Wrote this in response to an email from someone who wanted to know what I thought about the current Stargate franchise. Might as well post it here too, since I've done very little with it in the last few months. Warning: contains spoilers.
Having now watched the Stargate: Universe pilot, I'll have to say that the new show must be pretty good for the environment, because it contains a high percentage of recycled material:
So they don't seem to be pioneering very far onto untrodden ground with the new show's overall concept.
As to the pilot episode itself: for an hour and a half of running time, it didn't really feel like they covered a whole lot of ground, plot-wise. There really wasn't much differentiation between most of the characters (especially the military men, and all the women who aren't the senator's daughter). But it was a pilot episode, and those do tend to give short shrift to characterization in lieu of setting the scene and simply introducing the characters to the audience, so I'll give it a few more episodes to improve in that area.
I was quite annoyed by the "air leaking out of the shuttlecraft" subplot. By an astounding coincidence, they managed to arrive just hours before the leaking air became a fatal problem. When they couldn't close the stuck doorway, they didn't even attempt to block it off (crates, plastic sheeting duct-taped around the sides, etc). Though The Last Starfighter kept looking back over his shoulder at the floating camera as he stood near the stuck doorway, it didn't occur to him to use it to press the controls in the shuttlecraft to close the door (I would have been satisfied if they had at least tried it and discovered that the control panel would only react to the touch of a living organism). And although they showed that the ship was clever enough to seal the doors leading to sections leaking air, when the shuttle airlock door didn't close, it wasn't clever enough to seal the next doors closest to the stuck one? All in all, it was a pretty artless way to force the plot to a point where the senator sacrificed himself for the good of everyone else.
So... not impressed with the current state of the franchise. Like I said, I won't write it off just yet - I'll give it a chance to improve - but I was not terribly thrilled by the pilot.
(But if Gordie MacScientist starts hallucinating his dead wife à la Number Six, I'm shutting it off right then and there.)
Twelve years after I first created them, I'm getting ready to release updated versions of my 'historic' fonts. A lot of new font technology has arisen since they were first released, and I'm taking advantage of some nifty features of Unicode and OpenType to make them much easier to use (at least in applications which support those features, like InDesign, or Firefox 3.5).
And there's the rub - out of eight browsers that I've tried, only Firefox supports the OpenType features like contextual alternates and ligatures that are built into the fonts - and then, only on Windows (not on Linux).
Also disappointing is the inconsistent support for the CSS3 @font-face tag, which allows a browser to download and use a font that's not installed on the system.
Browser | Download | OpenType |
---|---|---|
Firefox 3.5 (Windows) | YES | YES |
Firefox 3.0 (Windows) | NO | YES |
Firefox 3.5 (Linux) | YES | NO |
Safari 4.0.3 (Windows) | YES | NO |
Opera 10 (Windows/Linux) | YES | NO |
Google Chrome (Windows) | YES* | NO |
Internet Explorer 8 (Windows) | YES** | NO |
Firefox 3.0 (Linux) | NO | NO |
* Google Chrome can use @font-face, but only if the --enable-remote-fonts command-line switch is used.
** Internet Explorer 8 does not support does support downloading of TrueTupe or OpenType format fonts with @font-face - just their own, formerly proprietary EOT format. While it is possible to convert TrueType/OpenType fonts to EOT format, this requires maintaining twice the number of font files in order to support IE8 users.
The exciting thing about Firefox 3.5's support is that anyone browsing a page using my fonts will automatically see them as intended, archaic letters and ligatures and all, even without the fonts installed on their system. Anyone else will just see the fonts without the archaic characters and ligatures, at best; at worst, just their default fallback fonts.
Add to that the fact that there's currently no way to turn the various typographical features on or off via CSS, and it looks like it'll be a little while before the Web world can compete with InDesign for proper, more-or-less automatic representation of historical documents.