June 6th, 2013

marvin-whoop, whoop

"[movies] Star Trek Into Darkness"

I am in no rush to see this film, despite the stellar cast. This is what Jay Lake has to say about it:

Originally posted by jaylake at [movies] Star Trek Into Darkness

Yesterday, Lisa Costello and I went to see Star Trek Into Darknessimdb ].

How you can make such a terribly bad movie with Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban and Benedict Cumberbatch is beyond me. It wasn't just bad. It was gratuitously bad. Stupidly bad. Intellectually offensively bad. Sort of like that recent movie that someone who stole Ridley Scott's name claimed to have made. $190,000,000 spent on this dog and they couldn't get a scriptwriter with minimal competence at science, science fiction, plot, suspense or dialog? I could have written a better script. Drunk.

Lisa's first flying snowman came six or seven minutes in. I think I lasted ten minutes before my first flying snowman. After a while, I lost count. I eventually wanted to retitle the movie Star Trek: Lens Flares vs Flying Snowmen. If nothing else, that would have been truth in advertising.

I'll admit this much: it was kind of fun. Stupid, boring, annoying fun, but kind of fun. Seriously, though. Wait for the DVD release. Or Netflix. Or a junior college interpretive dance performance of the script. At a minimum, watch it at home with the sound turned off while listening to old Cheech and Chong routines.

And this movie was made by the man who will make the next Star Wars films? Based on what J.J. Abrams did to Star Trek Into Darkness, I predict an all-Jar Jar cast in a Busby Berkeley style musical about political infighting in the Imperial Senate.

puffin

[Ravelry FO] Cardigan tryout for niece-to-be

I know this will not be enough yarn but it is a proof-of-concept / prototype until we can buy the right colour and enough yarn.

Edited to add (ETA):

Okay, I have worked out where I am getting confused by this pattern. The “inc 1” in the pattern is supposed to be “kfb” as explained in the “Abbreviations” section of the pattern and so actually is supposed to stand for two stitches, not one as is usual. I had not realised that the usual abbreviation of “inc 1” to mean “increase 1” and thus only stand for one stitch was not being used and so I thought that I knew how to read the pattern. Yes, maybe I should have read the abbreviations regardless of whether there were any new-to-me abbreviations or not. “inc 1” is not a new abbreviation to me and has been used to mean “increase one” in every other pattern that I have read, knit, test-knit or written to date.

Maybe I have to try to learn not to assume that everyone that writes a pattern has had it test-knit by people that use modern abbreviations. Maybe I have to learn to read the abbreviations even if the pattern seems to be written using abbreviations that I have seen before. I did at least read the pattern page’s comments tab and I am not the first to have this confusion.

I actually wonder why “inc 1” was used in this pattern to stand for two stitches instead of just saying “kfb”. Oh well.

I have also decided that it might be best if I just use another pattern and/or make one up myself.


Earlier notes/thoughts/feelings:

Row 7 makes no sense to me as per stitch counts and so I looked at the Ravelry project page comments and someone had offered an errata in comment #13 but that too is, when I do the maths, incorrect. I offered my own comment #15 with my own version of row #7.

Row 7: K5, PM, work pattern Row 1 over next 6 sts, PM, inc 1, PM, inc 1, K4, inc 1, PM, inc 1, K22, inc 1, PM, inc 1, K4, inc 1, PM, inc 1, PM, work pattern Row 1 over next 6 sts, PM, K5 (60 sts)

NOTE: I have tried this using kfb increases, m1 increases and at least two other styles of increase and my stitch counts still make more sense to me. I am using kfb on row 7 (so that the garter stitch rows are not disrupted by other increase methods) and then left- and right-leaning increases on subsequent rows. I have knit this (the first ten or so rows) five times now and my wording still makes more sense to me. Maybe I am just having difficulty with the wording used in the original pattern because it is different to wordings that I have read in other patterns thus far.

Yes, we do understand wordings that we have seen used before better than wordings that are new to us. Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV).

Note #2: I only did the following once to test my theory.

If I place markers when I cast on (only placing one marker in place of the two where there would be only an inc in between the markers in row 7) then the cast on row is as follows:

Cast on 5 sts, PM, cast on 6 sts, PM, cast on 4 sts, PM, cast on 22 sts, PM, cast on 4 sts, PM, cast on 6 sts, PM, cast on 5 sts (52 sts have been cast on).

Originally published at Natalie Ford Knits. You can comment here or there.