@JTR@micro.blog I think I finally get it...
I can @ my new micro.blog account from fosstodon.org, and the comment will show up over there, on micro.blog.
The benefit of the "mastodon" account on micro.blog is that replies to that account should show directly on my blog.
Meanwhile, I can write whatever I want there, and it will show up here, on this account, since I turned on cross-posting.
It's built with the assumption that you use micro.blog as you central hub.
OK, blog improvements on micro.blog now include:
1. A logical, ISO date for posts
2. Links to RSS feed and Mastodon (this account).
This is workable for now, but more work to do. I'm pleased to have this quick outlet for thoughts again.
...resolved.
Yes, I had to read up and play with Hugo again. It wasn't too hard, though still time consuming.
I know I sound like I whine a lot, and Hugo is indeed a good environment.
When you don't work with a certain environment day in and day out, you forget things. Each theme and each case is different just enough to requires a bit of a research. Sometimes, I don't have the time or the energy for this research; I just want to write.
maybe I should just go with tumblr. Ha.
To be fair, and to be less of a grumpy man over here, I'm not against learning.
Micro.blog also has the benefit of offering the service to host the blog as well, and cross publishing on other networks.
Maybe I can tolerate a few lines of code here and there. I just want to be aware that this is one of the major reasons I want to switch out of my current blog.
I'm annoyed.
micro.blog is based on Hugo, which is good and all, but it also means I need to play with Hugo if I want to change anything. For example, have the dates in ISO format.
Before you respond with links to Hugo documentations and tell me how easy it is --
the reason I'm testing out micro.blog is *because* I'm tired of working with #Hugo . I have a wiki, I have a blog, and I want to go into video recording.
If it turns out I have to spend an hour figuring out Hugo again, I'm out.
I enjoyed The Mist. It wasn't fantastic, but it was good and had a point that didn't feel like Swiss cheese.
"The movie builds toward the climax nicely, and you get the chance to get up close and personal with the characters. The feelings of dread and panic are believable... ...Way more important is what the people do to survive and how they cope (or don't cope) with the monstrosities. This is the beef of the movie, and King drives it home well."
The Mist, 2007 - ★★★ (contains spoilers)
This review may contain spoilers.
This was an OK movie. I enjoyed it. It was good enough to hold my interest (which is not easy to do).
Stephen King can build believable characters and Frank Darabont does a good job following up on that.
First, a few trigger warnings. If you have issues with gore horror, this might be a problem here, though it's far from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The religious zealots are more of a problem if you have issues with that. Unfortunately, it's also believable: all you need to do is to read the news. People kill in the name of God for much less than being threatened by the supernatural.
The movie builds toward the climax nicely, and you get the chance to get up close and personal with the characters. The feelings of dread and panic are believable. There's a bit of a cross into the cliche with some military experiment gone wrong and creatures crossing from another dimension. This is not a huge spoiler, because the origin of the horrors in the movie is of little importance. Way more important is what the people do to survive and how they cope (or don't cope) with the monstrosities. This is the beef of the movie, and King drives it home well.
I'm a bit angry with the ending (Spoiler alert! stop here!!).
It doesn't end well, and I don't like how fast David (Thomas Jane) gave up on everybody, including his son. He decided that, nope, that's it, time to commit group suicide and give up. It feels pushed. King wanted to show us that real hell is making decisions, but this last one doesn't make sense with the rest of the movie. Oh well, it was still fun.
The Mist, 2007 - ★★★ (contains spoilers)
This review may contain spoilers.
This was an OK movie. I enjoyed it. It was good enough to hold my interest (which is not easy to do).
Stephen King can build believable characters and Frank Darabont does a good job following up on that.
First, a few trigger warnings. If you have issues with gore horror, this might be a problem here, though it's far from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The religious zealots are more of a problem if you have issues with that. Unfortunately, it's also believable: all you need to do is to read the news. People kill in the name of God for much less than being threatened by the supernatural.
The movie builds toward the climax nicely, and you get the chance to get up close and personal with the characters. The feelings of dread and panic are believable. There's a bit of a cross into the cliche with some military experiment gone wrong and creatures crossing from another dimension. This is not a huge spoiler, because the origin of the horrors in the movie is of little importance. Way more important is what the people do to survive and how they cope (or don't cope) with the monstrosities. This is the beef of the movie, and King drives it home well.
I'm a bit angry with the ending (Spoiler alert! stop here!!).
It doesn't end well, and I don't like how fast David (Thomas Jane) gave up on everybody, including his son. He decided that, nope, that's it, time to commit group suicide and give up. It feels pushed. King wanted to show us that real hell is making decisions, but this last one doesn't make sense with the rest of the movie. Oh well, it was still fun.
next movie up - "The Mist" based on a story by Stephen King.
So far, I like this one much better. It's a big of a cringe, not so much the horror gore aspect (so far not too bad) but the people.
It's just too much how people turn on each other so quick, but unfortunately, believable.