text:
21 December 2001
New media, old claims
For the last decade, sections of the major media have advocated relaxing media-ownership rules on the grounds that the 'New Media' has increased source-diversity. Supposedly, the Internet and cable networks—with video-on demand, Internet radio, and news-informational web sites accessible worldwide—provide the public with the required range of media influences, and this is enough to preserve our democracy—it is said—without placing ownership restrictions on the major mass media companies.
Following the Coalition win in the Federal Election, there is a wave of media sentiment promoting the idea that the government should lift both the cross-media and foreign-ownership limits, and allow Australia's mass media moguls to engage in takeovers in publishing, and expansions into the electronic media.
I must admit I have never understood where the claimed public benefits lie in allowing takeovers of the mass media. My impression is that the gains are entirely financial, and only made by the media moguls and their shareholders.
Even here, the benefits are minor. Economic synergies may result in corporate efficiencies and some improvement in the quality-of-governance, but I can only see minor efficiency gains made by merging news gathering and advertising sales departments, and none at all in production.
Much of today's newspaper and broadcasting content is outsourced from wire services or global distributors, and much of the rest is rehashed or rip-and-read local press releases. News 'products' need to be tailored for both the medium and the audience, so there is not likely to be much in the way of synergy here.
Advertising sales and cross-media promotion may produce synergies in a minor way, but even this is doubtful. And, if all the major players in any market are of roughly the same size and have the same range of outlets, then all competitors have the same synergies so any market advantage gained by owning different forms of media outlets are effectively countered by the competition.
Then there is the claim that media takeovers increase 'competitiveness'—using this term to mean 'in competition with overseas threats'. If you believe that competition is global and exerted on Australian media from outside, then 'increasing competitiveness' means permitting, indeed encouraging, domestic domination by one or two big corporations. But this, of course, means reducing domestic competition.
A third angle is to play on the idea of a 'New Media'. Yet despite the Internet and progressive globalisation of telecommunications I do not see more diversity in the media today; I see less. The same processes that encourage the exchange of private ideas—via e-mail, chat rooms and Internet forums—also increase the availability of low cost syndicated journalism. And so in the major newspapers, articles from the UK magazine The Economist and The New York Times occupy editorial space once filled by Australian commentators.
If you relate data bandwidth to economic and social benefits, you find that services such as Telex and e-mail, with the smallest of data requirements, provide the most benefits. Only a few people benefit substantially from broadband technologies, and most of those benefits are entertainment in nature.
So the Internet and the services it provides have hardly made a dent on media diversity as it applies to political and economic information, opinion, and substantial content of other kinds, because they substitute mainly for Telex, telephone and letter-writing rather than newspapers or television.
Without the vigilance of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) the range of options for expressing opinion in Australia would be much more restricted than it is today. The claims of increased competition and diversity, said to result from relaxing the rules even further, appear to be aimed squarely at boosting the power of the incumbents while creating a self-regulatory environment with less need for Professor Alan Fels.
Moreover the mass media does not just present news and views as 'evidence'; it also sets and reinforces public attitudes by selection, repetition and shaping. For example, in the recent Tampa episode, the news outlets might have called the boat-people 'emigrants' or 'refugees' rather than the term 'asylum-seekers' that they ultimately settled upon.
This colouration effect in reporting is diffused subtly and without design, and is not dissimilar to the media's agenda-setting role. When cross-media synergies reduce the number of news sources, these floods of pre-digested attitudes can only get worse.
Such problems are not solved by increasing the number of channels while decreasing the number of information sources. We must reject the correlation that is often drawn between the number of media channels and the degree of diversity.
An inescapable fact about advertising-supported mass media is that each new channel dilutes the funding available to the others—therefore each has less to spend on content, and more reason to rationalise news sources and promote 'common-denominator' programming.
If we relax cross-media ownership rules at a time of digitisation it will mean that the increased number of broadcast channels will both scavenge the revenues available to each for the production of quality programming, and simultaneously scavenge the multimedia companies' other media revenues. If new advertising funds are to flow into broadcasting, this can only come from newspapers and magazines.
The most expensive (outright and per-viewer) English-language drama and documentary programs shown on Australian television are those produced domestically. In a deregulated market, these will be the first to disappear when profit margins decrease.
Foreign-sourced media 'products' cost almost nothing to replicate after the original production process is complete. So once they have been utilised in their home market, television programs and newspaper and magazine feature stories are highly tradeable, zero-cost goods which can be dumped on any market—at a marginal price—and still generate additional profits for the originator.
North America—with its 300 million audiences, multiple channels, capital resources and Hollywood—can reach break-even within its own territory for almost any high-quality series or blockbuster movie. The price then charged to Australian networks for replay rights bears no relation to the original cost of production—or the cost of production of anything similar in Australia.
Except for news, current affairs and sport, serious local production on commercial networks depends for its survival entirely on content rules, subsidies, or import restrictions.
Which leads to an inescapable conclusion: without substantial government intervention or massive subsidies (both totally unlikely), merging broadcast media categories (Pay and Free-to-Air) or removing cross-media and foreign-media limits will destroy much chance of high-quality Australian production.
With the political clout of the media moguls, governments will not sustain rules for Australian drama content when the profit margins that once supported these pricey programs have disappeared. For political reasons they will not abandon the requirements for a category called 'Australian production', but they can allow the rules to be progressively bent to include material such as 'Australia's Funniest Home Videos' and 'Big Brother'.
The obvious decline in Australian domestic television quality over the last few years has been due to this effect following the introduction of Pay TV, which diluted Free-to-Air (FTA) audiences and reduced advertising revenues while raising costs.
Australian content rules were included in the new Pay TV licenses, but these turned out to be a joke. The discrepancy between content requirements on these two parallel (and competing) commercial television services is now the source of much political lobbying.
This is important because the first cross-media ownership restriction to disappear will almost certainly be that between FTA and Pay TV, perhaps with datacasting thrown in for good measure.
But the reality of media ownership in Australia is that for this to happen, the Murdoch clan must be given access to television, and the Packer clan must be allowed to buy Fairfax. Both the Labor and Liberal Parties, in government and in opposition, know this is the inevitable outcome of relaxed cross-media and foreign-media rules.
The only alternative is for the government to completely reform the whole area and allow numerous players to enter all markets, something no political party in Australia is likely to do for fear of the hostility of media moguls deprived of their goldmines.
For instance, television channels 12 to 27 in the high (and best) end of the VHF spectrum have never been allocated in Australia. They are locked away by spurious claims of 'defence requirements' in a deliberate ploy to restrict the number of channels available for newcomers to compete with existing commercial operators.
Moreover, channel availability is only ever a problem in high-density regions such as greater Sydney (including Newcastle and Wollongong) and the Melbourne-Geelong axis, where spectrum must be shared between two or more major transmission sites. This still leaves the smaller capitals and rural and regional areas with dozens of unused channels available for FTA, Pay, or datacasting. However 'equalisation' rules are used to block access to these wasted channels.
Even in Sydney, 12 potentially available UHF channels are reserved for translators, to fill shadow areas in the normal television service area. These could easily be serviced by a Community Antenna TV service, with cable delivery to a few thousand homes in shadow. This would be a cheaper and better solution, but it would also transfer 12 now-unused TV channels back to the 'available' category.
This has never been allowed, so the Spectrum Management Authority can claim there are no spare analogue channels available, only the existing five. Yet cities like New York are able to allocate twenty or more TV channels in the UHF-VHF bands.
The years of allowing only a fraction of the available television spectrum to be used is now facing a much more serious crunch. Digital transmission, whether down cable or via the ether or satellite, allows approximately four times the number of channels to coexist in the same available bandwidth, and it simultaneously allows the use of adjacent frequency bands. In combination, the number of standard channels that can be carried has suddenly jumped by five to ten times.
The government and operators have tried to hold back the tide of competition by insisting on High-Definition TV as the primary standard (it fully occupies one analogue channel). The government has also legislated to preserve the existing oligopoly for many more years, using as its excuse the enormous cost of digital conversion. But even that mogul emperor is strutting around with no clothes.
In terms of overall revenues and costs, the introduction of digital television transmission is not highly significant, when compared to replacing studio and production equipment and the sheer cost of program production. The claim that digitisation is making program production more expensive, although true for High Definition equipment, is actually not sustainable.
In fact, the progressive digitisation of production in both television and radio occurred many years ago—mainly because digital recording and post-production techniques preserve the technical quality of sound and picture, and make complex program production cheaper. The personal computer is now the key production-editing tool, and good quality news and current affairs can be sourced from camcorders that are generally held to be 'consumer' products.
The real value to be gained from digital television (transmission, as distinct from production) is therefore inproviding more channels. Yet even with existing analogue television, we have never used more than a fraction of the channel numbers available.
So the social benefits must came from using the current transition from analogue to digital to correct the structural defects that have arisen in our old broadcasting system, and to free the sector from the constraints imposed by licensed monopolies over cables and restrictions on the channels and frequencies made available to terrestrial broadcasters. We need to face the fact that the restriction on competition has always been engineered deliberately by governments; it was never imposed on us by technical limitations.
When a set-top box is required for digital conversion—as it will be for the next decade whether standard or High Definition is viewed—there is absolutely no reason to maintain the distinction between advertising-supported FTA and Pay TV, nor is there any reason to only permit Pay TV to be sold in multiple-channel bundles. Modern set-top boxes can record payment on single channels by the minute, so broadcasting services can be sold on an impulse-buy basis like newsagent publications, with FTA and Pay alternating on the same channels.
There is even no real reason why the company that programs a channel must own the channel. A couple of spare channels could be made available for, say, seven small programming companies per channel, each holding the broadcasting rights for one night. We can go even further with this idea and suggest that, perhaps, one company could contract for the children's television hours from 4pm to 6pm and another to run adult movies after 10.30pm—or even a sold-by-the-hour channel for Australian film producers to show their movies without the middle-man.
The set-top box, with its smart card based 'conditional access' functions, finally severs any need for programming to be linked to monopoly rights over part of the radio spectrum, or to the legislated rights to utilise a publicly-owned street cable.
This is one area of media controls where deregulation certainly has a place.
Our current approach insists that a specific technique of collecting revenues (Pay or advertising) is only permitted in combination with a specific delivery mechanism (radio, cable, satellite). This makes no sense at all. All Australian states have dozens of spare broadcast channels that could be used for Pay TV, if the politicians wanted to provide these services. Datacasting is probably better confined to the radio frequencies, and there are dozens of these available also.
So before the nation begins to spend billions of dollars in set-top boxes to bring digital television into 7 million homes; before we begin to look at the social value of wide-screen (as distinct from High Definition) television sets; before we allocate channels for datacasting; and before we try to predict whether radio internet services are commercially viable, or whether they should be open access—and if it so, which parts of the spectrum should be used—we need to open up the whole area of media regulation for serious public debate.
This is what is missing here to date. What has passed for a debate has primarily been corporate lobbying of compliant government and opposition parties, accompanied by massive dollops of technical misinformation and spurious economic claims. The media has faithfully reported these fictions as fact.
But as Mandy Rice-Davies once said: 'Well they would, wouldn't they?'
And despite the political predilection for taking the easy way out, there is little value in sending off a fact-finding mission to discover 'World's Best-Practice', and copying that. The rest of the developed world has had the same historical evolution, and it often has the same media companies trying to maintain their economic advantage.
Stewart Fist writes the Crossroads column in The Australian. He was the founding head of continuing and distance eduction at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School.


text:
Zebra Z-Select 4000T - Perforated coated ultra-smooth permanent acrylic adhesive paper labels - bright white - 3 in x 2 in - 8220 label(s) ( 6 roll(s) x 1370 ) - for Desktop GX420, GX430; G-Series GC4Item#: YYBL-10009529 | Model#: 10009529
Currently Out Of Stock!
You May Consider This Alternative
Zebra Z-Select 4000T - perforated coated Product Details
Shipping Weight: 15 lbs
Media Type: Labels
Product Material: Paper
Surface Finish: Ultra-smooth
Adhesive Type: Permanent acrylic adhesive
Coating: Coated
Perforation: Perforated
Media Sizes: 3 in x 2 in
Printing Technology: Thermal transfer
Roll Maximum Outer Diameter: 5 in
Roll Core Diameter: 1 in
Media Color: Bright white
Card / Label Qty per Sheet/Roll: 1370
Qty of Media with Cards: 6 roll(s)
Included Qty: 8220 label(s)
Features: Perforation between labels
Color Category: White
Compatibility Information
Compatible with: Eltron LP 2824 ¦ Eltron TLP 2824, 2844 ¦ Zebra GK Series GK420t ¦ Zebra G-Series GC420t ¦ Zebra GX Series GX420, GX420d, GX420t, GX430, GX430t ¦ Zebra H 2824-Z ¦ Zebra LP 2824, 2824 Plus, 2824-Z, 2844, 2844-Z ¦ Zebra TLP 2824, 2824 Plus, 2824-Z, 2844, 2844-Z, 3842, 3844-Z
Manufactured by: Zebra Technologies
Warranty provided by: Zebra Technologies
UPC No:
Mfg Part No: 10009529
Box Size:
( Length:0, Width:0, Depth:0)
Shipping Weight: 1.0000 pound(s)
Click here for full warranty and support information
- Zebra Technologies logos are registered trademarks of Zebra Technologies. All others trademarks and copyrights mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This piece of kitchen gadgetry should have come complete with ear defenders and a box of paracetamol. The noise it makes when you use it, even though it is totally manual, is unbelievable. How it passed any health and safety tests is quite beyond me.
I purchased this piece of equipment because I was fed up with onions making me cry!! It is truly horrible when that happens.
This is called an alligator because its jaws go snap!! quite violently I might add. When I use this I have to shut the window, kitchen and back door, because of the noise.
To use this you need a certain level of tolerance, a good sense of humour and be able to cope with the unexpected, for reasons I will explain.
To dice a carrot, cut the carrot into very thin slices and place them in the alligator one by one, otherwise the carrot gets stuck in the metal dicing plate. A certain amount of strength is required in order to carry out this task because you have to press down hard on its jaws. I have actually hurt my elbow doing this.
To dice celery, cut the celery into small pieces and then cut again, place one by one into the alligator to dice otherwise this will also get stuck in the dicing plate.
To dice an onion, again cut into fairly small pieces, otherwise this will also get stuck.
Are you now getting the picture?
The diced vegetables are supposed to go into a container on top of the alligator, this again isn't without its problems. Firstly, it is difficult to get the container to sit correctly on top of the dicing plate, secondly, whilst you are using brute force to dice the vegetables this makes the vegetable catcher come off. Therefore, the contents go in all directions!!
I'm sure there must be an easier way to dice vegetables......now, where's that knife?!!!


text:
Scientific Publications by FDA Staff
Search Publications
J Agric Food Chem 2013 Apr 10;61(14):3542-7
Assessments and Improvements in Methods for Monitoring Seafood Safety in Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
Genualdi S, Dejager L, Begley T
As a result of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, sensory testing protocols were established for reopening closed seafood harvest areas. In order to improve this method and quantitatively assess petrochemical taint, a new method using solid phase microextraction (SPME) and a 5975T transportable GC/MS was developed. This method can analyze 40 samples per instrument per day and could be an alternative to the human sensory panel. In seafood samples collected from supermarkets in the Washington D.C. area and the Gulf of Mexico, all compounds related to petrochemical taint were below the method detection limit (MDL) (0.14-2.6 ng/g). Additionally, to address consumer concerns regarding the presence of n-alkanes and iso-alkanes in seafood, these compounds were investigated in samples purchased in the Washington D.C. area and the Gulf of Mexico. Concentrations in Gulf of Mexico finfish ranged from 0.066 to 1.2 mg/kg, which is within the same background range of iso- and n-alkanes measured in seafood samples purchased in the Washington D.C. area (0.0072-1.6 mug/g). These automated methods provide a transportable option to obtain rapid results for compounds indicative of petroleum taint and iso- and n-alkanes in case of a future disaster.
|Category: Journal Article
|PubMed ID: #23530736
|DOI: 10.1021/jf305344z
|Includes FDA Authors from Scientific Area(s): Food
|Entry Created: 2013-04-01
|Entry Last Modified: 2013-05-29


text:
* Prices may differ from that shown
About the film
Serenity is a space western film that takes place after the end of the TV series, Firefly. The film was released in 2005 and has a run time of 119 minutes. Serenity is rated 15 due to scenes of violence and action as well as sexual references.
Set in the future, a spaceship called Serenity is harbouring a passenger with a deadly secret. Serenity is home to six rebels, led by Captain Mal Reynolds, on the run but now an assassin is in pursuit. When the renegade crew of Serenity agrees to hide a fugitive on their ship, they find themselves in a battle between the relentless military might of the Alliance, who will destroy anything - or anyone - to get the girl back and the bloodthirsty creatures who roam the uncharted areas of space. But, the greatest danger of all may be on their ship.
Nathan Fillion as Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds
Gina Torres as Zoe Washburne
Alan Tudyk as Hoban "Wash" Washburne
Sean Maher as Simon Tam
Summer Glau as River Tam
Morena Baccarin as Inara Serra
Adam Baldwin as Jayne Cobb
Jewel Staite as Kaywinnit Lee "Kaylee" Frye
Ron Glass as Shepherd Derrial Book
Chiwetel Ejiofor as The Operative
David Krumholtz as Mr. Universe
What I thought
For those of you who don't know, Serenity was made after Joss Wheedon's TV series Firefly was cancelled after only one season. The series was left with many loose ends so after fans wanted answers, a feature length film was made. After only recently watching the TV series, I felt exactly the same way and I was desperate to find out what was going to happen next.
Even though this does take place after the end of the series, you don't need to have seen any of Firefly to enjoy this film. The backstory is explained extremely well so everyone will be able to follow the story and what is happening. I was really happy with the way that the film started too as it didn't take off straight from where the series ended. Time has passed and characters have had time to change and develop but obviously, only people who have seen the series will be able to notice this.
Set in a mix between space and random planets, Serenity has a great mix of scenery. It is different to see how characters act and react in different situation depending on where they are at the time and this is where the different settings become a great thing. On the Serenity, characters are more relaxed, more themselves, compared to being on edge when on land. As I said in the plot summary, the crew are on the run from someone hunting down River so they have every right to be on edge. I really liked the diverse range of emotions that these different settings brought to the plot.
When it comes to characters, these are even better in the film than the TV series. For me, this was mainly because I already knew a lot about them before watching the film and I knew what they had been through in the past. While you don't need to have seen Firefly to enjoy this film, I do think you will get a lot more out of it if you have. Captain Mal is at the forefront of the crew, leading them in a race against time across space. Played by Nathan Fillion, Mal is one of the best characters. He's a bit mysterious, a hard ass and a great captain. Mal has an edge to him that makes him hard to relate to but due to his job and position, it fits him really well.
Two of my favourites from the TV series were River and her brother, Simon. The basis of this film centres around River and what has happened to her in the past, which is explained at the beginning of the film. Summer Glau is amazing as River and by far gives the best performance in the whole film. River is not quite all there due to the experiments done to her and has very erratic behaviour because of this. These traits make River an extremely interesting character and I loved her. Her brother Simon, played by Sean Maher is a good partner for River. As an older brother, the love for River is spot on and also how he cares for her is clear to see. There is a sibling tenderness between the two and it was lovely to watch.
Other characters are just as good as these. Cast members Kaylee and Jayne were very entertaining while newcomer, Chiwetel Ejiofor as The Operative is quite scary. The cast is very diverse, just like the characters they play. While there are quite a lot of characters to follow, there is someone for everyone to relate to and also someone for everyone to both love and hate. Watching this film did make me quite sad that I won't be able to see them in anymore episodes though.
The plot is fast paced and exciting. The film starts off with a real bang, explaining River's past and why everyone is on Serenity. The story is interesting and different, unlike anything else I have seen before in a film. All plot aspects were explained well and nothing jumped from one thing to another without explanations. Even though the story is quite complicated at times, it is still easy to follow, even for people who haven't seen the TV series. I liked that small aspects from the series were added in to the film and this is where fans will get more out of watching it. Serenity also has a hell of a lot of action in it which I loved. The Operative brings on a great chase for getting River back and so many exciting things happen throughout the film.
Serenity is the only space western film I have ever seen, and probably ever will, but I loved it. I think I would have liked it even if I hadn't seen Firefly beforehand but that only made me like it more. A great watch.
Stating the obvious the film is called Serenity. It is a follow on from the amazing TV show that was Firefly (for those unaware of the awesome show feel free to see my review or Google it).
This film is a 15 and is shade under 2 hours long and is Directed and Written by Joss Whedon. I hope I don't give everything away as this is a great film.
Set before the start of the TV series of Firefly we begin out journey by seeing how Simon (see later) managed to get his sister back from the alliance and that an evil alliance operative is chasing after the Tams due to fears that she might be holding one of their biggest secrets (she is :-O)
Set five hundred years in the future shortly after the ending of the TV series Firefly the crew are descending into the atmosphere of a planet in preparation to rob a bank. As usual things aren't going swimmingly for the crew, the ship is falling apart again (see Firefly episode Out of Gas) and Inara and Shepard Book has left the crew for pastures new (don't worry they do feature). Right on to the characters before I get into the story.
...:::The characters:::...
My character descriptions might seem a bit brief, if this is the case again see my Firefly review as I didn't want to repeat myself too much.
Serenity - Again I am going to start by naming the ship as a main character, the film revolves around the ship, the characters love the ship and are horrified at both what they have to do and what happens to the ship throughout the film.
Malcolm Reynolds (Mal) played by Nathan Fillion and is fully exposed for what he is in the film. He shows true character and leadership skills in getting the secret that River holds to the 'verse, taking them through a trip that was almost guaranteed to get into fatal situations. Not shy of a fight Mal often uses his resilience and determination to do what is right (that's right despite the fact that at the start of the film you see him rob a bank and effectively leave someone to die) but sometimes sacrifices have to be made.
Zoe Washburne played by Gina Torres is a warrior women whose emotional side does come out towards the end of the film.
Hoban Washburne (Wash) played by Alan Tudyk is the husband of Zoe and the ships pilot and "is a leaf on the wind" (for those who have watched it  ). In complete contrast to Zeo he is the clown of the group but as we see will do anything to get the job done.
Jayne Cobb (the Hero of Canton) is played by Adam Baldwin. Basically a mercenary, his brute force and fighting skills come in useful even if he does get beaten up by a teenage girl.
Kaywinnit Lee Frye (Kaylee) is played by Jewel Staite. Kaylee brings happiness to the ship. We finally get to see her feelings for Simon explored and she shows her fighting spirit. As you find out 5 seconds into the film she is the ships mechanic and does a good job of keeping it in the air.
Inara Serra is played by Morena Baccerin. Inara is the object of Mal's affections. She has left the ship for a companion training house but is kept in the crews heart and is thrown back to them by the previously mentioned operative. (A companion is basically someone who sleeps with someone for money but they are high class, trained and get to pick who they do things with).
Shepard Book is played by Ron Glass. Shepard Book is a religious man who we hardly get to see, he does get the chance to convince Mal of a few important things though.
Simon Tam played by Sean Maher. He plays the doctor on the ship and is taken through an emotional rollercoaster throughout the film but ends very much on a high. He is very protective of his younger sister but has fallen head over heels for Kaylee, he is torn between the 2 and it looks like the situation is taken out of his hands when he leaves the ship....
River Tam is played by Summer Glau. Now River, where to start with sweet caring, little, dance loving, genius and all around super fighting machine River. River is a genius, of that there is no doubt, that she was made crazy by the alliance and has a few um, violent moments, again no doubt. River is the character who I guess really this story is based around, her secret and her problems are what drag the crew into this.
...::: The Plot :::...
As you may have guessed the story revolves around an operative of the alliance chasing after the crew of Serenity in order to try and detain the fugitive, River Tam. The secret involves the Reavers, Reavers are, a subset of humans who has turned insane and basically not for fun but for their existence they go round and rape, skin and eat people alive (nice huh). Anyway we follow the crew in their battle to expose the Alliance secret, along the way they have to fight against the operative and most of the alliance army but at the same time the Reavers are ever expanding their air space and have to be watched out for.
The crew rely on their friends and Rivers fighting abilities and knowledge in order to get through this, some of them however end up making the ultimate sacrifice.
...::: My Best Bits :::...
"I swallowed a bug"
"Fruity Oaty Bars make a man out of a mouse, fruity oaty bars make you bust out of your blouse"
"I'm OK" With the emotion behind it, for fans of the TV series it is what they wanted to hear.
Really there are so many great bits, the film has a great plot and the story is told so well, it has great characters and such as great back story set up by Firefly that the foundations were in place for a fantastic story which I have heard people rave about without having even seen Firefly (which everyone should).
There aren't really any, it is just a shame that the TV show got cancelled as this could have made a brilliant series finale to Season 2.
This is a great film that I am sure most people would like, maybe even recommend, if however you have seen the TV series Firefly you will surely think this is great and it is. 5/5
I remember seeing this film advertised a few years ago and being very interested in seeing it. However for one reason or another i missed it at the cinema. One night in uni i'd popped down to a friends flat and they were half way through watching this film. I sat down and knowing nothing about the story or even what happened previously happened in the film i started watching. I thoroughly enjoyed what i saw so when i found out this was based on a tv show i knew i had to go back and watch it. If you havn't then check out my review for that show Firefly.
I came back to this with the full knowledge of that show behind me and my opinion had gone from liking the film to absolutely loving it. Not many cancelled shows get another chance to wrap things up let alone in a feature film but Joss Whedon took the opportunity and ran with it. Tying up loose ends and closing out characters stories. In one particular instant a favourite character of mine dies and i felt genuinely sad. Some are left open however, including the back story to our favourite Shepard. Fans of Firefly will know what to expect, this is bigger, better and more amazing than the tv series. Even if you havn't seen Firefly this is still an incredibly enjoyable film. The worst part is seeing the promise in this film and knowing there probably won't be any more.
Serenity is a sci-fi movie released in 2005 and directed by Joss Whedon. I don't always go in for these sort of films but rented this movie on DVD recently and it's not too bad really and I quite enjoyed it.
The story of Serenity is set 500 years in the future. It is a time that may one day happen in real life when Earth could no longer support it's population which had got out of control. Therefore with no resources to speak of and the population grown out of all proportion, humans moved to a whole new solar system having destroyed our own planet over the years. Of the planets in this solar system there were some of the main ones that were under Alliance control and some that resisted this control like rebel planets. Those that resisted the Alliance control were called Independents.
As you can imagine peace didn't last long as is the case nowadays and eventually war broke out between the two separate groups, which the independents lost. Alot of them, including Malcolm Reynold and Zoe continued to oppose their rulers despite losing the war. Malcolm buys a ship and names it Serenity and together with his crew journeyed through the galaxy finding jobs while constantly trying to avoid detection by the Alliance forces.
Against overwhelming odds they have to enusre their safety on board their vessel against vicious forces out to kill them. And the tensions grow amongst the crew as their chances of survival decrease.
When I watched this I found the movie interesting enough and meant that I wasn't bored at all. It is unique and original and does a good job in my opinion of combining the past and the future and a look at how the world in the movie has come about. The whole movie has a real futuristic feel to it and makes it believable that it is set so far in the future. There is a big difference between those planets under control and those that are not in that the ones that are out of Alliance control are wild and untamed full of desserts and no laws to speak of.
I felt the acting was good too from actors and actresses that are not perhaps household names and not as familar as some. But they did a great job nonetheless.
I would recommend this movie if you like Sci-fi movies as it's not a bad movie at all.
I actually missed the Firefly series first time round, like many people who blinked and missed it, as it was cancelled after 14 episodes. However, when this film came out I thought I should check out Joss Whedon's latest work, after being a huge 'Don't even think about trying to ring me on Thursday night' Buffy fan. The film follows the crew of Serenity, a space cargo vessel which my other half described as being 'a bit like a clapped out Ford Fiesta' It's filled with a rag tag group of space pirates who are led by Mal Reynolds (played by the likeable Nathan Fillion).
Onboard are also passengers Simon, a doctor, and River, a wacked out fruitcake (ok, that's maybe not PC, but it is was it is) with some strange abilities of the Psychic kind. It turns out that River is wanted by the Alliance, the regime who run the main planets: A dictatorial organisation who Mal and his first mate fought in the rebellion but lost against - mirroring the American Civil war. And the Wild West ties don't end there. This is Steam Punk of the highest variety, with future gadgets that look like they've been sat in someone's garage for a few decades and may just fall to pieces half way through using them. The film explores the Wild Black- the planets where the inhabitants battle the environment to settle against the odds.
The movie takes up where Firefly left off and neatly ties up the story arc, where I guess Whedon would have taken us eventually over a few seasons, had Firefly survived. As you expect from Whedon, it's full of likeable characters, witty one liners, quirkiness and no shortage of seemingly innocent girls kicking butt. The concept of brain programming touched upon here is explored further in his series Dollhouse, but it's an interesting one and the twist of it being set in the future makes this compelling viewing. Little touches like all the swearing being in Mandarin give this imagined universe authenticity, but the story line is predictably Whedonish- at one point I actually proclaimed out loud "Ah, don't you just love a good Joss Whedon Going into Battle Speech"
Overall, a good film if you don't mind going over old ground with the set types of characters that Joss likes (the geeky but cute one, the mean one who says it like it is, the bad a$$ teenage girl). It's good fun, but boy do I wish it wasn't the condensed version of Firefly.
note: also appears in part on Flixster and The Student Room
In 2002, a little known TV show emerged called Firefly, written by Joss Whedon, who created the hugely successful Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However, due to FOX messing around with the scheduling, it had poor viewing figures and was cancelled, but because of its huge cult success on DVD, FOX comissioned a film, much the adulation of fans, in Serenity.
Serenity takes place some time after the series concluded, with River Tam (Summer Glau) being held captive by the Alliance. Her brother, doctor Simon Tam (Sean Maher) manages to break her out, but the Alliance send a Terminator-like Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to hunt them down and get River back. Back on board the ship Serenity, with Captain Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), Jayne (Adam Baldwin), Hoban Wash (Alan Tyduk), his wife Zoe (Gina Torres), and Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), they attempt to outrun the Alliance, but thing get more complicated as the Alliance have fitted River with a suggestive trigger that turns her into a psychopathic killer. Also, they must contend with the deadly Reavers on their tail at every instance.
Impressively, Whedon manages to knock-out a crowd-pleasing bookend to the series that has great humour, some great low-budget action, and an emotive plot that has a few of the loveable characters end up dead quite shockingly, but it works and doesn't seem overly sentimental or tacked on. This is undoubtedly what the film the "new trilogy" of Star Wars should have been. Serenity is fun, exciting, well acted, and action-packed, as well as an excellent continuation of a TV series that fell far before it had time to shine. Brilliant performances all around, and an excellent script makes this a rousing space farce.
Space cowboys with a hint a rebellion from fascism. That is how I would describe Serenity. The movie that is based on television programme called 'Firefly', a short-lived television series from a few years ago. In it, the crew a rag tag bunch of mercenaries on the run from the central government. It is a Western type set up but in space!
Captain Malcolm Reynolds is our reluctant hero who is excellently played by Nathan Fillion. The whole characterisation of Reynolds was done very well and shows a conflicted man who wants to survive and do his own thing but also has to keep an eye out for his crew.
The plot is a bit weak in places but if you have watched the show then a lot of the things that were being done were explained. It feels as if the movie was a condensed version of what they wanted to do in the show. This is good in that the weaving plot lines all merge into an amazing finale but it can also be extremely frustrating to have nothing properly explained. More on Summer Glau's character would mean that I would have greater empathy for her instead of thinking she was an annoying child.
The film's length isn't too long and not too short so you do watch the movie and come out with a feeling that everything has been concluded nicely. And a nice lead off into potentially reactivating the series or having another movie. Obviously that's not going to happen now but it would be nice for a fan like me!
So it's a good movie to watch, not a ground breaking piece of must watch entertainment but good enough to sit there for a few hours for a bit of escapism.
Well, after watching all of Firefly the missus and I sat down to watch this movie.
Now I thought that Firefly itself was pretty average but I had high hopes for this because I had heard it was pretty good. Boy was I dissapointed. Don't get my wrong, this is not a stinker, but I didn't reallty feel in progressed the TV show much and I couldn't make any sense of some rather pointless character deaths, particularly for one TV show regular who only gets a few minutes on screen in this one before he is rubbed out.
I finished this movie with so many unanswered questions and that dissapointed me greatly. I didn't feel any of the characters were particularly developed further, save perhaps for River, and so I still had a desire to find out more about their backrgound when the credits roled. Its a shame that this movie in itself was something of a fluke and we'll not see a sequel where all is revealed. I also noted that the movie seemed to bin the space western theme somewhat.
Overall a mediocre end to a confused TV show.
Serenity, the genius of Joss Whedon was an answer to all of the Firefly fans' desperate pleas.
It begins by sharply introducing each character for those who have never enjoyed the series Firefly, with admittedly less finesse due to constraints of movie lengths. But what it does aptly capture is the terror of the Reavers, these poor vicious and destructive creatures and their surprising creators.
So we are taken on this short journey which discovers the beginnings of these creatures, and in doing so, Captain Reynolds and his crew deal a fatal blow to the rule of the Alliance. Captian Reynolds is somewhat surprisingly the heart of this movie, determined to do what is right despite fatal consequences.
Whilst fantastically action packed and delivering all the unique wit of the original series, the film still fails to tie up many loose ends.
We now know some of the mystery surrounding River Tam's past, she is clearly shown in the movie as designed to be a weapon - but a weapon for what purpose?
And what of Book? What exactly is his story? As one of the most originally mysterious characters, extremely little of his background is revealed.
These and many more questions are left unanswered for those who have watched Firefly. However, as a standalone movie it does extremely well with incredible CGI and unique characters and story.
In my opinion, Serenity must be watched, preferably along with its series, in order to fully understand the fan's enchantment and glee with this wonderful creation.
As a fan of the Firefly series which was unfairly canceled, I had been waiting for this film to arrive ever since it was announced. Yet even as a Firefly fan, I found this film wasn't quite as good as I had expected it to be.
This may have been because I had hyped up the arrival of this film so much that it would never live up to my expectations of it or maybe it just failed to deliver on certain aspects of the storyline. Nevertheless it is still a very good film and I have watched it multiple times, and would recommend it to anyone who even vaguely likes their science fiction.
The plot is based around the character River and the Alliance trying to get her back as she carries sensitive data in her head. One specific piece of data stored in her head is the knowledge of an outer rim planet where essentially the whole population was killed by a scientific experiment gone wrong.
Joss Whedon is a good writer and made a name for himself making the Buffy series; there is a very 'glossy' feel to those series, which is okay as the issue of death wasn't so pronounced in them. Whereas in Serenity there are parts where death is a big part of the film, none more so when they discover the dead planet, and I feel the impact of death in the film is slightly diminished by that so called 'glossy' feel that he has hung on to.
There are some very good action scenes and it is good to see the characters from Firefly returning with all their charms. I will also mention it is pleasing that they used same actors from the series, despite being relatively unknown, as it would have been a real shame if they hadn't.
The film in general is very good, my bad points simply put are just because I have matured as a viewer since the series was aired and expected more. Despite my nit-picking it is an enjoyable film that almost the entire family can enjoy as it's not full of swearing and needless violence - 4 stars.
One really good thing has come about from this movie is that more people are watching Firefly, who knows one day the series may return (we can hope).
The most perfectly acted and wonderfully written entertainment was taken from us when Fox foolishly cancelled the television show Firefly, a sci-fi/western created by Joss Whedon who is best known for being behind the phenomenon that was Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Finally, after years of constant campaigning from cast, crew and fans alike, with the release of Serenity we got it back again. I could not have been more excited as I stood in line waiting to collect my ticket for that first showing. And I was not disappointed.
This film takes place in the distant future where the human race have moved out across the stars. This is not the future that sci-fi tends to deal with, life is tough out in the black, especially when you're a Browncoat, a member of the losing side of a war, the people who wanted to stay free from the rule of the Alliance. The rich planets are filled with technology, beauty and wealth, but those on the outer rim are barely surviving, living on dusty worlds with broken down equipment and often being forced to resort to crime to feed their families.
We reunite with all of the most beloved characters from Firefly; Captain Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), ex-sergeant Browncoat, just trying to live his live free from the control of the ruling Alliance and keep flying, married couple Zoe (Gina Torres) and Hoburn 'Wash' Washburne (Alan Tudyk), she an ex-soldier who served with Mal during the war and he a pilot of incredible skill, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), the ships genius untaught mechanic, Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin), the mercenary thug who will do almost anything for money, bar betraying Mal, and finally Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau), brother and sister who are on the run from the Alliance after he broke her out of a supposed school her parents sent her to at 14, where she was being experimented on, where she was driven mad and programmed to become an assasin. They all live together aboard Serenity, a rundown Firefly class space ship owned by Mal, taking on any work they can get, legal or otherwise. But now the Alliance will stop at nothing to get back River Tam, she knows a secret that they do not want revealed.
We also see the return of Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a companion now teaching girls to become so, and Shepherd Book (Ron Glass), a somewhat mysterious priest now living on Haven, both of whom resided on Serenity during the run of Firefly. A companion is a legalised prostitute, but in this 'Verse they are considered highly in society, respected and well educated in a variety of areas. Inara is clearly very intelligent, graceful and wealthy and men and women pay her for more than sexual activity, but also conversation and company.
Also we see the return of the Reavers, the monsters of camp fire tales, men who are no longer men but savages who know nothing but violence and rage, mutilated and covered in blood as they go from world to world, murdering, raping and eating the flesh of men. The Alliance denies their very existence but those in the black know that they are there and they are terrified. Even Jayne, the most butch man imaginable, would rather be shot than be caught by them, Adam Baldwin truly gives an excellent portrayal of the fear they instill in the bravest souls.
We also have a new character, the Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor), our main antagonist, an assasin sent by the Alliance to get back River Tam by any means neccesary. But he is the most dangerous kind of assasin of all; he believes that what he is doing is the absolute right thing to do. He is trying to create a world without sin, but not for himself to live in. He will kill anyone that gets in his way, men, women and children.
The 'Verse that Joss has created for these characters is a tough one but an intensely interesting one too. The characters slip easily between speaking English and Chinese, the idea that the two biggest super powers on Earth, America and China, merged before we spread across the stars, which can also be seen in the costumes and sets.
This film is everything Firefly was and deserves to be a much bigger hit than it was upon it's theatrical release. Wonderful and true performances from all of the cast, a perfect script, perfect story, amazing effects and beautiful, chilling, heart-warming, heart-breaking music make this far superior to a lot of other films of it's kind. Not for a single second was I not in awe of what was on the screen, and its the first film to ever make me both laugh out loud and cry real tears. There were tragedies that cut me to the bone and moments that made me smile with joy, and it all blended together to make one incredible film that really did justice to those who stood by Firefly, never accepting that it was over. Basically this film is, in a word, perfect. Joss, quite frankly, is our master.
Serenity (2005) is based on Joss Whedon's TV series Firefly. Sadly, Firefly did not last long, and I do not see why. Whedon proved himself as an Emmy-nominated writer/director with Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel, and Firefly and Serenity both retain his writing wit and intense storylines.
The Plot
500 years in the future, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, on the losing side of the galactic wars, finds himself transporting a special passenger on his ship, one who is holding a secret. Pursued by a deadly government assassin and under constant threat from the Reavers, Reynolds and his crew, already fugitives, find themselves fleeing and fighting harder than they ever have done before.
The Cast and Performances
For the film Serenity, Whedon has used the same actors and actresses as in Firefly. Nathan Fillion is the Captain, Mal, and gives a witty and powerful performance as the unwilling hero on the run. His crew are well acted, but there is nothing special here. The acting is very much as you would expect of a Star Trek film, for example, with series actors giving similar performances as they do on the small screen. This gives the 114 minute filma TV show feel about it, and possibly too long.
The assassin chasing them is known as The Operative, and is payed emotionlessly by Chiwetel Ejiofor - the perfect performance for an assassin who is so cold and clinical. The star of the shoe is undoubtedly Summer Glau as River, the telepathic passenger whose secret is her power.
My Opinion
There are many aspects of this film that I really liked. The majority of the special effects and the scenery in a future ravaged by time and employing futuristic technology is handled very well, and the choreography of the fight sequences is amazing, particularly where The Operative and River are concerned.
My only problem with this film was that it did seem like a really long episode of a TV programme. However, it did not detract from my enjoyment of what is essentiall a very good film, well made and acted. Whedon at the helm has nurtured his creation onto the big screen in a very clinical manner, with the right balance of wit and action.
A well made film that runs like a really long TV episode.
I rate this film at 4 stars out of 5.
The DVD is available from amazon.co.uk for £4.98.
This review may aloso be posted on ciao.co.uk.
Thanks for reading.
Set 510 years in the future. Humans have left Earth in mass exodus to a far distant planetary system. Unlike Earth government is based on alliance from several planets. Those living on inner ring of planets live a good life; outer planets have civilization similar to the old west in America. Serenity is a ship. The senior crew members are veterans of planetary wars and now out of loop they would take on any job to make money (serenity is a cargo ship). One job lands the crew in an inter-galatic conspiracy that will take them on a ride of their lives.
This film is an out of this world blockbuster. Emotions, action, splendid scenery and images are all in this film.
It has to be watched to be believed. For an extremely low budget film it has everything.
I think of Serenity as a science fiction film with cowboy western elements added to the story.
Fascinating film with glimpse of nasty future that awaits future generations.
Amazon price £13.48
You must view the American TV network Fox as a double edged sword. On the one hand it has produced some of the best science fiction and comedy shows of recent years including The X Files and The Simpsons. However, it has also got a bad reputation for cutting off shows before they even have a chance of becoming hits e.g. Keen Eddie or Arrested Development. One such show was the critically acclaimed Firefly, written by Joss Whedon, the man who had successfully brought Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the small screen. However, even his strong track record was not enough to keep this expensive science fiction show on the air and after just a few episodes it was gone. However, the story does not end here as the DVD sales for the limited episodes proved so successful that Whedon was able to get funding for a feature film. A feature film that, in my opinion, would become one of the best science fiction films of recent years.
Captain Mal and his misfit crew are on the run from the alliance, a group that control large parts of the known universe with military and financial might. As one of a minority of people refusing to bow to conformity Mal has taken aboard a Doctor and his strange sister. It seems that there is more to this young woman than meets the eye when on a routine drop off a TV screen triggers her to beat up everyone in the room. However, this is the least of the crews problems because this has also set of a chain of events that will see them being chased by an emotionless killer, go up against a clan of rabid people and with the odds stacked up against them, not all of them are likely to survive.
I decided to sit down and watch this film again for the third time with my partner as it is one of her favourite films. I remember seeing it at the cinema around the time that Episode 3 of Star Wars was released. Unlike that film Serenity still holds up as being excellent to this day and this is for a number of reasons. Firstly, the script and story are excellent. Not only is it exciting, easy to follow, intelligent, but very funny. Whedon has proven himself to be a great writer throughout Buffy and Angel and it continues here. The fact that the story makes perfect sense is not always a given in science fiction and the dialogue is amongst the best you will hear, full of witty asides and pithy remarks.
The intelligence and humour of writing continues in the characters. You do not have to be a fan of the original Firefly to enjoy the company of these well rounded individuals. They are superbly written and fantastically acted. It is easier to list those parts that are not great; the doctor (Sean Maher) is a little flat and I find his sister (Summer Glau) a little annoying too. However, the rest of the cast are excellent. Alan Tudyk and Adam Baldwin stand out as great comic characters that also have their own agenda, but the best created must go to Nathan Fillion as Mal. His performance in the film is as well acted and as charismatic as Han Solo in the original Star Wars Trilogy.
Special mention must also go to the actors who have been brought in to appear in the film. David Krumholtz as Mr Universe has a great extended cameo, but for me it is one of my favourite British actors who shines. For a film about good versus evil to work you need a great bad guy. Chiwetel Ejiofor plays The Operative a man sent out to ruthlessly hunt down the crew of the Serenity. He is completely indoctrinated into the life of the alliance and would do anything for them, including killing hundreds of innocent people. Ejiofor is a wonderful actor full of presence and style. He has become one of my top people to watch and this role highlights what he can bring to any film.
I can not actually think of any real flaws to the film. It is very science fiction based so non-fans of the genre will not enjoy it. One area that could have proved an issue with a limited budget would be the special effects, an area that is very important on space films. However, this did not prove the case as the limitations actually made Whedon and co. concentrate on using what they can to the fullest. The special effects guys even add a sense of shaky cam to the CGI that makes it so much better a triumph.
The great writing and rounded characters gives Serenity an emotional depth that the last three Star Wars films would have loved. There is no crap CGI chases here for the sake of it, but gritty action sequences that, although unreal, have a sense of physics about them. I had a far greater time watching this film about characters I do not know that much about, than the turgid borefest of Episode 3. It is a shame that the film was unable to make enough money to warrant a sequel as there are plenty more tales about Serenity that can be told.
Director: Joss Whedon
Year: 2005
Cert: 15
Starring: Nathan Fillion, Chiwetel Ejiofor et al.
Price: Amazon uk £4.98
Play.com £5.00
There are numerous extras on the DVD, but probably not enough to sate fans of the film and show. There are several featurettes on the making of the film and a very interesting directors commentary. Add to this some deleted scenes and outtakes and you have a lot its just that I wanted them to go on forever!
Once upon a time there was a TV show that was a western in space, called Firefly (for which I have also done a review). It was created by Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel) and unknown to the majority of TV viewers, aired on Fox. Unknown because Fox did not promote it, and kept moving it about to fit around other shows. Fox then did its usual bit, and canceled the show due to poor viewing numbers. It was the show with big damn hereos that refused to die, however, for those who had managed to watch it, were the die hard sort of fans that refuse to let go. Whedon, spurred on by his vision, and with the fan base in tow, attempted to get other networks to pick it up. They declined, only to have a Whedon succeed in getting the series continued with a cinema release that became a blockbuster which gained new fans for the original series, which was already released onto DVD. Incidentally, this film also has the recent distinction of winning best sci fi film by fans, beating out Star Wars, which had held number one for decades.
Set 500 years in the future after humankind has used up all the earth's natural resources and moved out to colonise other terraformed worlds, Serenity focuses on thecrew on the old banger of a freighter named Serenity. The terraformed system of planets is ruled by the mostly benevolent right wing Alliance, which is mainly comprised of a historical alliance between the US and China and their allies. They have the tightest control on the inner planets which are closer to home and more built up and "civilised", with the outer planets being frontier worlds where their grip is not so tight, and with whom they recently fought a civil war with. Being from the outer worlds, and the captiain and his second in command having fought on the losing side of the war, the crew try to scrape together a living on the fringes of soociety. This is not without danger, as Reavers have entered the equation over the past several years, preying upon the worlds out on the Rim. These are crazies who mutilate themselves and alter their ships to emit dangerous radiation. Cannibals, they prefer living flesh and are known to strap trophies onto their hull. It is also complicated by the fact that hidden factions within the Alliance, wishing to tighten their control, began experimenting on gifted youths, exploring their minds surgically and psychologically with the idea of exposing psychic talents and training them to be the ultimate warrior.
This complication is personal, as one of their little experiments got loose, thanks to her brother, Dr. Simon Tam, who took passage on Serenity, with both becoming crew. Needless to say, the Alliance want their project back. Not just to hide their secret research that created what she is, but to hide an even bigger secret that could bring down their government. Unfortunately, sending out a man known only as the Operative, they trigger her hidden knowledge of this secret, and it becomes a race tfor the crew of Serenity to expose it for what it truly is or die trying before the Operative succeeds.
I absolutey hate it when a movie is made from a TV series and they decide to replace all the actors when it is not necessary. No problem withthat here, thank goodness! The movie features the original TV series cast, and a few new ones as they are new characters that are only in the film. The main cast are:
Mal ....Nathan Fillion
Zoe ....Gina torres
Wash ...Alan Tudyk
Inara ....Morena Baccarin
Jayne...Adam baldwin
Kaylee....Jewel Staite
Simon ....Sean Maher
River ...Summer Glau
Shepherd Book ....Ron Glass
The Operative ....Chiwetel Ejiofor
Mr. Universe ...David Krumholtz
A fine cast they are too. The cohesion and inherent antagonisms within the crew shine here, with the viewer feeling as if they are standing just over there>>>>> watching them. Summer Glau especially deserves kudos. Not only does she portray the disturbed River exceedingly well in a chilling yet wholly sympathetic manner, but she did all her own stunts and there are fight scenes that make you want to hit the rewind button to see her in action. The climax scene with her in it towards the end had me on the edge of my seat. I did not hit the rewind button just then, however, I admit I watched all the way til the end, THEN hit the rewind and watched her big hand combat scene in slow motion, which got especially Matrix like where they already had slow motion in play. Wow!. Ejifor as the Operative was suberbly cast as the fanatical villain of the piece. I have to say that he genuinely scared me with his reasonableness as he did his "duty". It was like having two sides of an unstable coin, River the heroine with her genius and telepathic poweres and other gifts, and the Operative, with his tactical and fiendishly imaginative and murderous skills, providing the perfect foil foreach other. Mal, a sort of Han Soloish type character with his gallant but slightly shady captain of a tatty cargo ship role, actually adds an unexpected seasoning to their mix when he steps into the fray and takes the Operative on. We get to see just how devious the captain can also be, and it goes a long way to explaining how he got away with his livlihood so long with the Alliance on the prowl for smugglers.
In a sci fi film, no matter how good the cast is, the sets and special effects can limit their believability. Though shot on a budget, I have to say they were not let down here at all. The scenes involving space were done using CGI, but the CGI is so seamless that you would really beleive you were looking out a window. The other scenes all take place on Earth type planets, so those posed no challenge to the filmmakers. The sets of the interior of the craft and stations are meticulous. The Firefly class Serenity itself is the same to scale set used in the TV series, and actaul buildings on a campus were used for scenes on the mystery planet (I will say no more as it would be a spoiler). I have to give two thumbs up then for sets and special effects, once again proving that a lower budget does not need to mean terrible sets and special effects that look as if they came from Clash of the Titans.
~~~the DVD~~~
Not only do you get the movie in widescreen, but it is packed with extras. These include:
Joss Whedon Introduction
Feature Commentary
Deleted Scenes With Optional Commentary By Director Joss Whedon
Future History The Story Of Earth That Was
Whats In A Firefly
ReLighting The Firefly
A Filmmakers Journey
I will not go into these overly much, but suffice to say, if you are a fan, these are pure gold. Otherwise, you probably will not be overly interested in the extras. I will admit to only having watched these once, but then again, I do not own this movie (yet), I merely rented it. I do plan to add it to my next Amazon purchase however, as it is excellent value in the big Sci Fi sale, being marked down over £15 to less than £5 despite holding the number 15 spot for overall UK DVD sales on Amazon. The money will be well spent,; the picture is clear, the sound crisp, sounding great in our surround sound system. Unfortunately I will say the crisp sound did not enhance the moment when Mr Whedon sang the theme song himself. Ouch.
~~~My Verdict~~~
So, the short and sweet of it is, buy or rent this film. To make it slightly less confusing though, buy or rent the Firefly tv series it is based on first! You will enjoy a cracking adventure if you do. I also found that I got a lot more from the film, understanding nuances I had previously missed (yes, I rented this more than once lol)after watching the 14 episode series. Just do watch it.


text: The acupuncture is now become very popular in the western socities. It's known as and alternative medical practice. It's the drug free theraphy for the stress relief. Acupuncture has been the medical practiced in china for over two thousands years, it's a therapeutic system that make the use od sterilized …Read More »


text:
After taking three long years and raking lots of controversy, Mahesh Babu"s Khaleja finally hit the screen. However, the film appeared not so impressive despite Trivikram"s efforts to portray Mahesh Babu in a different manner. The storyline is very delicate and the screenplay is zigzag, which ultimately made the film a damp squib.
Raju (Mahesh Babu) is a taxi driver. Whenever he meets Subhashini aka Subbu (Anushka) suffers huge loss. After one such encounter, Raju gets hospitalised. After his return from hospital, he takes two persons in his taxi to some place and one among them is a geologist. But geologist forgets his wallet in taxi. Raju goes inside to return and gets shocked when some one shoots the geologist. His assistant in a bid to escape jumps from the window and destroys his taxi. Later cirmustance leads Raju to visit Rajasthan.
Meanwhile, Subbu"s father looks for an alliance and finalises the match with the son (Amit) of GK (Prakash Raj), who is a billionaire as they both wanted to join hands in business. After finding some condoms with him, Subbu runs away from him, when he takes Subbu to Rajasthan in a helicopter. There again, Subbu meets Raju. When they wanted to return, GK"s men attack Raju and stab him. However, some villagers, who where suffering from a typical disease due to water contamination and finds Raju as a a saviour. Some coincidences prove that he had the divine powers. How Raju cracked the mystery behind the water contamination? Why GK wanted to contaminate the water and eliminate people from the village? How Raju taught a lesson to GK forms part of the climax.
Mahesh Babu"s performance is the sole attraction of the film. He shouldered the entire responsibility to run the movie on his own. He changed the style of dialogue delivery and maintained good comedy timing. He has given a stylish touch to the action scenes and romantic scenes. Anushka is okay as heroine and her character has no scope for performance and she has filled the glamour slot by shaking her legs with the hero. Shafi has given an good performance in the film and has all the chances to bag best supporting actor award. Prakash Raj"s role is very limited and in fact, there is no need for such a big artiste for the villain"s role as the antagonist appeared only in a few scenes in the entire film. Other artistes including Rao Ramesh, Tanikella Bharani and Subbaraju have done justice to their roles and Veda appeared in only one scene. Comedy by Suni, Ali is okay but Brahmanandam is wasted.
Dialogues are terrific and most of them are in colloquial language. They appear as if someone is talking casually. Mahesh Babu"s character has got a comedy touch due to the different kind of dialogues. Definitely it would attract the mass audiences. Trivikram has experimented a different screenplay because the story is quite delicate. Music by Manisharma is good to listen. The music overshadowed the lyrics in some of the songs, while some are melodies which are good to listen. Choreography of songs are good in parts. The selection of costumes in some songs are of poor taste. However, the song 'Om Namo Siva Rudraya" picturisation is extraordinary and Shafi should be commended for giving an excellent performance in that song. As a whole, the film lost the magical touch of Trivikram.
The first half an hour of the second half is little boring as the director lost grip on the screenplay. Audiences loses their patience. But, Trivikram has tried to invoke the action drama to capture the attention of mass audiences. Action scenes in the film are quite stylish. Watch the film for Mahesh Babu"s performance and the witty dialogues by Trivikram.
Cast: Mahesh Babu, Anushka, Prakash Raj, Rao Ramesh, Shafi, Ali, Sunil, Brahmanandam, Subbaraju, Kota Srinivasa Rao, Tanikella Bharani, Raghubabu, MS Narayana, Dharmavarapu Subrahmanyam, Amit, Veda and others.
Credits: Music – Mani Sharma, Cinematography – Yash Bhatt and Sunil Patel, Editing – Sreekar Prasad, Presents – Satya Ramamurthy, Producers – Singanamala Ramesh, C Kalyan, Story, screenplay, direction, dialogues – Trivikram Srinivas
Banner: Kanakaratna Movies
Released on: October 7, 2010


text:
Study of Sequential Administration of Oral 6-Thioguanine After Methotrexate in Patients With LCH
This study has been completed.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First received: December 26, 2007
Last updated: April 16, 2015
Last verified: April 2015
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- Study Results
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
The objective of this study is to determine the incidence of complete and partial response and the duration of response in patients with Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) treated with sequential administration of oral 6-Thioguanine (6-TG) after Methotrexate (MTX).
|Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis
|Drug: Methotrexate Drug: 6-Thioguanine Drug: Leucovorin Calcium
|Phase 2
|Study Type:
|Study Design:
|Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:
|Study of Sequential Administration of Oral 6-Thioguanine After Methotrexate in Patients With Langerhans Cell in Histiocytosis (LCH)
Resource links provided by NLM:
Genetics Home Reference related topics: Langerhans cell histiocytosis
Drug Information available for: Methotrexate ThioguanineU.S. FDA Resources
Further study details as provided by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:
Primary Outcome Measures:
- Determine the Incidence of Complete and Partial Response and the Duration of Response in Patients With Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) Treated With Sequential Administration of Oral 6-TG After MTX. [ Time Frame: Conclusion of the study ]
|Study Start Date:
|January 1995
|Study Completion Date:
|June 2009
|Primary Completion Date:
|July 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
|Assigned Interventions
Experimental: 1
MTX, 6-TG, Leucovorin
Drug: Methotrexate
MTX 30mg/m2 (or 1mg/kg for infants) orally, given in three equally divided doses at 0,8, and 16hrs
Other Name: MTXDrug: 6-Thioguanine
6-TG 300mg/m2 (or 10mg/kg for infants) orally, given in one dose.
Other Name: 6-TGDrug: Leucovorin Calcium
5mg orally at 36,48, and 60hrs (or 12 hrs after the dose of 6-TG and then every 12 hrs for a total of 3 doses)
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|Child, Adult, Senior
|Sexes Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients with histologic proof of LCH who have multifocal or multisystem disease involvement.
- Patients must have a life expectancy of at least 8 weeks.
- All patients must have ECOG performance level rating of-< 2.
- Patients or their parents (guardian) must sign an informed consent indicating that they are aware of the investigational nature of the study, using commercially available drugs.
- Patients must have recovered from the toxic effects of prior therapy before entering this study or at least 2 weeks should have elapsed since the end of last course of chemotherapy.
- Patients must have adequate liver function (bilirubin _< 2.0 mg/dl, SGOT less than 1.5 times normal (unless it is due to disease), adequate renal function (creatinine <_ 1.5 mg/dl, creatinine clearance >_ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) and normal electrolytes.
- Patients should have a granulocyte count > 500/uL and a platelet count >_ 100,000/uL (unless due to disease involvement of the bone marrow).
- Male and female patients of child-bearing age should use effective methods of contraception, if sexually active.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients with active infections or significant medical conditions other than their disease (LCH) shall be excluded.
Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00588536
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00588536
|United States, New York
|Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
|New York, New York, United States, 10065
Sponsors and Collaborators
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
|Principal Investigator:
|Tanya Trippett, MD
|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
More Information
Additional Information:
Keywords provided by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on September 21, 2017
Additional Information:
|Responsible Party:
|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|NCT00588536 History of Changes
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|Study First Received:
|December 26, 2007
|Results First Received:
|April 16, 2015
|Last Updated:
|April 16, 2015
Keywords provided by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:
Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Histiocytosis, Langerhans-Cell
Lymphatic Diseases
Lung Diseases, Interstitial
Lung Diseases
Respiratory Tract Diseases
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal
Abortifacient Agents
Reproductive Control Agents
Physiological Effects of Drugs
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
Antineoplastic Agents
Dermatologic Agents
Enzyme Inhibitors
Folic Acid Antagonists
Immunosuppressive Agents
Immunologic Factors
Antirheumatic Agents
Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors
Protective Agents
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on September 21, 2017


text: Network 14 provides assistance to over 39,000 dialysis and transplant patients and approxmiately 530 dialysis and kidney transplant facilities. Network 14 encompasses the state of Texas, which is the second largest state in land area behind Alaska with 267 thousand square miles of land. Texas is also the second most populous state in the nation behind California with an estimated population of 23.5 million residents in 2006. The state population increased 12.7 percent from April 2000 to July 2006 compared to the US increase of 6.4 percent. In 2006, nearly 8.0 percent of the nation's population resided in Texas. The metropolitan areas (Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas) show fast population growth whereas most of the non metropolitan counties continued to record either a slow growth or population decline. In 2005, three cities in Texas were among the largest ten cities in the US: Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. San Antonio was the third fastest growing city in the US, with Houston and Fort Worth in fifth and sixth place respectively.


text: We swoon so hard for Fleur of England's saturated technicolor silks and laces that when we see her pieces rendered in pure, luscious ivory we are almost dumbstruck with how truly lovely they are. This stunning camisole is evidence of the rule. Winter white georgette silk, decadent slinky charmeuse edging, and luscious eyelash lace embellished with extremely delicate gilt thread combine to put this right on our wish-list. Perfect for Snow Queens and any other type of everyday royalty.


text:
Chat with Scott Dixon, Honda 200 winner
Dixon -- a native of New Zealand -- is on quite a roll, having won three races in a row and closing the championship gap to 24 points behind Dario Franchitti.
We'll have Dixon by to chat on Monday afternoon at 4 p.m. ET!
Auto Racing Archive: Chats
This chat is exclusive to ESPN Insiders


text:
Salvatore "Sal" Cocchiaro is a machine.
The 17-year-old senior at St. Francis Preparatory School (SFP) has taken eight Advanced Placement courses throughout his high school career, putting him at least a full semester ahead of the game before he even gets to college.
The Bayside resident also has more honor society memberships than most. He has two part-time jobs and several volunteer gigs. He is currently studying childhood obesity as part of the Science Research Program in his school in hopes of finding new ways to combat the global epidemic. He's also at the top of his class, so not only does he have the time to do it all, but the skill to pull it off expertly.
He has a schedule that rivals people far older than him, and yet somehow he still finds time for video games, pickup football, movie nights, Mets games and hangouts with his friends.
Cocchiaro said his academic prowess comes naturally. For him, however, maintaining that excellence comes from being well rounded. He places just as much significance on achieving peace of mind through relaxation.
"I refuse to go to bed feeling upset by my homework," he said, adding that even if his studies keep him up until 2 a.m., he always makes time for a half-hour of television or videogames afterward in order to unwind.
"It's important to take care of myself as much as my studies."
He also said remaining social was an important aspect to this balance.
"I'd rather stay up late and finish homework [on weeknights] and be able to go out on weekends. People so often neglect themselves for their work, and that's never a good thing. By exercising, keeping myself satisfied and enjoying my days as much as possible, the work isn't a burden. I allow myself to take in all in stride."
When Cocchiaro speaks of his activities, he does so with excitement and pride.
Cocchiaro's scholastic abilities shone throughout his early childhood as well, even garnering him acceptance to Manhattan's esteemed Regis High School. After careful consideration, he ended up turning it down.
"I love Prep," he said simply. "All my friends are here, my family's here. I really found a balance between my academic, social and physical life."
On the weekends, Cocchiaro works as a sales associate at FYE in The Bay Terrace shopping center and as a captain and waiter with his father at Riccardo's By the Bridge.
Like school, he appreciates his part-time jobs for the learning experiences they provide. Being a captain at Riccardo's, he said, allows him to lead, while FYE teaches him to be a team player.
"It's good to lead and take orders," he said, "because you're never going to be a big shot 100 percent of the time. There will always be someone above you and there will always be someone beside you."
As for the future, Cocchiaro said he wants to study English and economics at college. He would eventually like to pursue a career in sports management, a passion he currently nurtures through his adoration of the Mets and the Jets, along with participating in the Fantasy Sports Club at school, which he founded two years ago.
Vassar College, Fordham University, Princeton and Columbia are all at the top of his college list, he said, adding, "In life, the key is to never give up in what you believe. I would rather regret the things I've done than regret the things I haven't tried to do. In life, you get what you give. I'll make who I am by myself."


text:
|Eric Bliss <eric@×××××××××××.net>
|Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts]
|Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:58:57
|In Reply to:
|RE: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts] by Bob Young
On Friday 09 December 2005 04:17 pm, Bob Young wrote:> Thank you, that's exactly the point, the major objection is on a *mailing > list*, the content is much more well defined, each and every message is > thousands of times less likely to be spam or malware, than any randomly > selected non-list email. >Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that people have their mail systems set to kill ANY HTML mail that they receive. And again, I ask - once you realize that many people are being aggressive in what they block (I for instance, never allow my e-mail client to run dynamic content or graphics - or even render HTML until I tell it to.), what are you going to be using HTML for??? Fonts??? Text Alignment??? It's just not worth the trouble. It doesn't serve any useful purpose to send HTML that won't be rendered to people who are likely to delete your e-mail just because it has HTML.> Okay, let's use your numbers, that's an additional 2K * 1000 people, so an > additional 2 megabytes for each message that crosses the list. Let's say the > list receives 100 messages in a 24 hour period, in round numbers that's an > extra 200MB to send out over a 24 hour period, sounds like a lot doesn't it? > But compared to the bandwidth capacity the server actually has available > over that 24 hour period, it's probably a low single digit percentage...if > that. >Except for three things... 1000 users is quite likely low-balling the figure on almost any mailing list. For instance, I think I've got over 100 different people who've posted to this list in my e-mail box - and that doesn't even include the silent lurkers who are getting copies mailed to them, but that aren't actively posting. You are also likely to have multiple e-mail lists on a single server. How many different lists are there for gentoo? I'm subscribed to at least six, and they all appear to be coming from the same server. Look at the number of posts to gentoo-user - that's a lot more traffic that this list gets - and probably a lot more people subscribed as well. Lastly - most email clients that send HTML mail actually send TWO copies of the mail - one plain text, and one formatted. The fact that the plain text comes first, and can be selected as your primary viewing option is the only reason I don't bitch about this topic more often. But, the effect is to more than double the size of every message that gets sent by HTML - 100% of the plain text, and another 120% for the HTML (more or less depending on how much formatting you use). Okay, I lied, there's one more point. It doesn't apply to me, but there are plenty of people who it does apply to - not everybody who subscribes to these lists has a broadband internet connection. And depending on how many of these lists they subscribe to, and how active they are, the "double size" of HTML posts can become a serious problem for their individual connections.> >Don't argue about why your way is better when it's in clear > >opposition to the people who make up the community, simply accept that they > >have reasons for doing things the way they do, and abide by those rules > when > >you're in their home. > > This is disappointing. Just blowing off all opposing arguments any, and > saying it must be done this way, "because we say so" regardless of the > facts, or validity of opposing argument, is something I'd expect from a > Microsoft mindset. >No, as I said earlier, and as Duncan just mentioned from Eric Raymond's article, it's a matter of respect for the people that you're asking to help you. We're not telling you how to do it no matter where you go (which is the Microsoft way), we're only asking you to do this when you talk to us. And, as this is the clear majority opinion of the people who are actually providing the support, it falls under the realm of common courtesy (or not-so-common, these days) to respect their wishes, since you are the one asking for help. There may be nothing wrong with HTML e-mail in other contexts, but as you were saying, the issue here is HTML on this list. Following the rules of the community isn't something that's limited to e-mail. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a statement seen on just about any business you visit. When you're asking for service, there are rules you should follow depending on what you're asking for. On FLOSS lists, one of these rules is "Don't use HTML".> >So, exactly what would you refer to the Sober Worm attack on Nov. 23 as??? > 3 > >weeks ago is pretty damned recent. > > Two points, first I'd bet that the attack didn't start with a message to an > email list, much less a Linux oriented list. Second, the number of Linux > users affected by the Worm was probably zero, so that doesn't seem like a > very solid reason for prohibiting html on a Linux oriented list >Well, according to the headers on your own e-mail, you're using Microsoft Outlook to send your mail. So you of all people shouldn't assume that just because someone is on a Linux list means that they're invulnerable to Microsoft security issues. Some people may administer Linux servers while using Windows desktops. Yes, many people on a Linux list are going to be using a Linux desktop, but it's not guaranteed. There is no rule that says that people can't operate on more than one platform. Indeed as I'm writing this on my gentoo laptop, I'm sitting next to a Windows box on my left, and a Mac on my right. I work on a website, so there are times when I need to look at how pages are rendering. I do this in Firefox, PC Internet Explorer, Mac Internet Explorer, Safari, Epiphany, and Konqueror. And I should probably do it in a few others as well. And, while the attack may not have originated on a Linux list, the nature of the worm means that it will try to send to a Linux list. As with most all the Sober varients, the worm self-propagates by looking through your address book and mailboxes, and sending itself to all the addresses that it harvests. So, all it takes is one person having this list address in a Windows box (like you're running for instance) to potenially have the worm hitting the list servers. Whether or not the worm will make it past the server depends on the list admins - but it's almost guaranteed that the worm has tried to mail itself to Linux lists at some point. And if it's a Linux list server, then there's one Linux admin who had to deal with the worm.> > And as for "objective analysis"... How > >many spam filter rules are there that boil down to "It's got HTML/it's got > >loads of HTML in it - it's probably spam". I'd call that a fairly > objective > >viewpoint. > > It may be objective, that doesn't make it accurate or desirable. Just > throwing out all html messages as spam is simplistic and lazy, obviously not > all html messages are spam. >No, but you were claiming that these opinions aren't based on any objective analysis - but as those spam filter rules demonstrate, there is sufficient basis to believe that an HTML message is MORE LIKELY to be spam. No, it doesn't automatically mean that it is spam, but it's a good indicator of POTENTIAL trouble.> >> Do you allow html > >> to be rendered when you browse the web? If so, why is email more > >> dangerous when your email client can easily be configured to > >> render html just as safely as your browser? > > > >How's about because we can CHOOSE where we go when we browse the web, and > we > >can change the settings that we use if we go to sites we don't trust. But, > >if you have to work at all with the public at large, you have to accept > >e-mail from people who's intentions are a complete mystery to you, because > >you can't know until you read it if it's a legitimate e-mail. Yes, you can > >filter out some things that are very obviously spam, but you can't stop > >everything. > > The issue here is accepting html from a mailing list, the sender of each and > every message is traceable, at least to a valid email address. Yet your > argument seems to be that accepting html email from someone who can be > traced and held accountable, is somehow more dangerous than accessing a web > page written by someone you know nothing about and may have no way of > contacting. >No, my point here is that list e-mail is not the only kind of e-mail that people who use these filters get. I have to deal with all kinds of end-users on a multitude of platforms. And if I were having to rely on my Windows box to do my mail, there is no way in ANY Underworld that I would want my e-mail client to trust every message sent to me. Even on Linux, I still block out all parts of the message except for the raw text until I know what I want to do about it. Many people on this list won't even give it that much latitude - they'll send it straight to the trash, since they don't HAVE to read any message on the list. I actually have to at least look at any message that's sent to me (other than the exceedingly obvious spam), otherwise I might do the exact same thing.> It's okay if you want to hold the opinion that "HTML e-mail is a BAD THING" > just because you have some emotional fondness for plain text. Such fondness > may be because it's "from the good ole days" and that's fine, but at some > point we all must let go of the past and embrace change, otherwise we > stagnate. >My emotional fondness for plain text isn't that "it's from the good ole days", it's that "no plain text message ever made my computer crash/get infected". Maybe I'm just picky that way. :-)> >Sorry for this rant, it's just that I happen to strongly agree with the > >community here that HTML e-mail is a BAD THING - especially to FLOSS lists. > > It's good to agree with someone, but it's more important to be sure of the > reasons *why* you agree with them. >Well, there are a number of reasons why I feel the way I do, as you can see. Some don't really apply at the moment (I'm not likely to get infected with any ActiveX crap while I'm using KMail), but that doesn't mean they won't apply to me at other times. Nothing personal here, just trying to better explain WHY some of us are so opposed to HTML in e-mail. -- Eric Bliss systems design and integration, CreativeCow.Net -- email@example.com mailing list
|Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts]
|Craig Webster <craig@××××××.net>
|RE: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts]
|Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com>


text:
would be nice to center the title or bold the reason for editing and such
That being said... Thanks. :)
Care to elaborate a little? What possible use is there for centering the title or bolding otherwise insignificant lines, other than as pointless eye candy?
More options, more possibilities... E.g:
...I find it nice in Blogger.
Mostly eye-candy but it can help the flow++.
P.s: the image shows negative until you click on it in the viewer.(?) ;)
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.


text:
Need Appliance Repair Help? Ask a Technician for Answers ASAP
Hi,Welcome to Just Answer, My name isXXXXX will be helping you with your appliance issue today.
There is more to this model number, can you get me the rest of the model number?
It is a GE PT956-30" Double wall oven.
Other models listed in the owners manual are
pk916-27" single wall oven
pk956-27 Double wall
pt916-30 single wall
and pt956-30" double wall.
You control panel has failed, that is the keypad that you push to set the oven, what I would do is go to RadioShack or Lowe's and get some HQ contact cleaner and clean the ribbon between the clock and control panel unplug it spray both the control panel receptacle for it and the one on the clock itself, part number 997 on this diagram,
if that doesn't work you will need to replace the control panel this is expensive $307, hopefully cleaning the contacts on the ribbon takes care of the problem, you can go to the link below, for all the diagrams,
Hope this helps thanks, Bryan
http://www.searspartsdirect.com/partsdirect/part-model/GE-Parts/Wall-oven-Parts/Model-PT956WM3WW/0432/0125300?searchedModel= PT956&blt=11
You should be able to get to this control panel by removing screws either under the control panel when you open the door or possibly on the side of the control panel after a screws there, the diagrams are not too clear on that just make sure you shut the breaker off before attempting any repair, wish I could give you exact procedure but the diagrams just don't show it, thanks Bryan
PS, you shouldn't have to remove the oven but sometimes you do have to pull it out a bit to get at the top if that's where the screws on this panel


text:
Round Plain Hammered Copper PREP Sink Grape EMBOSSED Bar Prep Sink Shiny. Round Plain Hammered Copper Bar Sink Grape EMBOSSED Bar Prep Sink . Drop in or Under Mount.Dimensions: Round 16" Dia. X 7" H. OD Available at AppliancesConnection
- Dimensions: Round 16 Dia. X 7 H. OD
- Material:
- Warranty: One Year Limited Warranty
Be the first to ask a questionAsk A Question
Be the first to review this productWrite A Review