#damn best to prevent me from even enjoying the creative process at all. one may think its difficult to feel lonely when you’re living in a

[flippedorbit]

i’m gonna be so for real, if things don’t start changing for me in good ways i will be disappearing off the face of the earth

[thezodiaczone]

Taurus Compatibility

TAURUS + ARIES (MARCH 21 - APRIL 19) The stubborn Bull locks horns with the willful Ram, nostrils flaring, heads bowed in determination. So begins a fierce but fiery courtship, as splashy and menacing as a Pamplona stampede. Aggression, however uncivilized, is part our Darwinian natures. It certainly is for your signs—who possess an arsenal of steamrolling tactics, from doe-eyed charm to old-fashioned philistine strong-arming. No weak-willed mate will survive your natural selection process. Nor should he. Neither one of you feels safe in the arms of a mate who can't protect you. Thus, your initial faceoff is simply a warning shot: Show me your strength so I can trust you. Once the fanfare is over, you make a great team—like British pop royalty Victoria (Aries) and David (Taurus) Beckham.

As tight as two mafiosos, you like to dress up and flaunt your natural superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom. The deal is sweet for both of you. Taurus gets an attractive show pony and a lusty mate to satisfy his Earthy libido. Aries has a lifelong provider and benefactor to supply creative freedom and endless playtime. Issues can arise if Taurus grows too possessive or tries to tame independent Aries. Indulgent Taurus will need to remain active to keep pace with the energetic Ram (read: lay off the nightly steak frites and vino). You both crave attention, but don't go looking for it outside the relationship, unless you want a real showdown. Like two tots in a nursery, you share a favorite word: Mine!

TAURUS + TAURUS (APRIL 20 - MAY 20) Slow and steady wins the race for these two earthy Toros. A pair of contented cows munching clover in the field, you're masters of pleasure and leisure. Ruled by Venus, the goddess of beauty and love, Taurus life is a sun-dappled serenade—when you're not locking horns in a bullfight. Fortunately, the fierce stampedes are rare between you. The most lethal "charging" for your acquisitive sign happens on Black Friday, or at the Barneys shoe sale. You govern the zodiac's second house of material gain, and while you'll work your fingers to the bone, you also adore "stuff." Taurus rules the five senses. You've got the most sharply attuned sense of smell and taste, and an eye for beauty. As a couple, your home is not just your castle, but an art gallery, listening lounge, movie theater and gourmet restaurant. Renovation is your middle name, and you're forever titivating your digs with state-of-the-art fixtures and upgrades. There's always an occasion to celebrate, and you love to invite people into your grand yet cozy salon to feast, imbibe, show off your fineries, and talk about your latest passions. But the heartbeat for this couple is friends and family. Children, grandchildren, parents, siblings—as long as you're on good terms (and even when you're not), they're a tireless topic. In fact, your true nature really shines as a parent. Warning: you're creatures of habit and you can get lazy and indulgent together. Bring on the personal trainers, nutritionists and motivating friends to keep you on top of your game.

TAURUS + GEMINI (MAY 21 - JUNE 20) ♥♥♥♥ Taurus is a traditional, grounded Earth sign, and Gemini is a free-spirited, unconventional Air sign. Despite the doubt gnawing your gut, you insist on forging ahead together. Nine times out of ten, your first instinct was correct: you don't have much more in common than hot, lusty, try-anything-twice sex. For a while, that's enough to satisfy you both. Unfortunately, the post-orgasmic glow only wanes after you've intertwined your lives—often to the point where leaving would get messy. Perhaps there are enough good reasons to stay after all. For one, you make great business partners. Gemini is creative and media-savvy; Taurus has an instinctive knack for sound financial moves and marketing. You're both visual and gifted with color and style. Blend Gemini's clever quirks with Taurus elegance, and you've got a high-end specialty brand in the bag. Want to keep the bedroom hot and business booming? The cardinal rule of this relationship, which will be torturous for you both, is this: never argue. Gemini loves to debate and play devil's advocate, which will threaten Taurus' ego, making the Bull charge with fury. Taurus is a know-it-all who loves to be right, but experimental Gemini doesn't want to hear "I told you so"—especially not from a lover. Can you go against your natures in the name of love? If you want this to last, you'd better learn how. Agree to disagree, hear each other out, and hire a mediator if you must.

TAURUS + CANCER (JUNE 21 - JULY 22) Buy those twin rocking chairs and install them on the porch: You're an old-fashioned throwback, high school sweethearts at any age. No two signs are more traditional, sentimental or family-oriented than yours. Although the sweetness can be cloying, you're a love story for the ages. In fact, you may emulate your own parents (or compensate for their shortcomings), since you share a rather conventional moral compass. Affectionate and nurturing, you crave lifelong security and a comfortable home, and you'll squirrel away a sizeable nest egg together. Not that you don't indulge. Your signs both appreciate art, culture, decorating, music and gourmet food. As parents, you're protective but firm, Taurus doling out tough love in your children's best interest, nurturing Cancer kisses every boo-boo. Framed family pictures creep like urban sprawl through your home. At times, Taurus' booming voice and blunt remarks wound the Crab's tender feelings. Like a bull in a Bernardaud shop, Taurus doesn't realize his own size, strength and intensity. Taurus will need to dial down the volcanic energy—intuitive Cancer doesn't need every point driven home. At the same time, Cancer must overcome insecurities and toughen up, since Taurus doesn't mince words or tiptoe through the tulips for anyone. Sure, there will be tears and misunderstandings, but there's nothing that any recipe calling for heavy cream can't solve. You both love pampering and feasts, and if your waistlines expand along with your joy, c'est la vie.

TAURUS + LEO (JULY 23 - AUGUST 22) This dynamic coupling is as stable as a batch of homemade explosives. Yet, you can't resist mixing those chemicals just to see what happens. The sexual pyrotechnics alone are certainly tempting. You're both proud, fierce and egotistical—two incurable hotheads—and you're attracted to each other's showy flair. When it's good, it's damn good: you get all the affection, doting and hero-worship you crave. You love to glam up like rock star royalty and paint the town together, drawing attention wherever you go. In fact, your shared vanity may keep you together past the relationship's prime. Sex is animalistic and hands-on (keep ointment at the ready for bites and scratches), and best enjoyed in the monogrammed sheets of the finest hotels. With your combined charisma and willpower, you could overthrow a midsized government, or form your own totalitarian regime. Bad days are brutal, though. The Lion assumes he's in charge of everything, but nobody bosses the Bull around. You both dig in your heels and go for the kill. Drama, shouting, and ego showdowns are your favorite weapons of mass destruction, and woe betide the day you turn those on each other. You're both capable of enacting a scene that brings down the house. Security!

TAURUS + VIRGO (AUGUST 23 - SEPTEMBER 22) You're a pair of sophisticated Earth signs who blend like cashmere and wool. Taurus adds the touch of luxe and Virgo is the solid standby. You're what could be described as a "lovely couple," with good taste, social graces and old-fashioned values. Although your earthy natures can also make you hippies at heart, you tend toward the traditional, and you both like possessions of quality. You'll set up a lovely, well-appointed home—though Taurus will have to fight neat-freak Virgo to keep the plastic slipcovers off the sofas and doilies off the appliances. Virgo is ruled by intellectual Mercury, and Taurus by pleasure-loving Venus. As a result, Taurus is more feisty, raw and direct, which can offend Virgo's stuffed-shirt sensibilities. However, the Virgin soon looses up and learns to laugh at himself. It's good to have sensible Virgo around to pull the brake when Taurus overspends, heads up to the buffet for a fourth helping or tips his glass for a refill. Responsible Virgo has far more self-control than the Bull. In private, you're both sensual and erotic, and you can spend hours wrapped contentedly in your Egyptian cotton sheets. You share a judgmental streak, and if you're too intent on fancying yourselves superior to the world, you may limit your horizons. Open your minds, and be willing to try something "lowbrow" or off your beaten paths. It keeps life interesting.

TAURUS + LIBRA (SEPTEMBER 23 - OCTOBER 22) ♥♥♥♥ Your signs are both ruled by Venus, but your disparate elements prevent this from being an ideal match. Taurus is a fixed Earth sign who builds his castle by the sweat of his brow, then lords over its inhabitants. Libra is cardinal Air, a Queen bee who buzzes around, ruling the hive without doing the drone-work. You both want to be in charge, but your clashing leadership styles create a patchwork parliament that can't agree on anything. Taurus is planted on terra firma, and Libra lives in the clouds. Of course, if the Bull is content to be the provider while Libra dresses up and plays charming host, then this can work. You're certainly an attractive pair of aesthetes, and you share high-end tastes in fashion, décor, food and all the Venusian pleasures. Shameless snobbery is a shared affliction, but neither of you cares to be cured. You love to talk about art, literature, politics, everything under the sun—though Taurus may find Libra's values superficial, and moderate Libra will take offense to the Bull's heavy handed opinions. At least your sexual attraction is strong, and that will take you far enough. However, conflict-avoiding Libra will need to build up some backbone to avoid being steamrolled by dominating Taurus. The Bull will need to turn down the volume, and Libra must get better at addressing issues head on, rather than letting them fester.

TAURUS + SCORPIO (OCTOBER 23 - NOVEMBER 21) You're opposite signs who can fall into a real love-hate dynamic, mainly since you both like to run the show. Taurus is the bossy Bull, and Scorpio rules power and control. It's like two mafia kingpins trying to rule the same territory: it works as long as you're loyal, but cross each other and you're getting whacked. Differences can be a turn-on for some signs, but for this pair, they're often a deal breaker. Taurus and Scorpio are both "fixed" signs, gifted at perseverance and holding your ground, terrible at adapting to other people's personalities. This inflexibility can lead to serious power struggles and enmity that burns bright after the relationship ends. If ever a couple needed a prenup, it's you. Better yet, you'll need to be extremely self-aware and conscious of your personal power. If you can avoid arousing the sleeping dragon in each other, there's plenty of rich material here. You both love music, food and sensual delights. You're equally intense about your beliefs and passions, and sex is a lusty, no-holds-barred affair. You'll give each other the attentive listening both of you crave. The Bull's earthy nature can be grounding for watery Scorpio, whose emotions can warp his perspective. Practical Taurus will pull Scorpio out of depressive slumps, and Scorpio will help Taurus look below the surface to see hidden motivations and agendas. You're loyal and protective of each other, so stay off each other's sacred turf and respect your differences.

TAURUS + SAGITTARIUS (NOVEMBER 22 - DECEMBER 21) ♥♥♥♥ This is a curious match that demands adaptation, as you have vastly different temperaments and tastes. You're either wildly attracted to each other or completely repelled, and there's not much middle ground. Taurus is a traditional Earth sign who knows his tastes and sticks to a simple set of beliefs, social circles and experiences. Sagittarius is a wild, adventurous Fire sign whose anything-goes nature invites friends of diverse cultures and backgrounds. The Archer's global embrace can irritate Taurus, who doesn't feel the need to befriend every person he meets, or remain lifelong pals with his exes (though he can certainly rant about them). Jealousy can be an issue on both sides. However, you can make an excellent team if you respect each other's strengths. Taurus is practical and sophisticated, a grounding force that streamlines the Archer's expansive visions. Between the Bull's business acumen and Sag's charisma, you can build an empire—especially with your driven work ethics. You both have a ribald, lusty side to your personalities and misbehaving together can be a blast. With your hot tempers, you can go from zero to sixty fast, and arguments can be explosive. Your peace treaties should always take place at the dinner table. Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter, god of the feast; Taurus by Venus, planet of pleasure and love. Gorging your bottomless appetites awakens a primal instinct in you both—you'll be tearing each other's clothes off before the second course.

TAURUS + CAPRICORN (DECEMBER 22 - JANUARY 19) You're fellow Earth signs who really vibe well together. By day, you're both hard-driving workaholics. Taurus is the plodding Bull, Capricorn the sure-footed Mountain Goat. Any business venture you launch together will thrive, and you share a deep respect for tradition, family and long-term security. You're both shrewd financial planners, though your love of earthly pleasures can break the bank, too. Once you punch out and uncork the Sancerre, you morph into a pair of hedonists. Sleeping and lounging are favorite pastimes, and on weekends, a forklift couldn't pry you off the sofa. However, Capricorn is far more self-disciplined than the indulgent Bull. Taurus is ruled by Venus, the goddess of beauty and pleasure; Capricorn by strict Saturn, the cosmic taskmaster. Where Taurus is a megalomaniac forever humming his own praise song, poor Cappy flogs himself for even the slightest misstep. Saturn's repression also gives Cap an eccentric side; he can fall into melancholy or fatalistic spells that confound Taurus. The Goat is always planning for rainy days—and as karma goes, plan for a downpour, and you'll surely get one. Taurus refuses to pack an umbrella, for he can't fathom worrying about something that hasn't even happened yet, nor shown up on the radar. You both have something to teach each other. The Bull is gifted at savoring the present, while nostalgic Capricorn obsesses over the past and the future. Strive to get your timing right.

TAURUS + AQUARIUS (JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 18) ♥♥♥♥ Your signs have so little in common, it's hard to make a go of this. Old-fashioned Taurus craves tradition, order and security. Rebel Aquarius is an oddball who lives to defy rules and convention. Taurus is an Earth sign who plants deep roots; Air sign Aquarius is an adventurous nomad who goes wherever the wind blows. While you may start out fascinated by each other, the magic ends faster than you can say "pixie dust." Taurus will quickly offend Aquarius with his heavy-handed opinions and staunch political views. Free-spirited Aquarius will flee from the Bull's possessive grip, which only clenches tighter the more Aquarius flits about. Then there's the matter of your social circles, which rarely overlap. Aquarius habitually befriends the most eccentric people—the corner wino who's solved the string theory, the local fortune teller, his bus driver. While Taurus may humor these characters in passing, all hell breaks loose when Aquarius invites his tribe of wayward souls to spend the weekend, or to sleep on the couch "until they get their act together." Not on Taurus' leather club chair and alpaca throw pillows! You can try to compromise, but you'll only end up short-changing your natural gifts. Aquarius rules the zodiac's eleventh house of friends and society; he's the unofficial mayor wherever he goes, and is meant to spread himself among the people. Homebody Taurus has much more earthbound goals. Neither of you will get the satisfaction you crave unless you work hard to compromise.

TAURUS + PISCES (FEBRUARY 19 - MARCH 20) This is a lovely match of two pleasure-driven sensualists. Taurus is ruled by beauty planet Venus, and Pisces is governed by enchanting Neptune. You both love gourmet food, wine and culture, and you make a creative couple with sophisticated flair. You never run out of things to discuss, whether it's the latest New Yorker piece, art theory, or the obscure band both of you love. In the bedroom, the lusty Bull is happy to enact any fantasy that Pisces' boundless imagination conjures—and there will be many. Domestic bliss is assured, and your fussy decorating styles will match perfectly, much to your snobbish delight. For the long term, you'll need to regulate your energy with each other, or you can lapse into a master-and-servant dynamic. Passive-aggressive Pisces must become more assertive, and forceful Taurus should relax his domineering ways. At times, Pisces' secretive spells can cause fissures in the foundation, arousing suspicion in possessive Taurus. Even if what Pisces is hiding is inconsequential, the act itself destabilizes the relationship. Emotional manipulation infuriates the Bull, who prefers everything above board, and hates to be blindsided. However, Pisces can't always verbalize his complex feelings as quickly as Taurus demands. Too much forcefulness can intimidate the gentle Fish, sending him swimming into unreachable depths.

[shinygoku]

Thunderbirds (2004)

A review by me, CutCat! This is 8-ish pages long!

Spoiler for the end of the film warning: Alan is in International Rescue. What a twist!

Totally Turbulent

Soooo, Tbirds ‘04 is one of those Infamous Adaptations, at least among those who enjoyed Thunderbirds (’65) and of more recent times, Thunderbirds are Go (’15). It’s one of those Bad Live Action Adaptations to a near sacred property, making it dubious contemporaries with Dragon Ball [Evolution], Avatar [The Last Airbender] and suchlike.

But wait, is it really That Bad?? Why is it as divisive as it is? What caused the film to be the way it is, and quite unpopular at that?

First I’m gonna make a long story very short by saying that a Live Action Thunderbirds movie was on and off production for many years, and that the script we ended up with is apparently better than another one that was pitched... but there are reports of cooler scripts further back that never made it, for various reasons. It’s almost a story of it’s own right but I’m only going by 2nd hand information at best, so I’d rather just link them at the end for Additional Reading if y’all felt so inclined.

With that out of the way, we have the Takes from the Andersons to look at. Sylvia had a very favourable reception to it:

"I felt that I'd been on a wonderful Thunderbirds adventure. You, the fans, will I'm sure, appreciate the sensitive adaptation and I'm personally thrilled that the production team have paid us the great compliment of bringing to life our original concept for the big screen. If we had made it ourselves (and we have had over 30 years to do it!) we could not have improved on this new version. It is a great tribute to the original creative team who inspired the movie all those years ago. It was a personal thrill for me to see my characters come to life on the big screen."

Whereas Gerry had a considerably blunter response at the opposite end of the scale:

"the biggest load of crap I have ever seen in my entire life."

As for me, a mere fan of predominantly the TAG series with limited but fond memories of the 90’s TOS reruns, I’d been inclined to ignore it and write it off as a DBE or TLA lost cause. But the combined effect of me deciding to check out unpopular media for myself, namely Dragon Ball GT and the live action Super Mario Bros. movie, and thoroughly enjoying both; and the other effect of TAG finishing but my fixation reawakening with the need to consume More, I dived deeper into the fan base than I had dared to before, in which I found more reasons to watch it and make up my own mind fairly.

Find out what I thought, and a review of the movie itself, below the Cut! ✂

Stormy Story

Ok, enough teasing, I see good things in the movie but not enough for it to be a secret masterpiece, not by a long shot.

1/3 Stars from Me. That’s Poor. (Compare with 2/3 being Good, and 3/3 being Excellent)

My main beef is unfortunately kinda the crux of the whole story, so while there were aspects I really liked, it had permanently set the bar low, and other issues were not helping matters. I’ll go into the problems after I sum up the plot.

[sitcom harp music]

14 Year Old Alan Tracy is stuck in a stuffy school with only his nerd friend to confide in. Something’s eating him up, and it’s jealousy over how his family are International Rescue, the secret rescue workers whole pilot the Thunderbirds, impossibly cool craft with capabilities vastly exceeding standard technology. Even when he’s allowed out of school and back to the Island, his envy and barely repressed resentment over not being a member himself causes him to go off and sulk and to try taking Thunderbird 1, the hypersonic jet plane, for a joyride.

His father and the leader of International Rescue, Jeff Tracy chews Alan out for almost compromising the need for the organisation to remain secret, lest their advanced technology falling into the wrong hands. Alas, said wrong hands are already working against IR: The Hood, a diabolical, cold blooded criminal with psychic powers and a grudge against Jeff. After successfully tracking the location of Tracy Island, he launches a missile towards Thunderbird 5, the Space Station where IR monitor potential disasters to prevent as much damage as possible, manned by John Tracy.

With TB5 crippled and John injured, Jeff and his other three older sons all scramble to the disaster zone via Thunderbird 3, the Rocket Ship. But with Tracy Island largely unmanned, The Hood moves in and aims to use the Thunderbirds to rob bank vaults while simultaneously smearing International Rescue’s good name. As the only Tracy brother left on Earth, it’s up to Alan and his 2 friends, Fermat and Tin-Tin, to foil the Hood and save his family, proving himself worthy in the process. He is also assisted by IR’s London Agent, Lady Penelope, and her driver/butler/lockpicker, Parker.

...

Ok, so that’s a summary you may read on the back of a DVD box, maybe it’s a bit long but whatever. Do you see what’s wrong with the story? The massive rift in the formula that should be within a template set by the hugely popular TV Series?

Critical Crux

For me, the main issue with the movie is that the Tracy family are thrown under a bus, or perhaps it’s more like being locked in a closet, in order for Alan to rise up and be The Hero. A show that was about each of them having different roles and personalities to the others, and the movie sees the best way to adapt the premise is to reduce 3 of them to cardboard cutouts who aren’t allowed to do or say anything meaningful, with the exception to this getting the dubious honour of getting a missile and exploding space station to the face.

I can’t clearly express how much this pisses me off! It’s downright insulting and baffling as well. They had pre established characters right there for the taking but go NO! Let’s make OCs to fill this newly created void instead and make the main Message of the film Friendship Teamwork.

Why does every child-skewed media hafta have the Friendship message? It’s a good one, sure, but nothing said in this film about it was fresh or original. Y’know what I see far, far less? Not just in Kid Flavoured Media, but all sorts? The importance of Brotherly Bonds between actual brothers!! I don’t subscribe to the massively misunderstood message version of ‘Blood is thicker than water’, but a story with the siblings actually pushed and stressed and coming out stronger at the end would have ruled!!

[For what it’s worth, the actual saying is “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”, i.e. the bonds you choose to forge are more important than happening to be born to certain people. This correct message is still compatible with literal siblings though!]

The other, somewhat lesser Large Issue with the movie is simply that we don’t see much in the way of Rescues with the titular Thunderbirds. We only get the tail end of the Oil Rig in Act 1, and then the ‘Birds are used predominantly to get to London and save 1 Monorail Car with TB4.

Watsonian Woes & Doylist Dilemma

When looking at Media, there’s 2 main angles to consider; Doylist and Watsonian. Doylist is the “real life / meta” angle, the structure of the story or interests of the author being in the plot, that kinda thing. Watsonian is the reason given within the story.

All stories have Watsonian and Doylist reasonings, the trick is to blend them in and not use a weedy Watsonian reason for something stupid happening.

Why bring this up? Because it’s still part of the Huge Problem I have with the film; the Doylist reason for all of IR being incapacitated so easily is so Alan can shine without fighting for focus in a large group. I don’t like it, but let’s go along with it for now.

Believe it or not, but I can accept that a Movie format isn’t going to be the same as an ongoing series. There’s way less time and you gotta hit certain beats. Ideally you also condense the essence of the show into the film while being more than just a long episode. They didn’t hit this note in my opinion...

But other than ‘It has to happen for he story to work’, there’s no damn reason for all the Non-Alan Tracys to be cooped up in the crippled TB5! They put all their eggs into one basket when a considerably more sensible choice woulda been to have a small crew, and the others remain on base. Because even without factoring in a worst case scenario where another missile hits them while in space, killing them all, which totally could have happened for all they know, there’s also the part about them being International Rescue! They gotta be ready to respond to other disasters should those develop. TB1, 2 and 4 were still available for use!

If I was Jeff making the boneheaded decision, I would have taken a second to think about it and have 1 of the Bros come up in 3 with me. Seeing to John shouldn’t be something 4 people are needed for, it would just get more crowded and the oxygen would be used way faster! Considering they all come close to asphyxiating, 2 less people would mean things weren’t so damn close to the wire! (Granted, the movie also has them falling into Earth’s atmosphere and burning up as a hazard, but the whole crew being there doesn’t affect that.)

Jeff! You’re the patriarch and supposedly most experienced dude in the whole movie! Why didja run into that trap with both eyes open? Stressful situation, sure, but in the Rescue Business you need to be able to listen to the cold, clinical angle. You’re risking more of your sons’ lives making such a rash judgement!!

Character Conundrums

This is the part of the review where I begin to really emphasise the differences between TOS and this movie. I’ll hold off TAG for now in the interest of fairness.

The movie is a mixed bag when it comes to the individuals within it. Some have been refreshing updates to stuffy 60′s tropes, but several draw the short straw, feeling even stiffer than their marionette precursors.

Alan - Hoo, boy. The plot follows Alan.... for the third time if you’re factoring in the Supermarionation movies, which was quite the baffling choice as Puppet!Alan is quite the obnoxious jerk. But whatever, new movie, new canon, new Alan. While the Alan of the 60′s was a bizarrely whiny brat of a character considering he was supposed to at least be in his early 20′s this Alan at least makes more sense to be annoying. But yes, he starts off as a sullen jerk with unclearly defined jealousy towards his own brothers and seemingly a lack of grasping the stakes behind International Rescue, viewing being one of the crew as a Cool Job rather than a gruelling, life-risking ordeal. Over the course of the movie (mostly Act 3) he becomes less of a berk and a better team player, even going as far as to save the Hood personally.

Jeff - One of the stronger characters in the movie, even with this poor choice I’ve gone on about already, haha. You get the real impression the job means the world to him, but still secondary to his sons. An update and improvement to the sometimes stodgy and holier-than-thou character from the 60′s, plus his proactive role makes him way less of a backseat driver.

Lady Penelope - Best character and a splendid update to the 60′s Socialite. This Penny is always a delight to see, although her ability to change clothes offscreen sometimes pushes plausibility, haha. She and Jeff also have very natural and endearing chemistry, so for this iteration at least, I’m up for shipping them, something I can’t say for TOS.

Parker - Remarkably true to the beloved puppet version and another highlight. His interplay with Penelope is some of the best dialogue in the whole movie, and was written by Richard Curtis in an uncredited role, or so I’ve read.

The Hood - A shockingly sadistic and cold blooded so-and-so. His Psychic powers have been given a huge boost, and the depths of his spite generates all the tense scenes the movie has to offer. His performance may be the best in the whole film, simultaneously over the top while also completely deadly.

Tin-Tin - Y’know, Tin-Tin is a funny character, in how she’s very different in all versions. I enjoy her in TOS, but her potential as an engineering assistant, mathematician and member of IR are quickly discarded to make her a secretary, which is further demoted to bringing coffee. Ahh, The Sixties! One of her other defining features was the sometimes bickering sexual tension with Alan. Movie!Tin-Tin is still the implied love interest [and the same age] with him, but she’s also an Action Girl extraordinaire, with abilities bordering on metahuman. She can trek through the jungle without slowing down, she can dive underwater for prolonged sequences, and has a variation of her Evil Uncle’s Psychic capabilities, but used for good. Notably, the Kayo of TAG takes significantly more from this Tin-Tin to the original, sadly sans Telekinesis.

Fermat - The only OC I’m gonna dignify with a section here lol. He’s basically mini-Brains, complete with the way he t-ta-tal- -distinctive speech patterns. But yeah, as the hypersmart and nerdy pal, I feel that his role is pretty superfluous, though his performance in the movie got me to soften up, he’s a good kid. Just one who, like, is part of the deal breaking issue I have with the whole film. In a way I think he’d have made a better lead than Alan lmao

Brains - Not much to say here, he’s also a dude in distress for a majority of his screentime. Seems to be older than his TOS self and a bit less subservient to Jeff, but also a father ....or Fermat is his clone. They never make that clear. He’s hit on by the Hood’s Female Scientist and it’s played for comedy, more on that later.

John - In TOS, his role was infamously minimal, as Gerry Anderson took such a strong disliking to the John puppet and the TB5 model that he exiled both into space with a few token shots per episode. So in comparison, this movie is far kinder to John! He has a nice, genuine chat with Jeff, without any mission to initiate said videocall. The movie is also quite mean to John in how he gets bombed by the Hood, his space station in tatters, his arm hurt and then near suffocation with Jeff and most of his brothers. Ahh, the conundrum of being John.

Scott, Virgil and Gordon - No, they don’t even get their own paragraphs in my review. Their lack of presence and importance in the movie is my giant gripe (have you noticed yet?) and it got to the extent that I feel they could have been combined into one character to save casting money. They get maybe 5 lines each, if that. I literally can’t tell Scott and Virgil apart (I know they have name tags on their uniforms, but in most scenes I couldn’t even read that) other than knowing 1 of them is taller. Which that one is, is a mystery.

The only one with a slightly distinctive appearance and air is Gordon, which is another can of worms because he seems to be the designated Doubtful Jerk Brother and that drives me mad!! In TOS he wasn’t as main a character as Scott, Virgil or Alan, but he was still a defined person with his own abilities. And his personality was as a slightly mouthy but the most lighthearted character! Why didn’t they carry that over?!

And yeah, Scott and Virgil are pretty much the Main Two of the brothers in TOS, so their roles being reduced to 1 token act during the oil rig rescue each [Gordon didn’t even get that!] is all the more mind boggling.

Hood’s Minions - Can’t be assed to write their names out, I refer to them as Heavy Dude and Science Woman. Heavy Dude is the Heavy, and his character consists of Dumb and somewhat Sadistic Muscle. Science Woman is first objectified (we see her ass first. Yes, really.) but then it’s ‘revealed’ that as she has Austin Powers level teeth, she’s uuuuuglyyyyy and her otherwise genuine attraction towards Brains is played for laughs with this angle. And that’s still female on male sexual harassment, which doesn’t fly with me. Eeeesh. Bad writing! She does Science Things for Hood.

The Rest - Kyrano and his wife are in this. Wife is Original but basically Grandma’s role, though she doesn’t even get a single word to say. Rip. Also the Hood has a few more generic mooks from somewhere, but seemingly only for part of the movie. Kyrano didn’t do much in the show except get bullied by the Hood and little has changed.

Tone Trouble

I feel like the movie has a bit of an issue with balancing a consistent Tone. Again, let’s look back at TOS. It was a Family Show, designed to not just appeal to little kids, but to also keep their parent and other adult amused. Maybe some of it was also the result of the times, but striking to me is that they allowed the characters to get pretty hurt, complete with red paint being applied to look like realistic blood. Some of the criminals, including the Hood himself, would be very vicious, how he treats Brains in Desperate Intruder comes to mind. There was even firefights resulting in death, like the memorable climax of Operation Crash-Dive, where Gordon has to shoot a saboteur in the back, into the open sea below the compromised plane. He then proceeds to hold the cut wires together with his bare hands. Don’t try this at home, kids!

So while I can understand some of that being removed from the Movie (and TAG), there’s still the irritating going down to a perceived kid’s level for the majority of the film, which is probably also a large reason for the massive structural change. But then, there’s shockingly dark implications here and there, and the haunting sight of the crew trapped on TB5 floating lifelessly in the dark, asphyxiating. But then, again, we have goofy choreographed fight scenes with juvenile stock cartoon sounds. And then, we have Hood force choking Alan?! It has been mostly consistent until Act 3, then the tone goes up and down more than the flying machines.

Revamped Rockets

I’m mostly talking about the main craft here, though I know the Pod vehicles got modified too, I’m not sufficiently a TOS Pod Buff to go over them.

TB1 - Looks real nice! Maintains and even enhances the sleekness, and the idea of a glass cockpit is much better than having 1 tiny window and a dinky TV screen to see by. Oddly dark inside the cockpit considering how much glass there is, though. Probably my fav of the Movie Fleet.

TB2 - Oof. Looks bad, man. Like, really ugly. What have they done to the glorious design that was the Original Big Green? The unofficial mascot from her importance and unorthodox style? They turned her into a stubby, too glossy, chunky bar of green soap. The thick ass legs are a good idea but it sure ain’t enough. Also, she carries 3 smaller pods insteada 1 big one.

TB3 - Like TB1, pretty much the same design but streamlined a little. Docks with 5 sidewise instead of like pen going into its lid.

TB4 - I’m mixed. I like the idea of giving her a glass canopy and extendable arms, but the movie’s version is so boxy she looks more like a small yellow Greenhouse with the rear half of the old Four, haha. The arms also look a little stiff, can they bend? Now, if there was a sleek, glass hulled, variable armed, demolition charges-loaded Four, that would be my favourite possible version ;3 Four is my fav craft in TOS and TAG, for what it’s worth.

TB5 - I say it’s quite a visual improvement over TOS and the odds and ends jumbled look that had, though I do appreciate a bit of Chunkiness. This one really needs to have better defence too, TOS 5 may’ve been able to tank that missile lmao

FAB1 - I know that she would have been a Rolls Royce in the film, but BMW said no, so that’s not a point against the movie. And failing the classic image, it’s cute that it’s a Ford Thunderbird, though I’d have preferred one with those 50′s/60′s stylish fins personally lol. Her ability to fly is new here unless you count the Dream Sequence in Are Go (’66) and the water mode was also seen in that before this, and she gets the job done, though we don’t get to see as many gadgets and gizmos in the course of the film.

Unlikely Uniforms

I really don’t understand these. Why are they off white with minimal accent colours? What was wrong with the blueness of their suits and the broad stripe of a secondary colour? I sure ain’t saying the 60’s costumes were practical or even that fashionable, but they were very distinctive and striking!

Not only that, but for some strange unexplained reason, their uniforms all correspond not to their own speciality, but to which craft they’re currently piloting. Even if they’re all in the same Bird...! So like, four out of five are wearing identical looking red accented suits while locked in TB5. I already find the elder brothers to be the Similar Squad, and their microscopic name tags don’t help!

Why don’t they wear their own coloured uniforms all the time? Then ya don’t need the name tag at all! And the silly implication from the way there’s apparently a whole set of Craft Specific uniforms is that there’s piles of clothes that ain’t getting used in all of them, like the tiny TB4 probably having 6 whole sets on board at the end of the film.

Between that, no blue and the outfits looking like Generic Sports Wear, the only nice thing to say is the THUNDERBIRDS down the sleeve is a cool touch. Which should really say International Rescue or IR...

Mingled Misc.

Yeah, The conflation of Thunderbirds and International Rescue is a tad irritating but it’s actually something I can overlook. It’s not a dealbreaker and it makes sense the Dumbass Public would misunderstand and call them the wrong thing.

Jeff refuses Alan early access into IR and cites “No shortcuts”. Then at the end he echoes this when he is making Alan an official member, saying he did it with no shortcuts. The whole faffing scenario was a giant shortcut!!! Fuck training and being a suitable age, am I right?!

Amazingly I didn’t cover this already, but when Alan shortcuts his way onto the team he’s made pilot of ... TB4. That’s why he’s in yellow accents in the pic. Gordon is seemingly the main pilot of TB3 instead, but the movie doesn’t deign to make that clear. While I appreciate that the 14 year old with no Astronaut training isn’t put in charge of 3 instantly, I resent the careless removal of characterisation. Obviously movie Gordon never served with WASP or won the gold medal in swimming or had a massive hydrofoil crash to nearly kill him but ggggghgggaaahhhhhhhhh

Also what’s with the implication that Four is the Babby’s First Machine? She’s a highly specialised craft that would require different training to flying or Space shit! How dare you?! The most charitable link is that Alan stood around in 4 as Tin-Tin did most of the work herself, but I guess it coulda as some level of experience.

Ford Sponsorship - Gets a bit much! It’s one thing for all the cars to be Ford, but them seemingly owning the News is like an unpleasant look into a world where corporations run everything.... hahahaahaaaaaa........

Marvellous Music

Something the movie really excells at is the tunes! The remix of the Thunderbirds March is good in it’s own right and very welcome, and the new music is all solid. Special mention to Busted’s outro song for slapping so hard even people who hate the movie leave warm youtube comments about the song. I have a habit of listening to it set to TAG footage myself, haha

Sincere Summation

Look, I’ve come off negative in this, but I honestly have a lot of respect for a lot of the parts of this picture. Hood, Penelope, Parker and Jeff are fantastic, the physical models and sets have a lot of care and loving detail poured in, the music is all bangers and other little nods and homages to the show shine brightly. The director got a lot of good work in and I hold him no ill will.

I think the problem is in the Writing and probably Studio Mandates, I’m not 100% sure, but things often get snaggy when the studio you’re working under gets bought out by a bigger company partway through. Again, I’ll refer to the info I’ve seen instead of trying to relay it in my own words.

And they made a real bad call snubbing Gerry as a Creative Consultant. Some of his venom towards the film may be from that, as well as his alleged preference to Team America: World Police as a theatrical homage. And I’ve seen that before and wouldn’t really say that’s true to the spirit of Thunderbirds, but yeah...

I’d be interested in any future Thunderbirds Movies, if that’s ever on the cards again. I’d probably be even more up for continuation of the TAG series, or newer new Captain Scarlet with International Rescue involved. Either way, I want new footage of the Birds taking off again, be it puppet, people, CGI, or something new~

Extra Reading

https://securityhazard.net/2017/05/19/thunderbirds-2004/ Full movie review, warm reception. Contains photos of set pieces and costumes.

http://groovyfokker.blogspot.com/2013/02/thunderbirds-arent-go-unfilmed-versions.html Insight into some of the past issues developing a Movie, but gets some basic information wrong (Since when is Gordon the youngest and TB3 orange??)

Thanks if ya’ve been reading the whole thing! <3

[captainignatiuspigheart]

Midweek Confusion

OK, so this next week thing has slightly got away from me. As ever, by this point in a new week my recollection of the seven days past is blurring… Since my Google calendar stopped syncing with Facebook, even that once reliable tracker of things I expressed zero interest in has faded in its utility. Alas, I’ll have to go by memory; apologies in advance. 

  Alright, I’m genuinely stumped for the first couple of days, as far as the evenings go. I went back to the doctor’s – as I’ve been doing with frightful regularity since last July when we accidentally discovered that I have horrifically high blood pressure. My general understanding based on video games is that a high score is good, but apparently this does not follow in medicine. In order to prevent me from spontaneously stroking out (apparently a genuine risk even at my sprightly forty-one years) I’m being loaded up with various ACE and calcium channel blockers, but to counterbalance their potential for good, the ACE blockers offered a chance of trashing my kidneys, prompting fortnightly blood tests to make sure they hadn’t dissolved and begun circulating. They aren’t! Huzzah. But the ramipril didn’t do much on its own, other than not kill my organs, so now I’ve also got amlodipine (I may or may not verify these spellings… ) to work its mysterious way through the calcium channels. It’s all really quite interesting, to me at least since this is my frail puff-paste meat sack I live in. No more blood tests, and at a much higher dose is bringing my blood pressure down into merely prehypertension range, instead of the top end of stage 2 hypertension (down from my max of 180/109 to 140/90). Win. Plus, I’m now taking a proper Smarties assortment of pills, so that’s nice. Looks like it has a genetic cause, since I’m really quite healthy with my daily cycling and swimming routine, and my cholesterol is fine. In your face three kilos of Quality Streets and another three of cheese in December. Drugs for life – which is cool since I’ve been on asthma meds since an unknowably young age.

  For those uninterested in such health wranglings, tough: your body will begin to fail shortly, as I push these pins into this charming mannequin with a crude rendering of your features. But that can’t be all I did last week, right? Indeed, no. 

  Building: Lego

I have advanced a little with my pretty golden gates. I’ve expanded upwards, in adding mostly extra gold pieces. That’s a minor challenge because, as an inveterate hoarder, I feel like I should use them very sparingly and not deplete my stores. This is idiotic. The whole reason I’ve got the damn things is to use them! And that they look very pretty and they live in a box, and that makes me happy… As you can see I also greebled the fuck out of the walls, and gone way too far. I’ll find pics next week, but I’ve dismantled them in an attempt to make plainer walls which won’t detract so much from the magnificent pearlescent gold. 

    Watching: October Faction

We finished up watching the second-latest comic book adaptation to slide onto Netflix’s new releases bar (before Locke & Key, which unfortunately looks exactly the same but in Miss Peregrine’s Miserable House of Whatever instead – I’m sure it’s somehow different, and we’re bound to watch it eventually). Best described as Grimm crossed with Mean Girls, October Faction follows a family of monster hunters as they, um, hunt monsters and learn DARK secrets. Pretty chipper performances and casting made this a lot of fun, despite the incredibly predictable plot (not all monsters are monsters, your monster-killing organisation is surprisingly not all that chill). The high school stuff with a pair of twins trying to fit into the new town their parents have dragged them to works well, at least until they discover their own powers and the rest of the story unfurls. Very sexuality positive stuff too, which is always satisfying. Look, it’s not amazing, and the ending is a bit unsatisfying, but it’s a fun watch while you’re eating tea. I guess that’s a recommendation… 

    Watching: Birds of Prey, or the Film with a Whimsical Title about a Murderer (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)

I know, I know. It’s a DC movie, why do we even try to enjoy them any more. This is about Harley Quinn, Joker’s recent ex (I mean, literally at the start of this film} and how everyone hates her and wants to kill her, because she is, as I think they say, “just awful”. In the process of people trying to kill her she makes some friends, including a fairly amusing child pickpocket and somewhere in here there’s a story about a massive diamond with encrypted passwords carved in it. There’s several different people’s back stories in here, and they all weave together quite ineptly, constantly tripping the film up. We meet Huntress, who has no character other than being a crossbow wielding lady sad that she saw her parents get murdered (it’s OK, they were mobsters – there’s no reason why you should care at all) by another gang of mobsters, under the instruction of Ewan McGregor, who plays some twat who wears a mask for the final action scenes. I should mention that this might be a career worst performance for McGregor, even counting the Star Wars prequels. Fuck knows what his character is supposed to be. And that’s the tone really, none of the characters have any consistency or make sense (except possibly the pickpocket girl). We veer from snarky comic stuff with Harley, to McGregor’s minion slicing off people’s faces. Everything happens fast, or in pointless time-skipping. Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s Black Canary is pretty cool, except that her having superpowers seems totally irrelevant until she knocks some folks down in the finale. Rosie Perez’ Renee Montoya is described as speaking in cop cliches, and that’s what they give her in lieu of a character. Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn gets to do some genuinely splendid action scenes, and it’s the fighting throughout that makes this mess of a film endurable. Lots of people seem excited by the glitter and beanbag gun scene on entering the police station, but it’s the fight as they leave which is truly splendid. Oh, Arkham looks good – suitably grim and filled with ridiculous architecture and funfairs. I’d rank this as the third best DC movie (of the recent crop, barring Wonderwoman none of their films are even as enjoyable as Batman Forever), after Wonderwoman and Shazam (smoky grey CGI baddies are so Green Lantern) but some steps ahead of fucking Aquaman with it’s ghastly rubbery Sea World. I’m perplexed by this film all round. It grows clearer and clearer that I have no grasp of DC properties at all. In fairness, it’s about as good a grasp as Warner Bros’… 

  Doing: Creative Mentoring

Every month, for the last seven years (I think), I’ve spent a few hours with my delightful creativity client. We write stories, play improv and inspiration games, all with the aim of simply being mentally and creatively stimulating. And because it’s fun. Not too much to report on this occasion, other than to note (and remind myself) that’s always a genuine highlight of my week. I deeply enjoy the time I spend with Rebecca, and find it inspires me creatively too. What lovely reciprocity!

  Doing: the Glowstick Trials at National Justice Museum

After a number of rehearsals we finally got to play for real! Seven improvised courtoom dramas, back to back last Friday evening. The chaps directing it this time around (Richard and Ben) rejigged it very smartly from our previous version, putting it much more opportunity to freely extemporise in our various roles of Judge, Defendant, Prosecution, Defence and Witness 1 & 2. A small tight cast, with lots of quasi-legal nonsense. I was lucky enough to end up playing most roles, not least because of the hideous traffic jams that marred the whole of Nottingham for hours, delaying a third of our team. It might have had some effect on audiences too, as we saw far fewer folks in the streets that in previous years. Ho hum. I had an absolutely marvellous time. Hearing Judge Duncan screaming away behind closed doors, myself mounting a vigorous defence (against Marilyn’s thorny prosecution) for poor Alistair accused of thinking about stealing birdseed (he couldn’t possibly have done – he never thinks!), waxing lyrical as a defendant in my maudlin teenage diary, and countless things I’ve forgotten. It was a blast, and I really want to do it again, somewhere, soon… Any offers? 

  I am the LAW

I am a felt-tip pen

Last Week, Sunday 9 February 2020. I've been doing things, honest, I just can't always remember what they were... #lightnight #Lego #birdsofprey #octoberfaction #diary Midweek Confusion OK, so this next week thing has slightly got away from me. As ever, by this point in a new week my recollection of the seven days past is blurring...

[bxboy52]

Functionality – the quality or state of being functional a design that is admired both for its beauty and for its functionality; especially

  Welcome back.  Hope your Memorial Weekend was restful and reflective.  

This episode of Companies Behaving Badly began with a seed planted by a blog post that was nourished by a vacation experience.  The blog is “Squawk Point” by James Lawther.  I happen to enjoy his writing style but mostly it’s his refreshing point of view of things that attracts me.  The post, Human Error exposes lazy leadership that always assumes, any issue in productivity or safety is due only to human error and never functionality. However we know there is good leadership out there that will actually stop and listen and take a look at the issue.  Which type of leader you want to be is all up to you.  Folks like James and I can lead you to water, whether you drink it, I guess depends on how thirsty you are for knowledge and thought but please don’t give me any of that it’s the culture.  You are the culture.

This human error assumption applies all too often in warehousing, production and manufacturing.  If someone has a digit amputated by a moving part it’s not that the guards weren’t in place, it’s the employee’s fault.  If a new operations procedure fails it must be the workers fault for not understanding.  It’s all great and good when you make improvements in your facility especially when they increase productivity and makes it safer and easier for employees to operate machinery and handle difficult tasks.  I am here today to tell you I’ve survived improvement projects from both sides of the fence, as worker and as management.  What I learned is, even with management’s best intentions or the engineers best ideas or programmers best apps without input and buy-in from the workers who will actually be using the equipment/process you won’t get it right making the rollout difficult due to employee resistance and poor functionality, lowering the chances of success.

Think about how you feel when someone tries to force change on you that you weren’t consulted about.  You resist.  That’s how workers react.  However when you include them on the project team and take their input seriously you’ve now increased your chances of success greatly.

Here’s a real example.  We had to fill 2000 pounds of product into a large bag referred too as a supersack. The brain trust without any input from workers installed new filler tubes to improve flow and produce more supersacks per shift.  However they positioned the fill tube where they thought it should go at the height they decided it should be.  The problem developed when our shorter workers tried to attach the bag to the fill tube, it was too high for many.  They struggled to get the bag on the tube that was over their head and was difficult to hold up their arms for a time while positioning the bag.  It was never taken into account that workers come in different heights.  Imagine that?  Instead this solution only created a new problem, the many creative ways, all unsafe, that workers came up with to compensate for the height difference. Stools, inverted pails, stacked wooden pallets and forklifts were drafted. Some supervisors looked the other way and some just said no!  Needless to say production of supersacks was inconsistent and began to suffer. 

Management, rather than say they made a mistake instead dug in their heels and took the stance it was too expensive and time consuming to lower the tube and instead put pressure on the employees to “make it work”.  You couldn’t count on having tall workers to do the job since seniority got you the better jobs in production and this was basically only for the rookies and very low seniority.  It only made things worse as people who didn’t have issues before were now complaining and others began calling in sick with arm strain so then the union dug in their heels.  Back and forth, yada, yada, yada, no real solutions to the problem.  After awhile it became hazardous as there were so many puddles from all the marking of territory, folks were slipping and sliding all over.  

When I first began working here a year earlier, I had made friends with the chief engineer.  He was one of those guys that always looked old and grizzled, even in his 40 year old Navy pictures.  Not only did he create and prefabricate anything a sailor or marine needed for over 20 years in the Navy, he also loved cigars.  I made sure to take my breaks around the time he did so I could be in the smoking area having a cigar.  One thing led to another, we exchanged a few cigars, had other similar interests and I soon had a new grizzled old friend who was a damn good engineer.  Then, one cool early morning during graveyard tour, while we enjoyed our cigar break the subject of the supersacks came up.  After discussing and tossing ideas back and forth, we, mostly him came up with a solution.   Instead of the stool or ladder, we came up with a metal bridge with railings that could be stood on confidently as it was extremely sturdy and easy to clean.  Everyone got to see it, touch it, stand on it and sniff it and then we got a unanimous yes!  The cost of lost production, ruffled feathers and stainless steel bridge probably cost as much, if not more as it would have to move the filler tube but could have cost even less if they had asked for input and listened to the workers in the first place.

Then this functionality challenge popped up while on vacation.  For some reason someone decided that only one towel rack was enough in a bathroom, in a room made for two people.  That entails 2 bath towels, 2 face towels and 2 wash cloths.  The towel rack couldn’t accommodate all 6 towels.  It appears that the housekeepers were without any direction from management as each one employed their own solution to the lack of towel rack space which made for inconsistent presentation and interesting to see how each housekeeper decided what worked best.   

The first day, after some time searching, we found the bath towels folded and stacked on a shelf in the closet in the room and no where near the bathroom.  Then one day the bath towels were sitting on the side of the tub and one day sitting on the sink. Either the housekeepers didn’t think it important enough to report to management or maybe they did and management didn’t think it important enough to listen and just said, deal with it.  At times it was inconvenient but also fun as we bet on where the bath towels would be next. 

That’s how it goes with most Companies that behave badly.  They perceive a need and put a solution in place whether it’s the right one or not.  If you want to get maximum productivity from workers then you need to make it easier for them to do the job and not more difficult and that means asking them questions and listening to their answers. Once we got the supersack station up and running with the stainless steel bridge we doubled production however management didn’t learn a thing from this experience. Each improvement turned into a battle which was totally ridiculous and they wondered why they couldn’t consistently make their goals.  It only takes a few seconds to listen to employees and use their input and then you create a bond where they trust you and you take care of them.  Otherwise you’ll wind up with constant delays, grievances, injuries and just plain old fashion hurt feelings.

  Why the falls won’t stop. Because of you.  Worker killed in fall at Sutter Home winery in St. Helena Yes!  You.  Due to being lazy, stupid or just plain crazy enough to believe you’re immortal, some of you still don’t believe you need to wear fall prevention gear while you work over 6 feet from the ground.  I don’t know exactly what happened but from the info in the story I can tell that there was no cover or other fall protection placed over the skylight and he was not tethered.  No matter how easy the job looks, if you don’t wear proper fall protection gear you may not get a second chance and wind up evaluating your bad decision at the pearly gates.  

Suffocation has to be one of the most horrific ways to die.  Struggling and gasping for air as oxygen is slowly cut off.  The bodies natural instinct is to keep fighting, keep struggling to survive but the gasps get shorter, your lungs begin to burn and you can’t breath and finally you fade out. Unfortunately one man died like this in a trench collapse OSHA: Man killed in Acworth trench collapse worked for Bellows Falls company and another was rescued from a grain bin In the wake of grain bin accident safety officials urge caution.  When you work in a confined space like a grain bin or deep in a trench you should have received training on how to escape in the event of a cave-in.  That may mean ladders or a retrieval system.  When was the last time someone inspected the area?  Don’t assume everything has been taken care off, ask questions and use your own eyes.

We’ll finish this episode with a look at two different leadership styles. There’s an old expression that my High School football coach used to say to death, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going,” and not everyone in the city of Oakland is getting that message.  With everything that has happened recently with the Ghost ship warehouse fire you’d think city department managers would take it up a notch and stay on top of hot spots to almost give a sense of competency to the public.  Yet the Oakland fire department on top of all their regular fire and emergency calls they handle also have to continue to fight fires on vacant city owned property and no one responsible seems to care or the gumtion to take care of the issue.  Oakland fire officials upset over blazes in city-owned building   This is leadership happy with keeping the status quo and does not have the ability to handle unexpected issues or thinking outside the box to respond in an immediate manner.  They had an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities to respond immediately and help out the firefighters while also protecting citizens of Oakland but they chose not too.  On the other hand, the  leadership at Chobani Launches Second Food Incubator Class with Call for Applications understands that a company doesn’t just exist in the here and now but prepares now so it may exist in the future with better products, service and workers.  Yes, it is easy to get caught up in the day to day activities, but with effort on your part you can see clearly what direction you need to go and how you can get there.  The best way to do this, as said at the beginning of this episode, respect, communication and listening to your workers.  You may have ideas on improvements but so do they and they’re the ones doing the job.

Until June 15th. Never keep quiet about safety for the life you save may be your own.

    The latest issue of Companies Behaving Badly-Functionality #workplace #safety Functionality - the quality or state of being functional a design that is admired both for its beauty and for its functionality; especially…