text:
Tag Archives: Zack Snyder
Zack Snyder | 120 mins | cinema | 1.85:1 | USA / English, Russian & Icelandic | 12A / PG-13
This review contains spoilers, but only for stuff everybody knows.
DC's answer to Avengers Assemble begins with a doom-laden cover of Leonard Cohen's Everybody Knows (a Zack Snyder music choice if ever there was one), and there's a lot that "everybody knows" about the troubled production of this long-awaited superhero team-up. Everybody knows that the so-called DCEU was deemed to be in need of a course-correction after Batman v Superman. Everybody knows that this was to take the form of making this film tonally lighter, something Snyder and co said was always the plan. Everybody knows Snyder eventually had to leave the project for personal reasons. Everybody knows Joss Whedon was brought in as his replacement. Everybody knows that meant reshoots and an attempt to lighten the tone further. Everybody knows that was a recipe for a conflicted movie…
For those who are thinking "I didn't know any of that" and aren't so familiar with superhero things on the whole anyhow, Justice League is set in the aftermath of Superman's self-sacrifice at the end of Batman v Superman, which has given Bruce Wayne aka Batman (Ben Affleck) a change of heart: he wants to make the world a better place. When he discovers than an alien invasion is imminent, he teams up with Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to put together a team of metahumans (read: people with superpowers) to fight it. That team includes Barry Allen aka the Flash (Ezra Miller), Arthur Curry aka Aquaman (Jason Momoa), and Victor Stone aka Cyborg (Ray Fisher) — and, following an opportunity to revive his cold dead corpse, Clark Kent aka Superman (Henry Cavill).
Justice League has certainly provoked a mixed reaction from critics and opening weekend audiences. It was always going to: Batman v Superman has been very divisive, with critics largely hating it but a dedicated fanbase to be found without too much digging. Justice League compounds that issue by trying to appease critics, risking alienating fans in the process. The end result inevitably falls somewhere between the two stools, which means there's no predicting what any one person will make of it — following social media the past couple of days, I've seen every possible combination of people who loved, liked, hated, or were indifferent to previous DCEU films and now love, like, hate, or are indifferent to Justice League.
So, my personal reaction is that I enjoyed it. On the whole it's not as thought-provoking as BvS, but is instead a fun time with some good character bits thrown in. From early reviews I feared the whole story would be choppily edited, and the opening act is indeed a bit disjointed and jumpy, but the closer it gets to the team being assembled the more it settles down. Once they're together, it's a fairly straightforward action-adventure movie, with the heroes in pursuit of the villain to stop his world-ending plan. Unlike BvS it's not full of portentous (or, depending on your predilections, pretentious) themes to ponder, but it's still a reasonably entertaining action movie.
As for those character bits, it completes arcs for Bruce and Diana that have played out over their past couple of movies, both of them opening up to the world and their place in it. Moments that emphasise Bruce being old and tired and Diana stepping into the role of leader seem to have been added during reshoots, no doubt indicating the future direction the DCEU is now reported to go in — Affleck stepping away in the not-too-distant future; the popular Wonder Woman becoming central to the universe. (As a Batman fan, I hope this doesn't kill off the raft of Bat-family films they've been planning. We'll see.)
For the new team members, it does a solid job of introducing the Flash and making him likeable — he's under-confident but good-hearted and funny. Fans of the currently-running TV show may find he's "not their Flash", and his costume is one of the worst ever designed, but I've never been that big a fan of the series and I can live with the costume. Cyborg gets a mini-arc that works well enough, considering he's mainly there to be a walking talking plot resolution. Aquaman's also OK, but a good chunk of his part feels like a tease for his solo film — which, by total coincidence, is the next DCEU movie. This all might've been more effective if DC had gone the Marvel route of introducing everyone in solo films first, but the film makes a fair fist of the hand it was dealt.
And as for Superman… well, that's a whole kettle of fish. Firstly, it's the worst-kept open secret in the history of movies. The final shot of BvS was a clear hint he'd return, so there's that for starters. Then early promotional materials included him; behind-the-scenes photos referenced him; when reshoots rolled around, the fact they'd have to deal with Henry Cavill's Mission: Impossible 6 moustache was big news. Despite all that, they left him off all the posters and out of every trailer. Would it have made a difference if they'd publicly acknowledged he was back? Who knows. Let's judge what we were given.
In short, he's not in it enough. The story of his resurrection is a decent idea, but the film has to rush and condense the arc of his return, presumably because Warner were pushing for a lighter tone and brisk running time. How his return affects him does complete the overall story that started in Man of Steel and continued through BvS — the story of how an ordinary young man with extraordinary abilities develops into the paragon of virtue that Superman is to many people. Honestly, I believe this was (more or less) Snyder and co's plan all along, and those haters of Man of Steel and BvS who now say that "Justice League finally got Superman right" have perhaps misunderstood how something like character development works. (Should that entire character arc have been contained in the first movie? I think that's a different argument — in our current franchise- and shared-universe-driven blockbuster era, character arcs are routinely designed to play out across a trilogy.)
There are no official photos of Superman from this movie,
so here's a photo of Lois Lane looking at a photo of Superman.
Much attention has also been focussed on the ridiculousness of the moustache removal — both how funny it always was, and how poor the end result is. Honestly, I don't think it's as bad as you may've heard. I'd wager most people won't even notice, especially if they're not looking for it. It's the kind of thing film buffs see because they're looking and, yeah, sometimes it's not great. Personally, I didn't even think it was the worst computer-generated effect in the movie. Main villain Steppenwolf looks like a character from a mid-range video game, and has about as much personality as one too. There's terribly obvious green screen all over the place, which is undoubtedly the result of reshoots — sometimes it crops up mid-scene for no obvious reason, other than because they've dropped in a new line. Other effects — stuff they've probably been working on since principal photography — look fine.
Naturally the effects drive all of the action, for good or ill. Some have said these sequences are entirely forgettable, which I think is unfair. There's nothing truly exceptional, but how many movies do manage that nowadays? I'd say what Snyder offers up is at least as memorable as your typical MCU movie, which is presumably what critics are negatively comparing this to. The everyone-on-Superman punch-up is probably the high-point, with an effective callback to "do you bleed?" and a striking moment when Superman looks at the Flash (that sounds completely underwhelming out of context…) I also thought the desperate escape with the Mother Box on Secret Lady Island was a strong sequence. The big tunnel fight has its moments, but needed more room to breathe and a clearer sense of geography. The climax is a great big CGI tumult, which clearly aims for epic but is mostly just noise — again, with one or two flourishes.
Another late-in-the-day replacement was Danny Elfman on music duties. It's proven controversial — turns out there are a lot of fans of Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL's work on the previous Snyder DCEU films. Personally, I think Elfman's score largely works — its numerous callbacks to classic themes are better than Zimmer's musicless thrumming. There's a massive thrill in hearing Elfman's iconic Batman theme again, and John Williams' even-more-iconic Superman theme. In his work on Man of Steel and BvS, Zimmer never produced anything even close to that memorable. Elfman's style works other places too: an early scene where a bunch of criminals take a museum hostage immediately brought to mind the feel of Tim Burton's Batman for me, mainly thanks to Elfman's score. That's no bad thing in my book.
The biggest point of discussion swirling around the film this weekend, in many circles at least, has been "which bits were Snyder and which were Whedon?" According to one of the producers, the final movie is 80-85% what Snyder shot during principal photography, making 15-20% what Whedon added during reshoots. Not a huge amount, but also not inconsiderable. Personally, while I felt some Whedon additions were glaringly obvious, it also felt to me like a shot or line here and there rather than whole chunks of the movie. I think they've done a better job of integrating it than some have given them credit for. I put this down to some people thinking any humourous line must be a Whedon addition, but we know that isn't the case — they were showing off lighter stuff during press set visits and in the initial footage previewed at conventions, both of which were long before Whedon became involved in re-writes, never mind reshoots. The lighter tone was intended from the off, Whedon just added even more of it.
For those interested, someone who worked on the film has posted a very long list of changes, attributing various bits to Snyder and others to Whedon. There's also this tweet, which says Snyder's original cut went down badly with WB execs (hence why Whedon was sought out) and that the vast majority of Superman's role was reshot to change it entirely — supposedly all that remains of Snyder's Superman are his action beats (though Whedon added some more), the final scene with Bruce ("I bought the bank"), and maybe one or two other individual shots. This, then, would be Whedon's biggest contribution to the film. Some love him for it, others not so much. There seems little doubt this is a lighter, more fun Superman. I liked him, though it can't hurt that I have a bit of a soft spot for Henry Cavill.
Generally speaking I'm a fan of Whedon — I grew up with Buffy; I'm certainly a Browncoat — but I think his additions (assuming those accounts are accurate) are a mixed blessing. Most vital is all the character stuff he's slotted in, some of which really adds to the movie — Batman's pep talk to the Flash about "save just one person" was a highlight, I think. The jokey dialogue sometimes lands, sometimes feels forced — the obvious insert of Batman complaining "something's definitely bleeding" feels incongruous. I've seen some complain that he added too many pervy shots of Diana's ass in that short skirt or those tight trousers, but then whenever I noticed such shots they were in footage that's been attributed to Snyder, so who knows.
Everything to do with the Russian family was certainly Whedon, which I'd rather suspected. I mean, there are civilians there to add stakes to the final battle, so that it's not just the villain being villainous in the middle of nowhere, but why is it that just one family lives there? Because they were added during reshoots and there was probably neither time nor money for crowds of people, that's why. Their subplot could've been integrated better (it felt like they kept just popping up for no reason), but I liked the eventual pay-off with the Flash and Superman saving them — the Flash saving one carload while Supes flies past with an entire building is the kind of humour I think works in this film.
Justice League is a different movie for Whedon's involvement, that seems unquestionable. Is it better or worse? That's partly a matter of personal taste. As my taste stretches to include both directors' works, I can see positives and negatives every which way. My ideal cut of the movie would likely keep some of Whedon's additions but lose others, as well as reinsert some Snyder stuff they cut. There's no pleasing everyone, eh? (If you want to see some of what was definitely cut, there are various shots in the trailers, and someone's leaked eight short clips from Snyder's version — mostly of unfinished CGI, but one reveals what Iris West's role was. (If those clips are even still there by the time you read this, of course…))
Finally, the post credits scenes. It's obvious that the first is a Whedon addition (confirmed by the above breakdown) — it's just a little coda that doesn't add anything other than some fun. The second scene, however, is an odd one, because it feels like it's teasing a movie that's been uncertain for a long time. If it's setting up The Batman (because Deathstroke was meant to be that film's villain), well, we know director Matt Reeves is massively reshaping whatever Affleck had planned, quite possibly ditching Deathstroke altogether. If it's setting up Justice League 2 (because Lex Luthor's back with a team-building plan of his own), well, who knows if that's even happening anymore? It was originally planned this movie would be Justice League Part 1 and be closely followed by Justice League Part 2 — presumably that's why Steppenwolf is the villain, because he was meant to lead into Darkseid (it's long been reported that a cliffhanger ending to set up just that was cut by Whedon) — but I believe Part 2 has gone MIA from the schedule, and with Affleck now making definitive noises about wanting out of the franchise… Well, who knows what'll happen.
Back in the present day, Justice League is set to underperform at the box office this weekend: predictions have been revised ever downwards over the past few days, to the point where it's now at under $100 million — which is kinda funny because it feels like everyone's talking about it. I guess that's the difference between "film Twitter" and movie blogs compared to regular folks. Movie Nerds v Regular People: Box Office of Justice, or something. Funny thing is, for all the hatred these DC movies have attracted, they don't half get people talking. As I saw someone point out on Twitter the other day, you may not've liked Batman v Superman, but it's more than 18 months later and you're still talking about it. I can't even remember which Marvel movie was out 18 months ago without looking it up. This is no doubt a simplification — not everyone's still arguing about BvS, and one of the reasons Marvel movies don't stick so long is that they produce so darn many of them — but I do think Marvel films give you fun for a couple of hours, and you can call them to mind again if prompted, while DC films stick around, turning over in your mind, love it or hate it. At least for some of us, anyway.
With Justice League, there's the added complications of its multiple directors and fraught production. Should we judge a film for what it could have been or for what it is? The latter, surely. The former is definitely an intriguing proposition, but not what's in front of us (and, as the likes of Blade Runner, Alien³, and Superman II have shown, maybe one day we'll get a chance to judge that movie anyway). Nonetheless, how much should we take into account the behind-the-scenes issues? Should we just pretend they don't exist? I guess for a lot of regular moviegoers this isn't even an issue, but for many of us film-fan types it's hard to put aside the knowledge that this movie was the product of two directors with very different styles and very different production timeframes.
I don't have any easy answers, I'm afraid. All I know is that Justice League is far from perfect, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
Justice League is in cinemas everywhere now.
Posted in 2017, 4 stars, Action, Adventure, alternate & director's cuts, Fantasy, Sci-fi, superhero films	| Tagged Batman, Joss Whedon, Justice League, Superman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, Zack Snyder	| 13 Replies
100 Films @ 10: Most Effective Director's Cuts
Posted on February 19, 2017 by badblokebob
Whether they be director's, extended, ultimate, or any number of strung-together adjectives someone in marketing thought sounded exciting, direct-to-home-media alternate cuts of movies are all the rage nowadays. They have been for quite a while, actually — thanks no doubt to the booming sales of the DVD era — so for today's top ten I thought I'd run down some of the most effective. I don't necessarily mean the best (these aren't "the ten best films that happen to have extended editions"), but rather the ones that have the biggest positive impact on the end result — which is sometimes the same thing, of course.
I know the initially stated point of these top tens was to look back over the last ten years, but this time I've widened the remit to include all extended cuts, mainly because that only added one title. Losing out because of that is X-Men: Days of Future Past – The Rogue Cut, which does contain significant changes, especially to the climax, but didn't really belong because I actually think the theatrical cut is smoother.
Version Intégrale
To undermine my introduction right away, the extended version of Léon doesn't actually make massive changes to the movie. Some of the additions bolster character development, but the film wasn't shortchanged on that in the first place. It is great though, but it's also just more greatness. Does that mean it shouldn't be here? Well, if you're watching the US Blu-ray, it's the longer version that has the proper title card, which is reason enough to prefer it in itself.
There are three cuts of Watchmen, but it's the middle one that is director Zack Snyder's preferred version of the film (aptly, given its subtitle). I've still not got round to the semi-experimental Ultimate Cut so can't truthfully comment on whether Snyder's right, but when I reviewed the Director's Cut I asserted that, thanks to "a little extra room to breathe and a few worthwhile extensions, and in spite of the odd tweak that doesn't work, this is the superior cut of the film."
Alternate Theatrical Version
The extended cut of I Am Legend has one of the most meaningless subtitles of all — it wasn't released theatrically, so how is it an "alternate theatrical version"? That said, "alternate" is definitely a more apt descriptor than "extended": although this version is longer, the biggest change is a completely different ending. That makes a difference to the film's tone, as well as paying off some subplots. But it only changes the movie so much — those misguided CGI creatures are still there, after all.
This middling action-thriller starring Angelina Jolie is not the first film that's going to come to mind to most people (for any reason, ever), but it exists in three different cuts that make some striking differences. I discussed them in depth in my review, but on balance the one they labelled the Director's Cut is best.
Assembly Cut
The second Alien sequel was a fraught production for a number of reasons, which wound up in an obviously-compromised theatrical version. A little over a decade later (doesn't sound so long with hindsight, does it?) the original "assembly cut" was released — not a director's cut because, understandably, David Fincher wants nothing to do with the movie. The different version doesn't save the film entirely, but it does clarify some of it, thereby improving it.
From Fellowship onwards, the extended versions of Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's epic are the preferred versions, deepening characters and expanding the rich world of the story. But by the time of the third and final movie, they're essential: in a rare misstep, Jackson chose to completely excise one of the trilogy's primary villains, Christopher Lee's Saruman, from the theatrical version of Return of the King, so only in the extended version is the storyline of a major character actually resolved. That film won Best Picture nonetheless, which is why these aren't ranked higher: the extended cuts are better, yes, but the theatrical versions are an incredible cinematic achievement regardless.
Extended Cut
Zack Snyder again, with another director's preferred cut only debuting on the home release. This time he had to cut the film for censorship, revising it multiple times until the MPAA gave it the necessary PG-13. In the process, he removed several lines and scenes that helped to clarify what the hell was going on, which is rather helpful in such a crazy-ass movie. I've never bothered with the theatrical cut, but — in its extended form if no other — I think it's something of an underrated movie.
Arguably the daddy of all alternate cuts, Blade Runner's so-called Director's Cut wasn't really anything of the sort — Ridley Scott was busy and couldn't be properly involved, merely providing notes for a studio after a fast buck. Years later, he was able to do it properly, resulting in the aptly named Final Cut… which is kinda just a polished version of the earlier Director's Cut, but there you go. (Incidentally, there are some people who prefer the theatrical version. I've still not got round to it myself, but… well, there are also some people who prefer the theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings. What I'm saying is, there's no accounting for taste.)
Guess who's back? Zack Snyder's third entry on this list is his most effective revised cut he's yet done. There are aspects of Batman v Superman that mean some people will never like it, but it's hard to argue that the Ultimate Edition isn't an improvement, clarifying plot details and character motivations left, right, and centre. Seriously, though, what is it with Zack Snyder and cutting scenes that explain the plot?! At least when he does a director's cut (which is most of the time) he really makes use of it.
Guess who's also back? The other great proponent of the director's cut, Ridley Scott — though he's more prone to using and abusing the term than Mr Snyder (the director's cut of Alien is, famously, nothing of the sort). I've never seen the theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven so can't actually vouch for this myself, but, by adding a massive 45 minutes of material, Scott's lengthier cut turned a theatrical dog into a film some regard as a masterpiece. I can't think of another director's cut that has ever instigated such a thorough reappraisal of a film's critical standing.
Tomorrow: ten good scenes and no bad ones.
Posted in "100 Films"..., 2017, alternate & director's cuts, Editorials	| Tagged 10th anniversary, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Blade Runner, Director's Cut, film, films, Kingdom of Heaven, movies, Ridley Scott, The Lord of the Rings, Zack Snyder	| 5 Replies
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010)
Zack Snyder | 93 mins | streaming (HD) | 16:9 | USA & Australia / English | PG / PG
Legend of the Guardians is pretty odd.
It's an action-fantasy movie… starring owls. It's animated, but in a dark, realistic way (think Rango with less cartoonishness and less light). It's based on a kids' book series… but directed by Zack Snyder, clearly reining in his R-rated impulses (violence occurs just off screen, leading to "did that happen?" confusion). The story has been relocated to Australia, the cast filled with well-known antipodean actors and their accents.
The cumulative effect is kind of surreal, retaining too much Snyderness to function properly as the kind of movie it wants to — perhaps should — be.
Posted in 2010s, 2016, 3 stars, Action, adaptations, Adventure, Animation, drabble reviews, Fantasy	| Tagged Australia, Ga'hoole, Guardians of Ga'Hoole, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, owls, Zack Snyder	| Leave a reply
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Ultimate Edition (2016)
Posted on August 5, 2016 by badblokebob
Zack Snyder | 183 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 12 / R
The Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition has been available via various means for a month or more now, but has only hit disc in the UK this past week (and I waited for it, because I'm a good boy). This extended cut adds half-an-hour of material, give or take (comparing the two Blu-rays tells me the difference is just under 31 minutes; Movie-Censorship.com says it's just under 30 minutes) — material that is unlikely to completely transform anyone's opinion of the movie, but at the same time definitely does improve it. That means two things: firstly, most of my original review still applies; but secondly, and crucially, some of it doesn't.
If you hated the movie's overall dark tone, or its depiction of either of its titular heroes, or the over-CGI'd climax, or the way it shoehorned in teases for DC's future movies, this cut fixes none of that. I mean, of course it doesn't — they didn't remake the movie. If you thought the storyline wasn't clearly explained, or that Superman's half of the story needed more screen time, or that you'd really like to have to wait even longer before the title fight, then this is the cut for you.
As per Movie-Censorship.com, there are 99 changes. Yes, 99. That's made up of 18 wholly new scenes and 60 extended ones, plus 19 scenes with alternate footage and two slight audio tweaks. The clearest effect of these additions is in filling out the events in Africa near the start of the film and Lois Lane's subsequent investigation into them, as well as showing Clark actually investigating Batman, rather than just having Perry constantly tell him off for doing it. In the process, it massively clarifies who the overall villain is and what connects all the many disparate plot threads, so that it's a logical reveal rather than an end-of-act-two declaration that some viewers completely missed. Let's take each of those in turn.
You may have read that the photographer with Lois in Africa is Jimmy Olsen, identified in the credits but not on screen in the theatrical cut. In this version he is named on screen, but that's not the important part. More is done to establish why Lois is in Africa, what she's hoping to achieve, and lay the seeds for why it's all going to go wrong. This is achieved in such a short space of time that it seems ludicrous it was cut out, leaving theatrical viewers playing catch-up when a couple of extra moments would've explained it clearly. (Of course, there may be an element of re-viewing bias in this: I already know what's happening so of course I cottoned on to everything sooner.) When things do go south, more material makes it explicit what happened — what the bad guys do to frame Superman, essentially. It's possible some of this material was cut to achieve the PG-13 rating, but in doing so they left out bits and pieces that are referenced later, heightening the sense of confusion for theatrical viewers — how are we meant to know a woman testifying to a congressional hearing about "burned bodies" is a reference to events we just witnessed if we don't see anyone burning any bodies?
This kind of increased clarity follows throughout the film. The fleshing out of Lois' investigations is what leads to us understanding the overall scheme better when it comes to a head. It's also where you'll find Jena Malone's character. There was much speculation about who Malone was playing, especially after she was cut and director Zack Snyder claimed it was because her character was of greater significance to the DC movie universe than this movie in particular. Turns out she's… some lab tech. That's it. Now, her role seems disproportionately small considering the level of actress cast, so maybe she has some secret identity that will be revealed in Justice League; but on the BvS level, she actually helps explain some of the plot, and therefore is much more relevant to BvS itself than that awful Flash cameo or the terribly clunky scene with the meta-human files. If Snyder really wanted to ring-fence the universe-building into the Ultimate Edition, those are the scenes he should've excised from the theatrical cut.
Less vital to the overall plot, but which certainly contributes to the titular conflict, is that Clark's investigation into the Batman is seriously beefed up. It makes Clark/Superman feel like more of a leading character in a film that was, at least as originally conceived, his sequel. In some respects this storyline is a more understandable excision, because Superman's dislike for the Batman and his methods isn't entirely unclear in the theatrical cut. Equally, it does flesh it out better and connect up some of the dots, like why he intervened when Batman was trying to steal the Kryptonite at the docks (essentially: a Bat-victim's girlfriend said Batman needed stopping. Maybe not a great reason, but hey, it's a reason). It's a case in point of how this film simply has too much going on. To create a workable version it's had to be three hours long — that's the length of two movies, and it does feel like two movies' worth of material. Not back-to-back movies — you couldn't cut it in two at the middle and be left with two independent films — but two movies that occur concurrently; intercut. I mean, there are even two big action climaxes, back to back.
In my original review, I noted that there was an "almost-throwaway sliver of dialogue that indicates Lex put all of this together, [but] the way it's presented in this cut makes it come a little out of nowhere." I believe some viewers missed that reveal entirely. The primary achievement of the Ultimate Edition, then, is making this story clear. It's still something of a reveal that Lex is behind everything, but we get there through investigations and deductions that the characters make, rather than arriving at the end and Lex simply declaring, "b-t-dubs, everything you've just seen? Totally planned it all." Personally, I thought Lex's plot was already fairly clear; not crystal, by any means, but you could get there. I mean, you had to pay attention — probably more attention than most people expect to have to pay in a Zack Snyder blockbuster — but it was there. So it's tough for me to say exactly how much clearer the Ultimate Edition makes it. It does feel more streamlined, with obvious new bits that help clarify certain points. I don't think it sinks to the level of spelling it all out slowly and carefully in case you missed it, but it does make it more explicit; and, as discussed, it does that by showing more of Lois' investigation, so it feels like her role is more substantial too. She felt a little cursory in Man of Steel — "it's a Superman movie, we have to put Lois Lane in" — whereas here she has a bigger role than her boyfriend… at least until the punchy-punchy climax, of course, when his superpowers win out.
Also in the Lex camp, his mystifying line to Batman about aliens coming (or something) is somewhat explained by a short scene (which was made available online after the theatrical release and is now cut into the film) where he's shown in front of some kind of creature that disappears when troops turn up to arrest him. I say "somewhat explained" because that's literally the extent of the scene — there's not even the vaguest explanation of who the creature is, or what the creature is (another Kryptonian mutant? An alien entity? A man in a suit?), or how it got there, or why it got there, or what it's doing with/to Lex… It's just another vague tease, which non-fans must either shrug and ignore, or scurry online to find a forum thread or news article or tweet where knowledgeable fans can tell them what the hell they just witnessed and why it'll be relevant next time.
That was one of the more sensible removals from the theatrical cut, then. Otherwise… well, I'm not the first to say this, but it's really bizarre that Snyder seems to have consciously chosen to cut out scenes that actually explain the plot. As I've said, it was followable in the theatrical cut, so maybe he just got blinded by the fact he'd seen the movie a thousand times while editing and so it all still made sense to him? Nonetheless, watching the extended cut enhances the feeling (which is there in the theatrical if you know a longer version exists) that the methodology for shortening the movie by half-an-hour was to just select scenes at random and delete them. How else do you explain losing chunks of Lois' and Clark's respective investigations while that awkward scene of Perry wondering where Clark's gone remains in both cuts?
One thing that is pretty apparent about Snyder's intentions is that he really wanted to make a Batman movie, and I suspect Man of Steel was his way in to getting to do that. Despite launching out of the events of Man of Steel, and engaging with issues of what it means to be Superman (therefore continuing MoS's theme of "what would it be like if Superman was real?"), and having Lex Luthor as the main antagonist, BvS feels like a Batman-driven movie more often than it does a Superman one. Personally, I get it — I'm more of a Batman fan than a Superman fan too, so that approach warrants little complaint from me — but I can see why Supes' fans would be miffed.
Another Snyder-related point comes to mind thanks to the numbering system I use for this blog. Most extended cuts of films I've already seen don't merit a new number — i.e. this would be #127a — because they're usually not significantly different to the existing versions, just adding some character beats, bonus action moments, or extra gags. They're not fundamental enough to consider it a "new movie". To be honest, because the extended BvS mostly serves to clarify the plot that was present in the theatrical version, I might've just gone with my usual numbering if it weren't for, (a) everyone else saying how different it is, and (b) the fact a 30-minute extension amounts to 20% more film — no one can call that an insignificant addition. Interestingly, one of the few other extended cuts I gave a new number to was the Watchmen Director's Cut. And I never bothered to watch the theatrical version of Sucker Punch, but from everything I read I'm sure the extended cut is substantially different and substantially improved. When Snyder does an extended cut, he means it. It's not just "here are ten minutes of scenes I had to delete but rather liked", it's a revised version of the film — and it's always a better version.
Other, more minor changes in this cut include increased violence, though personally I barely noticed it. Some people seem adamant this should've upped it to a 15 certificate, but I think you can justify saying it stops just short of that. Quite what the MPAA saw that merited an R, I'm not entirely sure. More interesting to my weirdly-obsessed mind is that the film actually includes the "Ultimate Edition" title on screen, both during the opening credits and at the end (where it's technically titled "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition" without any additional punctuation). How many other extended cuts actually change their title card to reflect that fact? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
As someone who genuinely enjoyed Batman v Superman's theatrical cut, it's hard to say how much better the Ultimate Edition is for viewers who were less convinced. However, I do think it's a question of "how much better" rather than "is it better", because this is certainly a superior version of the film — the fact it's now over three hours long notwithstanding. The new cut won't 'fix' the movie for viewers who object to the inherent tone and style of the piece, but if you're open to that, this cut does improve the storytelling and character arcs for a smoother experience overall. I do understand some of the reasons people dislike this movie — the way it modifies characters from their traditional depictions; the overall serious and dark tone — but they're not opinions I share. It's certainly not a perfect movie, though: the climax descends into CGI-fuelled mayhem (though the reduced scale of a TV screen makes it more followable); the desire to counter accusations levelled at Man of Steel's destructive climax gets old fast (the film is at pains to constantly tell us that such-and-such an area is deserted for this-and-that reason); the meta-human set-ups are clunky and distracting; and your mileage will vary on the revisionist versions of Superman and Lex Luthor (I didn't love Eisenberg's take on the character, but I don't mind it either).
I gave the theatrical cut 4 stars, which doesn't leave me much room for manoeuvre here. Is the Ultimate Edition a whole star better? Maybe it is. I enjoyed it enough that I'm almost kind of tempted to go for the full 5… but that would be pushing it. I'm not sure any movie is perfect, but even for someone who likes it Batman v Superman has enough niggles to discount it. Still, I think it's an enjoyable, interesting movie, that provides a welcome tonal counterpoint to the efforts of the other superhero shared movie universe. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Ultimate Edition placed 10th on my list of The 20 Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2016, which can be read in full here.
The next film in the DC Extended Universe, Suicide Squad, is in cinemas from today.
Posted in 2010s, 2016, 4 stars, Action, Adventure, alternate & director's cuts, Sci-fi, superhero films	| Tagged Batman, Batman v Superman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Ultimate Edition, Justice League, Lois Lane, Superman, Zack Snyder	| 2 Replies
Zack Snyder | 151 mins | cinema | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12A / PG-13
With Warner Bros' universe-launching superhero epic now in its second weekend (unless you live in Myanmar or Poland, anyway), you've probably more than had your fill of spoilerphobic reviews. So allow me to provide a spoiler-filled one. (There are a fair few of those around too, of course, but not all reviews can be beautiful or unique snowflakes.)
Despite being a sequel to Man of Steel and featuring a Superman-heavy supporting cast (from Batman's world we have Alfred; from Superman's we have Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, Lex Luthor, Martha Kent, and (spoiler for something that was in the trailer) Doomsday), Batman v Superman is really a Batman movie. It begins with the latest recap of his origin story — pretty much a prerequisite for any new big-screen incarnation of the Dark Knight. But don't give up on the film within the opening minutes, because BvS is actually going somewhere with this — the Bat's backstory has a role to play in the climax. Anyway, after that we get a recap of the end of Man of Steel: as Zod and Supes turn Metropolis into rubble and slaughter untold thousands in the process, we see Bruce Wayne driving and running through the collapsing city streets, heading for a Wayne Financial building where he does superhero-y stuff like save a little girl's life, and fix the flying Kryptonians with a glare that says, "you are my new enemies." Central conflict, right there.
I say this is a Batman movie, but in many respects it's actually a Bruce Wayne movie. Is there a difference? I suppose you could argue not, what with Bruce being the man inside the Batsuit, but I would say a "Batman movie" concentrates on what he gets up to in that suit — fighting crazy villains, essentially — while a "Bruce Wayne movie" would be more about the man, his decisions, his emotions. Now, I'm not about to claim BvS is big on its characters' inner lives, but if it really taps into the thoughts and feelings of anyone, it's Bruce. This is a Batman who has perhaps lost his way, scarred by too many tragedies in his life. There are unmissable references to his 20-year crimefighting career; to good people turning bad; the Joker-graffitied Robin suit… This isn't fan-pleasing/teasing background detail, it speaks to Bruce's mindset. He's become the kind of person who believes lines like, "if there's a 1% chance he's our enemy, we must take it as an absolute certainty." He's a bit of a right-wing nut, basically. If you want to find a character or emotional throughline to the movie, it's Bruce learning to be a better hero again.
Of course, this being a Zack Snyder film, it often does a muddled job of presenting this kind of material to us. There's also a heavy vein of what it means to be a hero, with Superman under constant scrutiny for his actions, with questions being asked about what rights he has to act the way he does, and whether methods are needed to stop him. These are potentially interesting themes to tackle, provided you buy into the whole superhero genre in the first place — they don't really have any real-life equivalent, if that's what interests you in movies; they're predicated in the thought process of, "if Superman was real, what would it be like?"
So assuming we consider these as valid things to dig into, it's a shame the film does a muddled job of it. There's some grandstanding and speechmaking, and some heavily portentous dialogue, but what is it really saying? Good luck finding out. Maybe repeat viewings and some proper consideration will reveal more depth tucked away there. Certainly, I've been a bit annoyed with some of the glib online criticism of the dialogue and the ideas presented through it; commentary that chooses to focus on one sentence that comes at the end of a discussion, so the clever-clever internet person can laugh at the silliness of that line's question or observation, ignoring the fact that there was a whole range of dialogue before that one line, and in that dialogue the idea was more fully considered or explained. But no, it's easier to take a soundbite and analyse it as, "lolz, shit dialogue, dude." I'm not saying BvS has a script of Oscar-worthy, polished, believable, insightful dialogue, but it's not that poor, either.
But if we are criticising the screenplay, let's turn our attention to the story and its structure, which leaves something to be desired. This isn't just the writers' fault, of course, because myriad things affect a film once the screenplay is signed off. In the case of story structure, editing seems a likely culprit — not the actual cutting together of individual shots to craft a sequence or scene, which is as good here as in any action blockbuster, but in terms of storytelling. Frankly, that's a bit of a mess. Or a lot of a mess, maybe. Whole scenes serve literally no purpose or are clearly in the wrong place — the bit where Perry wanders up to Clark Kent's desk and wonders if he's clicked his heels and disappeared back to Kansas, for example. What purpose does it serve? None. But where it might have a role is where it clearly belongs: a couple of minutes later, right before the scene where Superman is in Kansas, chatting to his mom. Why is it not right before that scene? It's like someone accidentally dragged it out of place on their computer editing timeline and never noticed. Sure, this is a minor point in the grand scope of the film, but it belies a sloppiness to the entire storytelling.
That extends all over the place. Someone clearly thought the movie was short on action — it has a lot of plot to get through, and whereas once upon a time it would've just got on with that plot and happily let all the action sit at the end, that's not allowed these days. So, unable to find a combat or chase within the real narrative, Bruce has visions of a possible future where Batman wears some kind of dusty trench-coat and battles Superman-symbol-emblazoned soldiers in a Mad Max-esque landscape. In itself it's a neat, fanboy-pleasing "alternate world" idea, and it's an exciting sequence with some excellent action choreography, and it certainly looked good in the trailers, but in the film it's a total aside from anything.
The only purpose it might serve is teasing the future — what is the giant Omega symbol? What are those flying devil-creatures? DC fans know that's all related to alien supervillain Darkseid, and late in the film Lex Luthor makes a veiled reference to imply that some such alien badass is on the way. Yep, it's Marvel-style foreshadowing, where every film is just a stepping stone to the next. Except BvS does it even more heavy-handedly than Marvel. As I said, the dream/vision is utterly unnecessary; Lex's line is nonsensical (how does he know?); and the way other members of the Justice League are teased… You know, I don't even want to discuss it. It's a bad Marvel post-credit scene shoehorned into the middle of the movie. It feels like someone accidentally cut a teaser trailer into the actual print of the film. It's not even so bad it's good, it's just tacky. And, I have to say, though I'm not the biggest fan of The CW's Flash TV show (I think it's been massively overpraised by some of superhero fandom), Cheery TV Barry Allen seems a much more likeable, comics-accurate version of the character than the movies' Hipster Beard Barry Allen. Maybe it's just the beard, I don't know; but even if it is just the beard, it's a hipster beard, and it's wrong.
For a movie that critics stuck it to*, there's an awful lot to say about BvS — genuine stuff, not just facile observations on hipster beards. This is not a film that needs an extra 30 minutes in an Ultimate Edition. It does need scenes re-arranging; it does need focusing in on its various plots — because there is actually a throughline here; a story that connects all the disparate strands together. Some people will miss it because those strands are so varied and so haphazardly put together, but there is a character who has an overarching plan and has engineered a lot of what's going on — and as this is a spoilersome review, I can say that character is Lex. It surprised me a little that there was method to the madness; that someone had been orchestrating all these disparate elements. Surprise is good; surprise that makes you rethink the film even better — but you're meant to rethink to look for clues you missed, not rethink to see if that even fits with everything we've seen. That's because even if you do latch on to the almost-throwaway sliver of dialogue that indicates Lex put all of this together, the way it's presented in this cut makes it come a little out of nowhere. However, I believe it's a plausible explanation of events (within the realms of the version of the genre these films are in), and would tie the whole thing together neatly, were it just a little clearer.
So, saying "there's an awful lot to say about BvS" and then not saying it is a cop-out, but we're 1500 words deep into this review and I haven't mentioned: the role of Lois Lane; the role of Wonder Woman; the role of Alfred; how good Ben Affleck is; how wasted Henry Cavill is; Jesse Eisenberg's performance, for good or ill; what, if anything, the film is saying about government oversight and/or domestic terrorism; the car chase (purely as an action sequence, I liked it); the presence of Doomsday; the battle with Doomsday; the death of Superman and its almost-immediate sort-of-retraction, and whether that was a good idea or not, or if it even matters; why the "Dawn of Justice" subtitle is an accurate addition to the title, but also a pain in the ass to the "Batman v Superman" part; heck, I've said nothing of that titular duel itself. When it comes, the fight is inspired by — but not completely adapted from — Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, which should surprise precisely no one as, a) Snyder is an avowed Miller fan, and b) if you're doing a Batman vs. Superman smackdown, that's the one to do.
(I also wanted to write something about the film's lack of attentiveness to cityscapes, because that's something that interests me and I've not seen anyone else discuss it; but I've only remembered this after the entire review is finished, illustrated, and scheduled for posting, so it's quite late at night to get my brain in gear and add it. But if anyone's actually interested, there's always the comments section.)
As to those other points… look, I don't want to get too off-topic, but there's a rant to be had about discussions of films stopping at opening weekend. "It was cool" / "it wasn't cool"; "it was fun" / "it wasn't fun"; "it was an irredeemable piece of crap and I hope it kills off the franchise" / "I can't wait for Wonder Woman" — followed by, "done now, when's Civil War out?" Hey, hang around for a minute! There's stuff here. I know critics just want to barrel on to what's next because they didn't like it, but maybe if they stopped to discuss it they'd find there's more to unpack than they'd like to think? Because yeah, you can see the movie as one long mess before Batman and Superman finally fight, at which point it degenerates into a mess of CGI and aural bombast (seriously, there's too much noise during the climax), and ends with characters stood around having conversations where the pre-first-draft filler dialogue said, "Give audience an idea what future film(s) will be about while saying absolutely nothing concrete about what future film(s) will be about." But in that mess (the mess I mentioned at the start of that last really long sentence, remember? OK,) there is stuff going on; there are ideas the filmmakers want to put across, possibly with the intention that they'll actually be thought about.
And I know it's just a superhero movie, and I know they're just ideas about superheroes, and I know if you get into discussions of its representation of women or the legal/political system or any other real-world-connected points then you're getting into a minefield that the film may not have fully-considered ideas about… but for all his faults as a filmmaker — for all his focus on visual Cool — Zack Snyder has now made at least three films where, buried beneath all that surface noise (both visual and aural), there are things to think about, but because that surface is so polished that it suggests the film must only be skin-deep, the ideas get ignored. The other two films, for what it's worth, are Watchmen (where, yes, he's given a leg-up by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' uncommonly thoughtful graphic novel) and Sucker Punch — a movie even more dismissed than BvS has been, but which I maintain has a lot going on.
I've even lost myself at this point, so I'll call it a day. Batman v Superman is a long way from being a perfect movie, and anyone who likes the lightweight fun of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is going to be ill-served here. (Oh man, there's a whole other semi-off-topic discussion. Ten to fifteen years ago, the only things that could be Cool were dark-and-moody, self-serious, po-faced, grim-and-gritty films/games/whatever; nowadays, you do that and you get lambasted for not being colourful and humorous. Back then, I was miffed that everything had to be the former and when anyone did the latter it got shat on, and now I'm miffed that everything has to be the latter and when anyone does the former it gets shat on. I'm not contrary, I just think we can have, can enjoy, and can accept, both.)
As I was saying: not a perfect movie, but one with a lot of material to provoke thought about both the inherent concepts of superheroes and, external to that, the genre itself, especially the way it's presented in cinema. I'm not going to slag off the Marvel movies, because they are fun, but the entirety of the big-screen MCU** put together hasn't given us even a fraction of as much stuff to consider, dissect, analyse, and process as this one bold, messy, controversial movie. I kinda love it for that.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is still on release everywhere. The 30-minutes-longer Ultimate Edition is scheduled to be part of the DVD/Blu-ray release, probably in July.
* I won't trot them all out here, but there are interesting (if you're into that kind of thing) stats about its critical drubbing vs. its box office performance — essentially, it's far and away the worst-reviewed super-high-grossing movie ever, as if some omniscient power felt the point really needed ramming home that critics no longer matter to franchises that have what-they-call "pre-awareness". ^
** "Big-screen" because, in fairness, Daredevil and Jessica Jones are a whole different kettle of fish. ^
Posted in 2010s, 2016, 4 stars, Action, Adventure, Sci-fi, superhero films	| Tagged Batman, Batman v Superman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Superman, Wonder Woman, Zack Snyder	| 9 Replies
What price a 'Definitive Cut'?
Provoked by, of all things, the Blu-ray release of The Wolfman (this started out as the opening paragraph of my review of that — oh how it grew), I've once again been musing on one of my 'favourite' topics. No, not "what's TV and what's film these days?", but "which version of a film is definitive these days?"
I apologise if I've written extensively on this before; I think I've only had the odd random muse in a review, at most. So, much as I got the TV thing out of my system (a bit) in that editorial, here's an attempt at the "definitive cut" one:
The age of DVD has managed to throw up all kinds of questions about what is the definitive version of a film. Never mind issues of incorrect aspect ratios, fiddled colour timing, or excessive digital processing — these are all potentially problems, yes, but usually quite easy to see where the correct version lies. The question of a 'definitive version' comes in the multitude of Director's Cuts, Extended Cuts, Harder Cuts, Extreme Cuts — whatever label the marketing boys & girls slap on them, Longer Versions You Didn't See In The Cinema is what they are. But are they better? Or more definitive? Does it matter?
So many consumers hold off for the DVD these days, especially with the added quality offered by Blu-ray, that the old answer of "what was released in the cinema" doesn't necessarily hold true any more. Filmmakers know some will be waiting for the DVD, so are less concerned with releasing a studio-mandated, shorter, mass audience friendly cut into cinemas when their fuller vision can be found on DVD. Equally, the PR people know that "longer cut!" and "not seen in cinemas!" and other such slogans can help sell DVDs, and so may be forcing needless and unwelcome extensions onto filmmakers. Then there's all those older directors who think they're doing a good thing finally getting to tamper with their film 30 years on, who may well be misguided.
Some make it nice and clear for us. Ridley Scott, for example, is particularly good at this: Blade Runner has taken decades to get right, but The Final Cut is quite obviously the last word on this; he was well known to be unhappy with the theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven, and was vindicated when the aptly-titled (for once) Director's Cut received much improved reviews; conversely, he's been very clear that the Director's Cut of Alien and Extended Cut of Gladiator are not his preferred versions, just interesting alternate/longer edits.
On the other hand, Oliver Stone has now churned out three versions of Alexander [2015 edit: now four], each with significantly differing structures and content. None have received particularly good reviews. Is one the definitive cut? Or is it just a very public example of the editing process; what difference inclusions, exclusions, and structural overhauls can (or, perhaps, can't) make?
The issue is somewhat brushed aside by two things, I think. Firstly, most stuff that suffers this treatment is tosh. Who cares which version of Max Payne or Hitman or Beowulf or either AvP or any number of teen-focused comedies is 'definitive' — no one liked them in the first place and they'll be all but forgotten within a decade or two, at most (well, not AvP, sadly — its connection to two major franchises will see to that).
Secondly, more often than not both versions are available. Coppola may have vowed never to release the pre-Redux Apocalypse Now ever again, but the most recent DVDs [and, later, Blu-rays] include both cuts — listen to him or go with the original theatrical cut, it's your choice. The same goes for Terminator 2, or indeed a good deal of the rubbish listed above. Rare is the film that doesn't fit into one of these two camps, or the third "it's been made clear" one.
So, with all that said, does it even matter? If we can choose which version we prefer, is that the right way to have things? Because, having gone through the options and examples I can think of, it's not often that there's not an easy way to resolve it — by which I mean, if the film is good enough to want the clarity of "which version is final", we tend to have a way of knowing; and if the film's tosh, well, what does it matter which we choose? There's every chance no one involved in the production cares anyway.
There remains one argument for clarity, I think. How does one guarantee that, in the future, the 'correct' version remains accessible? With new formats always coming along, there's no assurance that every cut of a film will be released; with TV showings, there's no assurance the preferred version will always be the one shown (though there's another argument for how much the latter matters considering they already mess around with aspect ratios and edits for violence/swearing/sex/etc.) But then, even if a filmmaker makes it clear that their preferred version is the one that only came out on DVD/Blu-ray, what chance is there that unscrupulous disc / download / unknown-future-format producers or TV schedulers won't just revert to the theatrical version by default?
Sometimes one longs for the simpler age of a film hitting cinemas and that being that. We wouldn't have had to suffer Lucas' Star Wars fiddles, for one thing. But then nor would Ridley Scott have been able to redeem some of his films, or Zack Snyder treat fans to an improved Watchmen, or Peter Jackson truly complete The Lord of the Rings. If some level of uncertainty is the price we have to pay for these things, then it's one even my obsessive nature is willing to pay.
There are 20 different films featured in this post's header image.
Anyone who can name them all wins special bragging rights.
Posted in 2010, alternate & director's cuts, Editorials	| Tagged Alexander, Alien, Alien vs Predator, Aliens vs Predator: Requiem, Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Now Redux, AVP, Beowulf, Blade Runner, Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Definitive Cut, Director's Cut, DVD, Extended Cut, George Lucas, Gladiator, hitman, James Cameron, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut, Max Payne, Oliver Stone, Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, theatrical version, Watchmen, Zack Snyder	| Leave a reply


text:
New Zealand launches gun buy-back scheme
by Times News Service
Jacinda Ardern.
New Zealand launches gun 'buy-back' scheme to compensate owners of powerful but newly ...
Wellington: In the wake of the deadly mosque attack that shook New Zealand, the government has launched a gun buy-back scheme.
More than $208m New Zealand dollars (£108m, $136m), have been set aside to compensate owners of semi-automatic weapons which were banned following the attacks.
The ban was agreed by parliament in April, weeks after the shootings.
In March, a gunman killed 51 people at a mosque and Islamic centre during Friday prayers.
The scheme, which only applies to licensed guns, will last six months meaning people will have until 20 December to hand in their weapons.
"The buy-back has one objective - to remove the most dangerous weapons from circulation," Minister of Police, Stuart Nash said.
"Police have detailed plans in place for the next step, which is the collection of firearms from the community. It will be a huge logistical exercise and is expected to get under way in mid-July," he said.
The new gun laws agreed in April ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and parts that can be used to assemble prohibited firearms.
The money set aside will compensate owners up to 95 per cent of the original price of their weapons.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The United States Senate Special Committee On Aging presents "Fighting Fraud: The Top 10 Scams Targeting Our Nation's Seniors" in a 44-page report for consumers. We will highlight some sections. For the full report, click here.
Our nation's seniors worked hard their entire lives and saved for retirement. Unfortunately, there are many criminals who target them and seek to rob them of their hard-earned savings. Far too many older Americans are being financially exploited by strangers over the telephone, through the mail, and, increasingly, online. Worse yet, these seniors may also be targeted by family members or by people they trust.
The U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging has made consumer protection and fraud prevention a major focus of its work. In recent years, the Committee has held hearings examining telephone scams, tax-related schemes, Social Security fraud, and the implications of payday loans and pension advances for seniors, among other issues. The Committee launched a toll-free Fraud Hotline: 1-855-303-9470. By serving as a resource for seniors and others affected by scams, the Hotline has helped increase reporting and awareness of consumer fraud.
In an effort to educate seniors on emerging trends and help protect them from becoming victims, this report features the top ten scams reported in 2015 to the Fraud Hotline. In addition, this report includes resources for consumers who wish to report scams to state and federal agencies.
The IRS will never call a taxpayer to demand immediate payment, nor will the agency call about taxes owed without first having mailed a bill to the taxpayer.
The IRS will never threaten to send local police or other law enforcement to have a taxpayer arrested.
The IRS will never require a taxpayer to use a specific payment method for taxes, such as a prepaid debit card.
Even if you are on the Do Not Call Registry, scammers find a way to call. Robocalling is the process of using equipment to mechanically, as opposed to manually, dial phone numbers in sequence. Many of these calls originate outside the country. Here's how they make it believable: Con artists usually spoof the number from which they are calling to either mask their true identity or take on a new identity. Fraudsters spoof their numbers to make victims believe they are calling from the government or another legitimate entity. In addition, scammers will often spoof numbers to appear as if they are calling from the victims' home states or local area codes.
• Do not give out personal information in response to an incoming call. Identity thieves are clever: they often pose as representatives of banks, credit card companies, creditors, or government agencies to convince victims to reveal their account numbers, Social Security numbers, mothers' maiden names, passwords, and other identifying information.
• If you receive an inquiry from a company or government agency seeking personal information, do not provide it. Instead, hang up and call the phone number on your account statement, in the phonebook, or on the company's or government agency's website to find out if the entity that supposedly called you actually needs the requested information from you.
The basic scam involves con artists trying to gain victims' trust by pretending to be associated with a well-known technology company, such as Microsoft, Apple, or Dell. They then falsely claim that the victims' computers have been infected with a virus. Con artists convince victims to give them remote access to their computers, personal information, and credit card and bank account numbers so that victims can be "billed" for fraudulent services to fix the virus. In a related scam, individuals surfing the Internet may see a pop-up window on their computer instructing them to contact a tech-support agent. Sometimes, scammers have used the pop-up window to hack into victims' computers, lock them out, and require victims to pay a ransom to regain control of their computers.
• Do not give control of your computer to a third party that calls you out of the blue.
• Do not rely on caller ID to authenticate a caller. Criminals spoof caller ID numbers. They may appear to be calling from a legitimate company or a local number when they are not even in the same country as you.
• If you want to contact tech support, look for a company's contact information on its software package or on your receipt.
• Never provide your credit card or financial information to someone who calls and claims to be from tech support.
• If a caller pressures you to buy a computer security product or says there is a subscription fee associated with the call, hang up. If you're concerned about your computer, call your security software company directly and ask for help.
• Make sure you have updated all of your computer's anti-virus software, firewalls, and popup blockers.
All of the scams along with helpful tips, case studies, and resources are presented in the full report. Click here.
The attorneys and staff have built a practice around the advocacy and protection of our seniors. If we can help you and your family with elder law issues including elder abuse and exploitation, guardianships, or estate planning, contact us at 352.379.1900 or complete the form below and we will contact you.


text:
Workers Credit Union, city of Gardner dedicate new plaque on the site of former Ohave Shalom synagogue
By Stephen Landryslandry@thegardnernews.com
Aug 28, 2019 at 6:09 PM Sep 1, 2019 at 8:58 AM
GARDNER — For more than 100 years, members of the location Jewish community met at the Ohave Shalom synagogue at 193 Pleasant St. After a few years of disuse, the property was purchased by Workers Credit Union and demolished, but bank employees wanted to ensure that one of the city's most significant historical sites would not be forgotten.
Bank employees recently met with local dignitaries and former members of the congregation to witness the unveiling of a plaque marking the spot where the synagogue stood for more than 10 decades. In addition to remembering the synagogue, the marker also serves as a celebration of the contributions its congregants made to the city.
Workers President and CEO Douglas Petersen said the plaque and the park surrounding it is a way for his bank to give back to the community.
"This represents those that have come before us, what they have done," he said during the plaque ceremony on Aug. 28. "Overall, we're very happy how this all worked out and we're grateful we could be a part of it."
Although final plans for the park are still being worked out, the area will contain shade trees and perhaps some benches.
State Rep. Jon Zlotnik, D-Gardner, said it is important that residents always remember their city's rich history.
"The city of Gardner has a rich tradition of various types of people — obviously a lot of things happened over the 200 years since this area was settled — and it's critical to commemorate and try to remember as much of our history as we can," he said. "It's so important that we stay in touch with our peoples and our groups, so I'm so excited that Workers Credit Union has chosen to do this here to memorialize this site and the community it represents."
Mayor Mark Hawke said the memorial and park represent a great example of a local financial institution giving back to and investing in its community.
"I think that blighted building that stood here for a long time no longer represented the synagogue and all of its former splendor, but having this park here really spruces up the area and makes it a lot more inviting," Hawke said.
Prior to the unveiling of the plaque, Sandra Sagehorn-Elliott spoke on behalf of her fellow Workers Credit Union employees, saying that everyone she worked with felt especially close to the location of the former synagogue.
"So we are just so pleased to do the unveiling today to commemorate the spot of the synagogue and the contributions the Jewish community made to the city of Gardner," she said, adding that once the building stopped being used as a synagogue it obviously fell into a bit of disrepair.
"So we were really delighted when we had the opportunity to buy the location," she said, adding that the synagogue's former congregants began to reach out to Workers employees. "And we were really grateful because we got to hear all these stories about what it meant to people to attend the synagogue and be part of that community in Gardner."
In addition to hearing stories, the meetings between former congregants and credit union workers resulted in another way to keep the synagogue's memory alive in the city — they decided to donate a variety of the synagogue's items to the Gardner Museum, including stained-glass windows, an altar piece and some woodwork sculptures.
Gardner Museum Director Marion Knoll provided a brief history of the synagogue, which was built in 1912 when there were about 20 Jewish families in Gardner. Regular weekly Sabbath services were held in the synagogue and it was home to an active Hebrew school, according to Knoll, who said that at its peak just before World War I, the Jewish population in the city was about 60 families.
"Over the years, the Jewish community decreased and the building was sold in 1997 and the congregation was dissolved one year later," Knoll said.
The Gardner News ~ 330 Main St., Gardner, MA 01440 ~ Do Not Sell My Personal Information ~ Cookie Policy ~ Do Not Sell My Personal Information ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service ~ Your California Privacy Rights / Privacy Policy


text:
Q: How can you prove that $1+ 5+ 9 + \cdots +(4n-3) = 2n^{2} - n$ without using induction? Using mathematical induction, I have proved that
$$1+ 5+ 9 + \cdots +(4n-3) = 2n^{2} - n$$
for every integer $n > 0$.
I would like to know if there is another way of proving this result without using PMI. Is there any geometric solution to prove this problem? Also, are there examples of problems where only PMI is our only option?
Here is the way I have solved this using PMI.
Base Case: since $1 = 2 · 1^2 − 1$, the formula holds for $n = 1$.
Assuming that the
formula holds for some integer $k ≥ 1$, that is,
$$1 + 5 + 9 + \dots + (4k − 3) = 2k^2 − k$$
I show that
$$1 + 5 + 9 + \dots + [4(k + 1) − 3] = 2(k + 1)^2 − (k + 1).$$
Now if I use hypothesis I observe.
$$
\begin{align}
1 + 5 + 9 + \dots + [4(k + 1) − 3]
& = [1 + 5 + 9 + \dots + (4k − 3)] + 4(k + 1) −3 \\
& = (2k^2 − k) + (4k + 1) \\
& = 2k^2 + 3k + 1 \\
& = 2(k + 1)^2 − (k + 1)
\end{align}
$$
$\diamond$

A: My favorite proof makes use of a telescoping sum. Let's recall how that works: given a sequence $a_k$ then:
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n (a_{k+1}-a_k)=a_{n+1}-a_1,
$$
because intermediate terms cancel out pairwise.
Just take now $a_k=k^2$ and you have:
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n [(k+1)^2-k^2]=(n+1)^2-1=n^2+2n.
$$
But, on the other hand:
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n [(k+1)^2-k^2]=\sum_{k=1}^n (2k+1)=
\sum_{k=1}^n 2k+\sum_{k=1}^n 1=\sum_{k=1}^n 2k+n.
$$
By equating you get then
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n 2k+n=n^2+2n,
\quad\hbox{that is}\quad
\sum_{k=1}^n 2k=n^2+n
\quad\hbox{and}\quad
\sum_{k=1}^n 4k=2n^2+2n,
$$
so that:
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n (4k-3)=2n^2+2n-3n=2n^2-n
$$

A: If you know the expression for the sum of an arithmetic sequence (or can prove it, it's not too hard, see below) then that's another way. For an arithmetic series with first term $a$ and common difference $d$, the sum to $n$ terms, $S_n$ is given by:
$$S_n = \frac{n}{2}\left(2a+(n-1)d\right)$$ or alternatively, if the last term is $l$ then
$$S_n = \frac{n(a+l)}{2}$$
For your question, we have $a=1$ and $d=4$ so
$$S_n = \frac{n}{2}\left(2+4(n-1)\right) = n(2n-1) = 2n^2-n$$

To get the first expression for $S_n$, write the sum out twice, in opposite orders, and then take their sum:
$$S_n = a + (a+d) + (a+2d) + ... + [a+(n-2)d] + [a+(n-1)d]$$
$$S_n = [a+(n-1)d] + [a+(n-2)d] + ... + (a+2d) + (a+d) + a$$
$\implies$
$$2S_n = [2a+(n-1)d] + [2a+(n-1)d] + ...+[2a+(n-1)d] + [2a+(n-1)d]$$
where there are $n$ terms, so that
$$2S_n = n [2a+(n-1)d] $$
i.e.
$$S_n = \frac{n}{2}\left(2a+(n-1)d\right)$$

A: Let
$$a_k := 4 k - 3 \qquad \qquad \qquad b_k := k - 1$$
Using summation by parts,
$$\begin{array}{rl} \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n a_k &= \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n a_k (b_{k+1} - b_k)\\ &= \left(a_k \, b_k \,\bigg|_1^{n+1}\right) - \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n (a_{k+1} - a_k) \, b_{k+1}\\ &= a_{n+1} \, b_{n+1} - a_1 \, b_1 - \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n 4 k\\ &= a_{n+1} \, b_{n+1} - \left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n (4 k - 3)\right) - 3n\\ &= (4 n + 1) n - 3 n - \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n a_k\\ &= 4 n^2 - 2n - \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n a_k\end{array}$$
Hence,
$$\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = 2 n^2 - n$$

A: The most straightforward way is of course
$$\frac n2(a+\ell))=\frac n2 \big(1+(4n-3)\big)=\color{red}{2n^2-n}\qquad\blacksquare$$

Another method:
The well-known result of the sum of the first $n$ integers:
$$1+2+3+4+\cdots+n=\frac{n(n+1)}2$$
Subtract $1$ from each term ($n$ in total):
$$0+1+2+3+\cdots+(n-1)=\frac{n(n-1)}2$$
Multiply by $4$:
$$0+4+8+12+\cdots+4(n-1)=2n(n-1)$$
Add $1$ to each term ($n$ in total):
$$1+5+9+13+\cdots+(4n-3)=\color{red}{2n^2-n}\quad\blacksquare$$

A: Below we show how to give a rigorous interpretation of some of the other "proof by picture" answers. Namely, we describe how a $2$-dimensional form of telescopy allows us to view a sequence of rectangles as being built-up layer-by-layer from successive differences of prior rectangles - as if built by a $2$-D printer. Further, applying a simple product rule for differences allows us to simplify these differences into a form more amenable to geometric visualization. This yields a simple and purely mechanical way to generate such pictorial proofs. Moreover, it provides a rigorous interpretation of such proofs using standard techniques for telescopic sums. Finally we mention an analogy with calculus: such telescopic summation is a discrete analog of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (but you don't need to know any calculus to understand the much simpler discrete analog that we describe below).
Let $\,f_n,\, g_n\,$ be sequences of naturals and  $\bar R_n$ a sequence of $f_n\times g_n$ rectangles of area $ R_n = f_n g_n.$ Below we recall the product rule for the difference operator $\,\Delta h_n := h_{n+1} - h_n$ then we apply the rule to the special case $\,f_n = n,\ g_n = 2n\!-\!1\,$ in Lynn's picture below.
$$ \large  \color{PaleVioletRed}1 + \color{DarkViolet}5 + \color{DodgerBlue}9 + \dots + \color{LightCoral}{(4n-3)}\, =\, n(2n-1) = 2n^2-n$$

Note: below we give related objects the same color (not related to the coloring above).
$ \begin{eqnarray}{\bf Product\ Rule}\qquad\ \: &&\Delta(f_n g_n ) &=&\ f_{n+1}\ \ \ \Delta g_n &+&\qquad\  \Delta f_n\cdot  g_n\\[.3em]
{\bf Proof}\quad\ \ \,f_{n+1}\ g_{n+1}\ \ &-&\ \ f_n\ g_n &=&\ f_{n+1}(g_{n+1}\!-g_n) &+&\, (f_{n+1}\!-f_n)\, g_n \\[.5em]
{\rm e.g.}\quad\, \smash[b]{\underbrace{(n\!+\!1)(2n\!+\!1)}_{\large R_{\,\Large{n+1}}}}&-&\smash[b]{\underbrace{n(2n\!-\!1)}_{\large R_{\,\Large{n}}}} &=&\ \smash[b]{\underbrace{(\color{#c00}{n\!+\!1})\cdot 2}_{\large \rm arch\ \color{#c00}{sides}}} &+&\quad\ \smash[b]{\underbrace{1\,\cdot\, (\color{#0a0}{2n\!-\!1})}_{\large\rm arch\ \color{#0a0}{top}}}\ \ \ {\rm in\ picture}\\[.2em]
\phantom{} \end{eqnarray}$
So to increment an $\,n\!\times\! (2n\!-\!1)$ rectangle $\bar R_n$ to its successor $\bar R_{n+1}$ of size $\,(n\!+\!1)\!\times\!(2n\!+\!1)$ we can add $\,\color{#c00}{n\!+\!1}$ squares on each $\rm\color{#c00}{side}$ of $\bar R_n$ and $\,\color{#0a0}{2n\!-\!1}\,$ on  $\rm\color{#0a0}{top}$ of $\bar R_n.\,$ For example, let $\,n=3.\,$ In the picture, to increment the $3\times 5$ blue $\bar R_3$ to the $4\times7$ green $\bar R_4$ rectangle, the rule says we can append $\,\color{#c00}{n\!+\!1} = 4$ green squares to each side of blue $\bar R_3,\,$ plus $\color{#0a0}{2n\!-\!1} = 5$ green squares on top of blue $\bar R_3$ yielding the $\,7\times 4$ green arch - which constitutes the (area) difference between the green $4\times7\ (\bar R_4)$ and blue $3\times 5\ (\bar R_3)$ rectangles. Thus the $\rm\color{#c00}{sides}$ and $\rm\color{#0a0}{top}$ of the arch are precisely the summands in the product rule, so the rule shows how to construct  successive differences of $2$-D rectangles $f_n\times g_n$ via differences $\,\Delta f_n,\, \Delta g_n$ of their $1$-D sides.
Thus we can view each rectangle as being built-up layer-by-layer from the differences (= arches) of successive prior rectangles (the separately colorered arches in the picture). Dynamically, we can think of a $2$-D printer building the rectangle arch-layer-by-layer (similar to a $3$-D printer).
The sought equality follows by computing the  $n(2n\!-\!1)$ area of rectangle $\bar R_n$ a second way, using said layer-by-layer inductive construction of $\bar R_n.$ By the rule, the difference arches have area $\,R_{k+1}\!-R_k = 2(\color{#c00}{k\!+\!1)} + \color{#0a0}{2k\!-\!1} = 4k\!+\!1.\,$ Adding these to initial area $= 1_{\phantom{\frac{i}i}}\!\!\!$ of $\,1\!\times\! 1$ $\,\bar R_1$
$\qquad\qquad\qquad\begin{eqnarray} {\underbrace{1}_{\color{#c0f}{\large R_{\Large1}}} +\!\!\! \underbrace{5}_{\large{\color{#48f}{R_{\Large 2}}-\color{#c0f}{R_{\Large 1}}}}\!\! +\! \underbrace{9}_{\large{R_{\Large 3}-\color{#48f}{R_{\Large 2}}}}\!\! +\, \cdots + \!\!\underbrace{4n\!-\!3}_{\large{R_{\Large n}-R_{\Large{n-1}}}} \!=\, \smash{\sum_{\large k\,=\,0}^{\large{{n-1}}}\,(4k\!+\!1)}}\\[-.2em] \end{eqnarray}$
is an equal value for the area of $\,n\!\times\!(2n\!-\!1)\,$ rectangle $\,\bar R_n$. This is the sought equality.
The above LHS sums to $ R_n$ since it is a telescoping sum so $\rm\color{#c0f}{successive}\ \color{#48f}{terms}$ cancel out, which becomes clearer if we reorder the sum by rewriting $\,R_{k+1}-R_k\,$ as $\ {-}R_k\! + R_{k+1}$ yielding
$\qquad \begin{eqnarray}{\underbrace{\color{#c0f}{R_1}\! + (\color{#c0f}{-R_1}}_{\large =\ 0}\! + \underbrace{\color{#48f}{R_2}) + (\color{#48f}{-R_2}}_{\large =\ 0}\! +\underbrace{ R_3) + (-R_3}_{\large =\ 0}\! +\cdots +\underbrace{R_{n-1}) +(-R_{n-1}}_{\large =\ 0}\! + R_n)\, =\, R_n}\\[-.1em]
\end{eqnarray} $
Here lies the hidden use of induction. Though such telescopic cancellation may seem "obvious", it does require rigorous proof. But the inductive step is easy: adding $\, -R_n\! + R_{n+1}$ to both sides of the above statement $P(n)\,$ yields $P(n\!+\!1)\ $ so $\:P(n)\,\Rightarrow\,P(n\!+\!1)\,$ [to be completely rigorous we should also eliminate the ellipses, replacing them by a more precise summation operator].
Many inductive proofs have a very natural telescopic form, and expressing them in this format often leads to great simplification. You can find many examples of telescopy in my prior answers (both in additive and multiplicative form).
Finally we briefly mention that analogy with calculus. The above remarks on telescopic sums show that $\,f(n)\,$ is the sum of its differences. This is the difference analog of the Fundamental Theorem of Differential Calculus, i.e. we have the analogous theorems
$$\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\ \Delta_k f(k)\ \,   &=&\ f(n)-f(0)\\[.2em]
\int_0^x\! D_t f(t)\, dt &=&\ f(x) - f(0)
\end{eqnarray}$$
This is but one small part of the calculus of finite differences, a discrete analog of differential calculus. Many things familiar from calculus have discrete difference analogs, and their proofs are often much simpler (such as the difference product rule above). For example, to verify that  $F(n) = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f(k)$
 it suffices to show that they have the same difference and same initial condition, i.e $\,F(n\!+\!1)-F(n) = f(n)\,$ and $F(0) = 0$. When, as in the OP, both $F$ and $f$ are polynomials this reduces to simply checking the equality of two polynomials, which can be done purely mechanically (so no intuition or visual analogies are needed). E.g. for the OP we have $\,F(n) = n(2n\!-\!1)$ so the proof reduces to verifying $\,F(n\!+\!1)-F(n) = 4n\!+1,\,$ and $\,F(n)= 0,\,$ which is trivial polynomial arithmetic - so trivial we can program calculators to perform all such proofs. In fact there are general summation algorithms due to Karr, Gosper and others that are discrete analogs of the Risch-Bronstein integration algorithms implemented in computer algebra systems such as Macsyma, Maple and Mathematica.
Therefore such difference calculus proofs remain completely mechanical even for higher degree polynomials, but generalizing the geometrical picture-based proofs to higher dimensions will prove much more difficult because we typically lack (real-world) intuition for high dimensional spaces.  So difference calculus serves to algebraicize these geometrical proofs in a "calculus" that is so mechanical that it can be performed by a computer - freeing our intuition to work on less trivial matters.

A: $$\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\left( {4k - 3} \right)}  = 4\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n k  - 3 \cdot \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n 1  = 4\frac{{n\left( {n + 1} \right)}}{2} - 3 \cdot n = 2n^2  - n$$

A: Hint:
Let $$\begin{alignat}{10}S_n&=&1+&&5+&&9+&\cdots+&(4n-3)\\&=&(4n-3)+&&(4n-7)+&&(4n-11)+&\cdots+&1.\end{alignat}$$
Thus $$2S_n=(4n-2)+(4n-2)+(4n-2)+\cdots+(4n-2).$$

Additional:

As pointed out in the comments, the proof above relies on mathematical induction. So I want to explain what role induction plays in the proof.
For a given number $n$, say $10000$, the proof is valid, though it involves ellipsis, since one can write down all numbers omitted.
Now we claim that the proposition is true for all natural numbers. This would be difficult to prove without using mathematical induction, although I have no idea whether this is possible. Intuitively, we can see that this proof is valid for all natural numbers, but how do we prove that
$$\mathbb{Z}_+=\{n\in\mathbb{N}:S_n=2n^2-n\}?$$
One can start from Peano axioms or axiom of infinity, or other equivalent assumptions, and prove that the set on the right-handed side is $\mathbb{Z}_+$ easily.
I don't think that there exists any proposition we can prove without mathematical induction that it is true for every natural numbers, since when we talk about natural numbers, we are using mathematical induction.

A: Follow the rainbow!
$$ \Large \color{PaleVioletRed}1 + \color{DarkViolet}5 + \color{DodgerBlue}9 + \dots + \color{LightCoral}{(4n-3)} = n(2n-1) = 2n^2-n$$

A: A geometrical proof. A rectangle formed by a sum of gnomons.

A: You can use the "trick" attributed to Gauss for finding the sum of the first $n$ integers. Call your sum $S_n$, and consider this.
$$\begin{align}
&\quad S_n=+1&+ 5 +& \quad\cdots&+(4n-7)&+(4n-3)\\
+&\quad S_n=+(4n-3)&+(4n-7)+&\quad\cdots&+5&+1
\\ &\hline\\
 \quad&2S_n\quad =+\underbrace{(4n-2)}_{1^{st}} &+\underbrace{(4n-2)}_{2^{nd} }+&\quad\underbrace{\cdots}_{3^{rd}\mbox{ to }{(n-2)}^{nd}}&+\underbrace{(4n-2)}_{(n-1)^{st}}&+\underbrace{(4n-2)}_{n^{th}}\\\end{align}$$
Thus $2S_n$ equals $n(4n-2)$, and $S_n=2n^2-n$.

A: Here is a method based upon formal power series. We encode thereby sequences  $\left(a_n\right)_{n\geq 0}$ by formal power series $\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nx^n$ and show equality of sequences by showing equality of corresponding power series.
Using the summation symbol $\sum$ we claim

The following is valid
  \begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(4j-3\right)=2n^2-n\qquad\qquad    n\geq 1
\end{align*}

We encode the sequence
\begin{align*}
\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(4j-3\right)\right)_{n\geq 1}=\left(1,6,15,\cdots\right)\quad\rightarrow\quad
\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\left(4j-3\right)\right)x^n=\color{blue}{1}x+\color{blue}{6}x^2+\color{blue}{15}x^3+\cdots
\end{align*}
by the   power series and in the same way we encode
\begin{align*}
\left(2n^2-n\right)_{n\geq 1}=\left(1,6,15,\cdots\right) \quad\rightarrow\quad\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(2n^2-n\right)x^n=\color{blue}{1}x+\color{blue}{6}x^2+\color{blue}{15}x^3+\cdots
\end{align*}
and show the equality of the corresponding power series.

We obtain
  \begin{align*}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\left(4j-3\right)\right)x^n
&=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\left(4j+1\right)\right)x^n\tag{1} \\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\left(4j+1\right)\right)x^{n+1} \tag{2}\\
&=\frac{x}{1-x}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(4n+1\right)x^n\tag{3}\\
&=\frac{x}{1-x}\left(4\sum_{n=0}^\infty nx^n+\sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n\right)\tag{4}\\
&=\frac{x}{1-x}\left(4(xD_x)\sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n+\frac{1}{1-x}\right)\tag{5}\\
&=\frac{4x^2}{1-x}D_x\left(\frac{1}{1-x}\right)+\frac{x}{(1-x)^2}\tag{6}\\
&=\frac{x(3x+1)}{(1-x)^3}\tag{7}\\
\end{align*}

Comment:

*

*In (1) we shift the index $j$ by one to start with $j=0$

*In (2) we shift the index $n$ by one to start with $n=0$

*In (3) we use the nice fact that summing up elements is encoded in formal power series by multiplication with $\frac{1}{1-x}$. This is due to the Cauchy product formula.

*In (4) we do some rearrangement to be prepared for further steps

*In (5) we use the formula for the geometric power series and also that differentiating a power series and multiplication with $x$ results in
\begin{align*}
xD_x \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n x^n = \sum_{n=0}^\infty na_nx^n
\end{align*}
Here we denote with  $D_x:=\frac{d}{dx}$ the differential operator.

*In (6) we use the formula for the geometric power series again and multiply out

*In (7) we perform the differentiation and simplify the expression

on the other hand we obtain with similar reasoning
  \begin{align*}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(2n^2-n\right)x^n
&=2\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^2x^n-\sum_{n=1}^\infty nx^n\\
&=2(xD_x)^2\sum_{n=1}^\infty x^n-(xD_x)\sum_{n=1}^\infty x^n\\
&=2(xD_x)^2\frac{x}{1-x}-(xD_x)\frac{x}{1-x}\\
&=\frac{2x(1+x)}{(1-x)^3}-\frac{x}{(1-x)^2}\\
&=\frac{x(3x+1)}{(1-x)^3}\\
\end{align*}
  and the claim follows.

Note: Of course applying this method here is to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But these techniques are useful also in more difficult context. See e.g. this answer.

A: By counting dots (of Hexagonal number) in two ways.

On the left: there are four "outer" sides of each hexagon $j = 2, \dots, n$, where each side has $j$ dots but 3 of them are shared, in addition the trivial hexagon $j=1$ is one dot. Therefore, in total there are $\sum_{j=1}^n4j-3$ dots.
On the right: there are $2n-1$ rows (since a hexagon has both top and bottom sides, except the trivial case), and each row adds $n$ dots. Hence $n(2n-1) = 2n^2-n$ dots.
*Despite being geometric, induction may well be needed to justify the counting arguments, as Bill Dubuque noted.

A: There are some very clever answers here, but what if you don't spot the clever trick? It would be nice to be able to mechanically grind out the answer, and in order to do that, you can use the discrete calculus.
So here the problem is to evaluate $ \sum_{1\le i\le n}{4i-3} $. First, expand all powers of the summation variable (here, $i$) into sums of falling powers (by inspection in simple cases, or using Stirling cycle numbers). This is trivial here, since $i = i^{\underline 1}$, so $$ \sum_{1\le i\le n}{4i-3} = \sum_{1\le i\le n}{4i^{\underline 1}-3}. $$ Now, summation of falling powers is just like integration of ordinary powers, except for the upper evaluation limit: $$ \sum_{1\le i\le n}{4i^{\underline 1}-3} = \bigg({4\over2}i^{\underline 2}-3i^{\underline 1}\bigg)\bigg\rvert^{n+1}_1. $$ Expand the falling powers and apply the evaluation limits, getting $$ \bigg({4 \over 2}(n+1)(n) - 3(n+1)\bigg) - \bigg({4 \over 2}(1)(0) - 3(1)\bigg) $$ which can be simplified to $ 2n^2 - n $.
No insight required, just turn the handle and compute!

A: Induction is fundamental to the structure of mathematics. The $``\cdots"$ in the expression $1+ 5+ 9 + \cdots +(4n-3)$ cannot be explained rigorously without using some form of induction. All of the picture proofs here have an implied $``\cdots"$ in them. Similarly, $\text{$\Sigma$-notation}$ and telescoping sums cannot be defined without some form of induction.
Putting that aside, I have always been curious about the process of converting sums to integrals, so I offer the following flawed solution.
Note that
$\int_\limits k^{k+1}(4x-5)\,dx
 = \left. (2x^2-5x) \right|_k^{k+1}
 = (2k^2+4k+2-5k-5)-(2k^2-5k)
 = 4k-3$.
So
\begin{align}
    \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n (4k - 3)
    &= \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n \left( \int_\limits k^{k+1}(4x-5)\,dx \right) \\
    &= \int_\limits 1^{n+1}(4x-5)\,dx
        &\text{(This step requires induction.)} \\
    &= \left. (2x^2-5x) \right|_1^{n+1} \\
    &= (2n^2 + 4n+2 -5n - 5) - (2 - 5) \\
    &= 2n^2-n
\end{align}
Addendum
I got the integrand by solving
$4k - 3 = \int_\limits k^{k+1}(2ax+b)\,dx = 2ak + (a+b)$
The implication is that
\begin{align}
    1 &= u_2 - u_1 \\
    5 &= u_3 - u_2 \\
    9 &= u_4 - u_3 \\
    &\vdots \\
    4k-3 &= u_{k+1} - u_k \\
    &\vdots
\end{align}
where $u_k = 2k^2 - 5k$.
Which converts the sum to the sum of a collapsing series.
This implies Lynn's graphical proof shown below and, though it still requires induction, I thought it shows an interesting way to compute sums.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Title: Dual Parallel Liquid Chromatography with Dual Mass Spectrometry (LC2/MS2) for a Total Lipid Analysis
Submitted to: Frontiers in Bioscience
Citation: Byrdwell, W.C. 2008. Dual parallel liquid chromatography with dual mass spectrometry (LC2/MS2) for a total lipid analysis. Frontiers in Bioscience. 13:100-120.
Interpretive Summary: Lipidomics is the study of the full range of fats, lipids and related materials in a sample. Some lipids, such as phospholipids, are polar and somewhat hydrophilic, while others are non-polar and hydrophobic. Because of their different polarities, lipids have been very difficult to analyze all together using a single, comprehensive analysis method. Presented here is a description of an approach to lipidomics analysis using two separation techniques that use separation columns with opposite polarities that are joined together by an electronic switching valve, so that all lipids, both polar and non-polar can be separated using a single, unified analysis method. The non-polar lipids move down one column quickly and are diverted to a second column, where they are separated using liquid chromatography for non-polar molecules. At the same time, the polar lipids are not diverted, and are separated on a liquid chromatography column designed for polar molecules. The molecules from both columns are identified by their masses, as they pass into a mass spectrometer. This arrangement of two liquid chromatography separation systems and two mass spectrometers for detection of all polar and non-polar lipids was demonstrated by performing a total lipid analysis of a fish filet and of a bovine brain extract.
Technical Abstract: Total lipid extracts containing both polar and non-polar lipids were separated using two liquid chromatographic systems joined together using a column-switching valve. Detection was accomplished using mass spectrometers attached to each of the two liquid chromatographic systems, for a dual liquid chromatography/ dual mass spectrometry (LC2/MS2) arrangement. This experimental approach is demonstrated to be useful to identify many classes of polar and non-polar lipids, and numerous individual molecular species within each class, which is a primary goal of lipidomics. Data are presented from a bovine brain total lipid extract and a sand bream filet extract as examples. The use of both ESI-MS and APCI-MS are demonstrated for analysis of non-polar lipids, and advantages and shortcomings of each technique are discussed. The two parallel chromatographic separations are compared to lipidomics approaches that employ infusion without chromatography. The data show that the LC2/MS2 is one approach to a comprehensive total lipid analysis that can be performed using only commercially available instruments with no fabrication or modification required. The LC2/MS2 approach represents a uniquely valuable tool for monitoring the amounts of precursors and products of molecules involved in cell signaling processes. The dual liquid chromatography/ dual mass spectrometry approach represents one of the most powerful tools for lipidomics analysis reported to date.


text:
If You Don't Know Me By Now Simply Red Download 'If You Don't Know Me By Now' on iTunes
Grenfell: Watch the touching moment a Tube driver stops train to show support
This is the heartwarming moment a London Tube driver stopped his train mid-journey to pay tribute to victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.
The video from Sky News shows the driver stopping the train on a bridge, before pulling into Latimer Road station.
He then appeared at the front of the train with a green banner, before shouting words of support to the people gathered below who were marking the anniversary of the disaster.
He also sounded the Tube's horn to mark the event, which is being held in central London.
Witnesses applauded the driver's tribute, with reporter Dan Whitehead describing the moment as "remarkable."
He said: "A pretty remarkable scene actually one of the Underground trains stopping and cheers from the couple of hundred people here who have gathered.
"What a lovely tribute."
The driver's name has yet to be confirmed.
Thursday (June 14) marks one year since the Grenfell Tower fire led to the deaths of 72 people.
More Smooth Features


text:
College of Architecture and Urban Studies (CAUS)
School of Public and International Affairs
Center for Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs
Higher Education Policy for Minorities in the United States
The Affirmative Action Myth
TheAffirmativeActionMyth.pdf (1.216Mb)
Gryphon, Marie
In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold university admissions preferences, affirmative action remains a deeply divisive issue. The author argues that affirmative action produces no concrete benefits to minority groups, but it does produce several significant harms. First, a phenomenon called the"ratchet effect" means that preferences at a handful of top schools, including state flagship institutions can worsen racial disparities in academic preparation at all other American colleges and universities, including those that do not use admissions preferences. This effect results in painfully large gaps in academic preparation between minority students and others on campuses around the country. Research shows that skills, not credentials, can narrow socioeconomic gaps between white and minority families. Policymakers should end the harmful practice of racial preferences in college admissions. Instead, they should work to close the critical skills gap by implementing school choice reforms and setting higher academic expectations for students of all backgrounds.
Higher Education Policy for Minorities in the United States [932]
License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0


Dr. Erlanger Turner, Ph.D. is a licensed clinical psychologist and assistant professor of psychology at the University of Houston-Downtown (UHD). Dr. Turner is the Director of the Race, Culture and Mental Health Research Lab at UHD. He teaches courses on clinical psychology and multicultural issues such as cultural competency in clinical practice and racism. Additionally, he has published research articles on access to behavioral health services, health equity, cultural competency, and mental health disparities. Dr. Turner is currently the Chair of the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest for the American Psychological Association. Visit his website at www.drerlangerturner.com.


That's what Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had to say about President Barack Obama's comments on the controversial killing of Florida resident Trayvon Martin, The Hill reported.
Obama made his first public comments on Friday about the killing of Martin, 17, who was killed Feb. 26 by a self-identified volunteer neighborhood watchman. In his remarks Friday, Obama said hoped to see the case investigated properly because "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."
Gringrich, in an interview with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, said he found Obama's comments disturbing, The Hill reported.
"What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful," Gingrich told Hannity Friday evening. "It's not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period.
"We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background," Gingrich continued. "Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn't look like him. That's just nonsense dividing this country up."