprouts some new Mogwai, who have a much meaner disposition. It's a race across town for Billy to destroy the evil Mogwai and keep his friends and family safe.

When selecting a family friendly movie with scary elements, it's important to consider the ages and specific fears of the children involved. While "Arachnophobia" is appropriate for most ages, it wouldn't be wise to show it to a child who is already afraid of spiders. For the best message, choose films where the heroes, with the help of family or friends, win in the end. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

The Business of Movie Theaters: Films or Food?

Not so long ago people went to the movies to, well, see the movie. Now it's almost as if the movie has become secondary to the food and arcade games that most theaters have on offer. Montreal, as was the case in most cities, had its fair share of movie theaters - we didn't call them cinemas, to us they were movie theaters, plain and simple - both in the downtown core and in the suburbs.

These were often elaborately designed single-screen theaters showing films every night and offered matinees on the weekends and during school holidays. I recall the price being 75 cents before seven o'clock at which time the cost of admission shot up to a whopping $1.25! For that princely sum movie patrons were treated to a cartoon - usually a Blake Edwards'Pink Panther short which worked well in Montreal as it could be used in both French and English theaters given the lack of dialogue - in addition to the main feature.

But the price is not the issue; the price of everything has gone up over time. What has changed is the focus from movie house to all round food and entertainment center. Not all that long ago your admission fee got you into the theater to see the movie. There were, of course, snack bars where you could buy soft drinks, popcorn, candies and chips. But these were just for convenience because many people, perhaps most, brought their own snacks to the movie. I'm not talking about smuggling in contraband Twizzlers or Reese's Pieces, sneaking past ushers who look like they want to pat down movie goers. The goodies people brought to the theater were most welcome; after all they had paid their admission. It was a movie theater, not a restaurant - it was a Bring Your Own Food establishment

Movie goers would bring in, openly and honestly, snack items such as a box of a dozen Dunkin' Donuts and Dairy Queen milkshakes. Others brought submarine sandwiches or even hamburgers. Some folks even made special snacks at home and, along with a thermos of coffee settled in to enjoy the movie and munch on a ham on rye.

These days the film is almost an afterthought; once you get past the vast array of food on offer at exorbitant prices and run the gamut of the umpteen video games in the lobby, you can finally settle down to watch the feature.

The Movie business has changed. Long gone are the days when movie theaters were in the business of selling admission to films and providing convenience snack bar counters, but were BYOF! Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Movie Review: Prometheus (2012)

Director Ridley Scott originally intended on creating a prequel to his film Alien, but when the script writing began, he realized the wealth of material presented warranted its own separate tale (still set in the same universe, however). Such an undertaking led to copious speculation and extremely high expectations from fans for what would eventually become Prometheus. Yet for a film that supposedly merited severance from becoming a direct Alien precursor, the sequence of events in Prometheus are strikingly close to that of Scott's prior effort. In fact, certain segments seem designed specifically as a counterpart to the iconic moments now cemented in cinematic history. Unfortunately, none of these scenes come close to the shocking brilliance of those found in Alien, and while the atmospheric sets, awe-inspiring practical effects, and competent acting are present as they should be, don't expect to find the answers you're looking for - in either the notorious beasts' origins or the countless new questions raised that Scott clearly feels are better left unanswered.

When scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover clues on Earth that point to possible "engineers" of mankind, they partner with the powerful Weyland Corporation to launch an expedition into space to make contact with their creators. Governed by Weyland's stern attaché Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and accompanied by geologists, mercenaries, and the cryptic android David (Michael Fassbender), the crew of the spaceship Prometheus is instructed not to interact with any life forms they may encounter. But once the group reaches their destination of the moon LV-233 and discovers the remains of the beings they set out to find, avoiding exposure becomes impossible. As a deadly infection rapidly spreads and mysterious creatures begin attacking the crew, Elizabeth realizes the horrifying truth and must fight for her own life as well as the very fate of mankind.

The usually capable director has bitten off a bit more than he could chew with Prometheus, which attempts at different moments to be a great many things. Expectations are particularly high, since Scott became famous for Alien in 1979, and this film marks his return to the genre. At the beginning, he ventures into contemplating alternatives to the evolution of humankind with predominantly science-fiction philosophies; in the middle, he explores favorite themes such as the assault on feeble human flesh, the invasion of orifices, and genetic mutation - essential elements of gore for the sake of horror; and toward the conclusion, he opts for action-oriented thrills, packed with impressive CG wizardry and massive destruction. Each shift in genre disorients the story from having a clear vision, and the result is a mess of unresolved ideas and poorly defined beings (especially regarding the capabilities and function of the Engineers, their cargo, and subsequent anomalies).

Brandywine Productions, David Giler and Walter Hill as producers, the title font, notations of "LV_223," talk of company jobs, an android, a monstrous ship full of lonely corridors, hypersleep sickness, hidden agendas, sabotage, H.R. Giger's artwork, and advanced technology all harken the return of a familiar atmosphere. But while the environment, heaped with humidity, high-pitched noises, black muck, and slithery critters, remains reminiscent of Scott's original masterpiece, the plot progresses slowly and formulaically. A crew awakes from hypersleep, a bypass surgery medical pod is inspected, Jackson claims he's there for security purposes and brandishes weaponry, ship and helmet cameras feed crackling, static-filled transmissions, allochthonous walls glisten with slime, and an unsuccessful quarantine allows something to be brought back aboard the command ship. None of it is notably original and the sense of foreboding and foreshadowing is jeeringly blatant. Suspense arrives too late, horror is handled clumsily, and the poignancy of physical pain, understanding the purpose of the structures, and digesting answers to the mysteries of life is sorely neglected. The "space jockey" creation from Alien sparked an interesting question of origin and ancestry, but the solution is mightily underwhelming.

- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com) Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.