Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Of course there will -- zombies are always cool. Law of nature.
Though they are somewhat unlikely. Isn't that depressing?
-
11am Radio NZ news said damage at Christchurch School of Medicine means people at a conference have to find other accommodation.
Yikes - that's where I was working until a month ago. I'll have to email around and check on the state of things.
-
I'm hearing from student friends the university suffered some damage to the library and chemistry building (which is, quote, "a bit munted") - can anyone corroborate?
-
I'd just warn all residents of Amherst to brace for something big right after your graduation.
It didn't happen when I left Wellington, so maybe it's just the next place I move that should be concerned?
-
We only have the pictures on. I can tell you that the graphic keeps shouting at us 7.4 EARTHQUAKE when it has been downgraded to 7.1/7 for a couple of hours now.
Details, man, how can you focus on the details when there's been an EARTHQUAKE?
-
NatRad are saying there's a boiled water notice for flat areas, so just to reiterate what I said earlier - if it's not out of a bottle, boil it, or don't drink it. I'll be extremely upset if any of you succumb to silly preventable diseases, people.
-
Good work from media online.
Heard TV One dropped the ball on early coverage again, though?
-
At varsity, my geologist friend Steven always said to forget Wellington, that Christchurch would be next. This was a good two decades ago, but it turns out he was right, and our tipsy scoffing at his undergrad seismic "expertise" was wrong.
I took a geohazards course in my first year at Canty which basically left me spending the next five and a half years praying that any major natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, flood, etc) would hold off until I finished university.
This makes it really fucking ironic that it held off until two and a half weeks after I moved to an earthquake-free zone. Ironic, or....something.
After acclimatising to living in a massive city on a massive faultline, it was rather terrifying to land in London and see all those chimney pots, precariously poised like certain death over the heads of the unconcerned citizens wandering the streets in happy ignorance of the impending Blitz overhead.
That was almost precisely my first thought when I visited London for the first time - everything was five stories high! In BRICKS! Were they all mad?
Well it wasn't my house (mind, I'm in Sockburn/Upper Riccarton, depending on whether you're NZPost or a real estate agent), just a bit of breakage in the kitchen.
Sockburn seems to be one of the few pretty OK areas - IM'd friends there, they have power and internet. Be very careful with your water, though, you don't know what's got into it - even if it's still running, if you have power, or any way to boil it - boil it before drinking. If it's not running, and you got some out of the taps, boil it.
-
I think that's quite defensible --- racist films remain racist, no matter if when they were made they expressed acceptable social attitudes. In terms of representations of historical truth, again, there are a great many historic truths we nowadays won't have on the television.
Okay, but if you make a modern film set in a time when those attitudes existed, are you going to erase them from the script because it's unacceptable? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement. There is a difference between a racist film and a film which depicts racism. It's an important one.
-
Product placement is endemic in US TV particularly ("Oh my god, is that the new Porsche Cayenne?") so I'd be very surprised if tobacco companies weren't doing it too.
I like to play a game with US-made media: spot the PC. You come up with the odd surprising alternative company (and also some hilarious times that Apple have paid to be in there but the makers have clearly just stuck an Apple sticker on a non-Apple laptop because the logo is the wrong way round.)
Also, I think there's a fine line between product placement and reality - in reality people *do* drink Coke and *do* eat McDonald's. If it's the whole perfectly placed logo to face the camera thing, yeah - but do we say that it's not OK to have any recognisable brand in there, regardless of its use in real life? Where's the line?