Where has my friend Cookie Monster gone? Where is the Count? Oscar the Grouch? Oh sure, Elmo's here. Don't remind me. Sadly, Cookie Monster's best days are behind him. Where once was a jolly creature, hardly resembling a monster at all, now remains a mere fragment of what once existed (and not just because of the pounds he dropped). This so-called "Snack Monster" for whom "cookies are a sometimes snack" is an insult to viewers, America, and humanity in general. Sure, cookies aren't the best thing to be snacking on, but when did we start looking to TV to do every aspect of parenting for children? Sure, I learned a lot of things from TV when I was a kid: whether to care or not that Jimmy cracked corn (pretty sure you're not supposed to, I'm not incredibly familiar with the terminology but it doesn't sound very impressive), that little Miss Muffet enjoyed some curds and whey (apparently cottage cheese actually, not a great thing to eat on a summer's day), and that my name was not my name at all but in fact John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith (which allegedly used to be "Schmidt," sounds like a foiled plot to recruit children for the Third Reich). However, the real stuff I learned from my parents. I used to think this was normal, but I sadly don't anymore.
So the Cookie Monster eats cookies, well he is a bit chubby so can't he function as a cautionary tale? Well, as this would require some actual effort on the part of parents, I guess that's just not what's needed in today's world (they're too busy applying their five-year-olds to college). So instead we've got snack monster: a creature that magically makes children want to eat vegetables instead. In fact, didn't you hear about that new study that links Snack Monster to an alarming decrease of obese children? Yeah neither did I. The fact is that kids want cookies because they're delicious, and no matter how crisp the apple or how juicy the orange, at the end of the day fruit just can't compete with good old man-made sugar-coated sugar. So we can either deal with it or we can cross our fingers and hope that Snack Monster gets the point across, lest we all lose our mobility and become Jabba the Hutts (honk if you've seen Wall-E).
This is a slippery slope that we're on, soon The Count will become "The Guesstimator." Instead of teaching children how to properly use numbers he'll just say, "I had five chairs, I gave one to Susie. So now how many chairs do I have?" Three! "Well that's close enough kid, what are we going to do with that chair you forgot about anyway?" I don't know, if you're going to go with that line of thinking, why doesn't Susie just get her own chair? Or for that matter, why do we all need these abstract apples in one hand/oranges in the other anyway? We never seem to do anything with them. Because it teaches us how to count! That's why! The Count used to be my hero: a dark creature of the night who regained his humanity by teaching little kids how to use numbers (I suspect he's the only vampire who can see himself in a mirror). Soon they'll probably cure him of his vampirism only to be inflicted with a much more serious condition: yuppie-ism (garlic doesn't work, I've tried).
And how about my main man Oscar the Grouch? He's supposed to teach kids dry humor, as well as the dangers of gambling debt (subtly implied). Here again is a creature who has clearly been treated poorly due to his monstrous appearance and cynicism, who chooses to live outside of civilized society because he feels that's what he deserves. And then young kids come and visit him and show him maybe life's not so bad after all. Sure, the next week he's a grouch again (his contract would be up if he wasn't) but I always believed that one day he would leave that garbage can and rejoin the muppet race. Now they've probably got him on anti-depressants. Because why use human kindness to cheer up someone when we can just use an OTC? There's another good lesson for kids: the solutions to your problems are at the bottom of a bottle kids! (pharmaceutical or otherwise)
Interlude: Elmo is likely the cause of all of these problems, he/she always freaked me out and has since become the (wo)man behind the (iron) curtain of terrible children's programming if you ask me.
These problems aren't inherent to Sesame Street. Kids shows were so good when I was a kid. I still watch Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and of course Batman the Animated Series (the greatest show of all time). They were good for kids, in some ways even better for adults (like most Pinky and the Brain viewers know what "The Donner Party" was) and they of course had some life lessons that are important for everyone to learn: the Brain always wanted to take over the world, but he once pointed out that "sometimes the price is too high to pay," the Animaniacs created a fun song for remembering state capitals, and where would any of us be without Batman and Superman? I would be lost without any of these characters, who continue to teach me things to this day (slightly different things, like how Batman's villains are a dark reflection of aspects of his own psyche and how breaking the fourth wall on Freakazoid! is a perfect parody of the superhero cartoon genre). Now we've got Dora the Explorer, a show that teaches children that repeating a villain's name and a phrase three times will make him go away (I shouted "Swiper, no swiping!" at a mugger the other day and he strangely didn't return the old lady's purse). It also teaches kids how to speak Spanish, not a bad idea except that I don't run into too many people who can speak English properly (as opposed to properly speak English, for you split infinive nutjobs). What's next? How about Wishy Washy: the Politically Correct Dinosaur. The premise would consist of a dinosaur teaching kids how to think for ten minutes about every word that comes out of their mouths so that they'll never accidentally insult the indiginous people of Wherever, Somewhere-That's-Not-The-United-States.
I actually think I'm onto something with that show, might as well cash in on the decline of society right? The whole point is that there seems to be less of an emphasis these days on personal responsibility since when I was a kid (which wasn't too long ago) and this line of thinking has now infected our children's programming. There used to be awesome cartoons with great plots, clever writing, and a good message for the kids. Now, they might as well be looking to put kids in an Ipcress style room with the TV on from when they're born until they're five. This must be their plan, because the only things that can stop a little kid from eating a cookie are brainwashing and attentive parenting. I'd rather live in a society where some kids eat cookies to a society where everyone is healthy at the expense of a personality. So I say let Cookie Monster eat cookies whenever he feels like it! Let the Grouch be a grouch if he feels like it. And for the sake of all that is good, get rid of Elmo!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
You Can Spell Orthodontist Without Conspiracy, But They're Still Related
The orthodontists are a bunch of con artists (orthocons, that's a good one, I just thought of it) who are trying to steal your money. How is this done? Well I'm glad you asked, I will tell you exactly how.
First, they tell you what your teeth are going to look like in twenty years (this reminds me of the people who tell you what the weather will be like in 50 years but who fail to accurately give me what it'll be like on Thursday). Well, I've had a fair few procedures done concerning my teeth. I've had four (count them: 4!) root canals. This is not due to my mildly obsessive love of skittles (I asked) but instead due to some "unknown trauma, likely when I was younger." So what they're telling me is that I had an abscessed tooth and cysts in my gumline (as painful or more painful than it sounds, especially during exam week) because I had an injury when I was too young to remember (convenient) or an injury when I was older (which I don't remember, possibly because of the same "trauma," also quite convenient). Either way, my parents and I have searched our memories and the worst injury I endured when I was younger or otherwise was a bruised psyche when Dinosaurs went off the air (I want it back!).
And yet, I began to use my Holmes-ian deductive skills and I said, "what do those four teeth have in common?" My conclusion: they are the teeth that are retained by my lower retainer. Coincidence? Yeah, you could say that, but only if you analyze it in a specific way. On that note, lets look at the word "coincidental."
Incidental, is a mixture of "incident" (a word used to downplay a serious occurrence. Example: when Hitler started to take over, there was an "incident" in Poland) and "dental" (a word that obviously pertains to the field of teeth). So, "incidental" quite literally means "the downplay of a serious circumstance pertaining to the field of teeth." And when you slap "co" on there, that just confirms it. "Co" naturally meaning "affiliated with" examples include: co-conspirators, co-mutineers, and co-Legion of Doomers (Justice League beware!).
So is it a coincidence that my retainers once resided over the teeth that are now dead? I suppose it is, yes. But that's not the only "coincidence." These things also coincidentally cost a lot of money. Imagine that. In fact, a friend of mine (who happens to be another victim of the Orthocons, which rhymes with Decepticons, the scourge of Earth in Transformers, just thought of that one too) had a chipped tooth once, so they gave him a root canal because the nerve was exposed. Well, a few months later they decided they just wanted to remove the tooth. With a full refund I'm sure (sarcasm, difficult to convey when typed).
I was forced to eat pudding, apple sauce, and yogurt over a period of two weeks because of my cystorcism. I was just starting to like those again after the wisdom teeth removal of '04. Now, let's give the Orthocons a little credit, and say that they didn't deliberately sabotage my mouth in order to make money (unlikely, but I have to exhaust all options). Well, my teeth had grown a certain way for so long, and thus allowed an infection to grow. SO, shouldn't they have seen that my teeth were growing in such a way somewhere on their magical twenty year timeline? My conclusion, therefore, is that they're either evil or incompetant. Either way I'd like my money back (more like my parents' money, thanks mom and dad!).
The entire Orthodontic industry is based in an actual service, for those who truly need some work done. An example of this is: "Your teeth are visibly crooked to the point that you need to get braces before it causes you extreme pain." An unacceptable reason is: "Your teeth in twenty years may or may not cause you a bit of pain, maybe." See, the problem is that since they have those letters after their name (the same letters that brought about the SAT, tacked-on letters are never good) which tell us, as patients, "whatever I say is the unequivocal truth." Because they went to a few more years of school than we did. Well, I've done some considerable thinking on this subject as well.
Doctors, dentists, lawyers, and all people who require extra years of school are not born with magical powers of healing (except Dr. Quinn of course, how else could she MacGyver all those people back to health?). They are the same people I see, day in and day out, who cram for tests and forget half of what they knew as soon as they leave the test room. They're the same people who had to cram because they only picked up every third word of a lecture through their hangovers. These are the same dunderheads I see every day who forget to staple their papers, act surprised when their meal costs money, and of course vacation in the infamous Australian Dessert. So how do I tell the difference between the orthodontists who actually know their stuff and the ones who cheated off of the ones who know their stuff? I guess the proof is in the proverbial pudding (I happened upon one of these when I couldn't eat solid foods, that's when my moment of clarity occurred).
So, are all orthodontists evil? Probably, yes. Dentists, on the other hand, seem to be okay aside from their sadistic natures. My dentist is quite a nice fellow, who shares a name with an archbishop from way back in the day. The guys who actually performed my procedures? Very nice people. The orthodontists? Crazy people, they tightened my braces one too many times and now I want retribution. I strongly suspect that their "cut" of the money they receive for referring myself and others to the sensible -ists is fairly considerable. But now I'm onto them, so fear not, parents. Because you might not have to pay a fortune for those braces after all, I suspect that after I bring down their corrupt organization we'll discover the secret to fixing your own teeth, hidden in the annals of their endless forbidden knowledge. I know it exists, I saw it at the end of Raiders.
First, they tell you what your teeth are going to look like in twenty years (this reminds me of the people who tell you what the weather will be like in 50 years but who fail to accurately give me what it'll be like on Thursday). Well, I've had a fair few procedures done concerning my teeth. I've had four (count them: 4!) root canals. This is not due to my mildly obsessive love of skittles (I asked) but instead due to some "unknown trauma, likely when I was younger." So what they're telling me is that I had an abscessed tooth and cysts in my gumline (as painful or more painful than it sounds, especially during exam week) because I had an injury when I was too young to remember (convenient) or an injury when I was older (which I don't remember, possibly because of the same "trauma," also quite convenient). Either way, my parents and I have searched our memories and the worst injury I endured when I was younger or otherwise was a bruised psyche when Dinosaurs went off the air (I want it back!).
And yet, I began to use my Holmes-ian deductive skills and I said, "what do those four teeth have in common?" My conclusion: they are the teeth that are retained by my lower retainer. Coincidence? Yeah, you could say that, but only if you analyze it in a specific way. On that note, lets look at the word "coincidental."
Incidental, is a mixture of "incident" (a word used to downplay a serious occurrence. Example: when Hitler started to take over, there was an "incident" in Poland) and "dental" (a word that obviously pertains to the field of teeth). So, "incidental" quite literally means "the downplay of a serious circumstance pertaining to the field of teeth." And when you slap "co" on there, that just confirms it. "Co" naturally meaning "affiliated with" examples include: co-conspirators, co-mutineers, and co-Legion of Doomers (Justice League beware!).
So is it a coincidence that my retainers once resided over the teeth that are now dead? I suppose it is, yes. But that's not the only "coincidence." These things also coincidentally cost a lot of money. Imagine that. In fact, a friend of mine (who happens to be another victim of the Orthocons, which rhymes with Decepticons, the scourge of Earth in Transformers, just thought of that one too) had a chipped tooth once, so they gave him a root canal because the nerve was exposed. Well, a few months later they decided they just wanted to remove the tooth. With a full refund I'm sure (sarcasm, difficult to convey when typed).
I was forced to eat pudding, apple sauce, and yogurt over a period of two weeks because of my cystorcism. I was just starting to like those again after the wisdom teeth removal of '04. Now, let's give the Orthocons a little credit, and say that they didn't deliberately sabotage my mouth in order to make money (unlikely, but I have to exhaust all options). Well, my teeth had grown a certain way for so long, and thus allowed an infection to grow. SO, shouldn't they have seen that my teeth were growing in such a way somewhere on their magical twenty year timeline? My conclusion, therefore, is that they're either evil or incompetant. Either way I'd like my money back (more like my parents' money, thanks mom and dad!).
The entire Orthodontic industry is based in an actual service, for those who truly need some work done. An example of this is: "Your teeth are visibly crooked to the point that you need to get braces before it causes you extreme pain." An unacceptable reason is: "Your teeth in twenty years may or may not cause you a bit of pain, maybe." See, the problem is that since they have those letters after their name (the same letters that brought about the SAT, tacked-on letters are never good) which tell us, as patients, "whatever I say is the unequivocal truth." Because they went to a few more years of school than we did. Well, I've done some considerable thinking on this subject as well.
Doctors, dentists, lawyers, and all people who require extra years of school are not born with magical powers of healing (except Dr. Quinn of course, how else could she MacGyver all those people back to health?). They are the same people I see, day in and day out, who cram for tests and forget half of what they knew as soon as they leave the test room. They're the same people who had to cram because they only picked up every third word of a lecture through their hangovers. These are the same dunderheads I see every day who forget to staple their papers, act surprised when their meal costs money, and of course vacation in the infamous Australian Dessert. So how do I tell the difference between the orthodontists who actually know their stuff and the ones who cheated off of the ones who know their stuff? I guess the proof is in the proverbial pudding (I happened upon one of these when I couldn't eat solid foods, that's when my moment of clarity occurred).
So, are all orthodontists evil? Probably, yes. Dentists, on the other hand, seem to be okay aside from their sadistic natures. My dentist is quite a nice fellow, who shares a name with an archbishop from way back in the day. The guys who actually performed my procedures? Very nice people. The orthodontists? Crazy people, they tightened my braces one too many times and now I want retribution. I strongly suspect that their "cut" of the money they receive for referring myself and others to the sensible -ists is fairly considerable. But now I'm onto them, so fear not, parents. Because you might not have to pay a fortune for those braces after all, I suspect that after I bring down their corrupt organization we'll discover the secret to fixing your own teeth, hidden in the annals of their endless forbidden knowledge. I know it exists, I saw it at the end of Raiders.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Let He Who is Without Talent Roll the First Stone
I'm likely to enrage some people with this post, because it's about how I really don't understand the widespread popularity of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, or U2. Now, if you like all or any of these people and you're like me, you'll probably like them more after I'm done ripping on them.
To begin with, do I think any of the aforementioned people are so terrible that my ears bleed every time I hear them on the radio? (I call this the Beyonce phenomenon) No, but I don't think they're very good though. What really makes me angry isn't so much the fact that I think Bob Dylan sounds like a drunk hobo when he sings, it's the fact that he does this and people call him one of the greatest singers of all time. I can barely understand a word the man is saying. So I look up the lyrics. Are they bad? No, not exactly. Nor are they: "OH MY GOD! THESE ARE THE MOST PROFOUND LYRICS OF ALL TIME AND THEY SHOULD NAME A MAJOR MAGAZINE AFTER THEM!" The only time I've ever liked a Bob Dylan song is when they used his "The Times They Are A-Changin'" in Watchmen and that's because the lyrics fit the scene. But I wouldn't want to just listen to the song, because then it just sounds inebriated.
Now, on to Bruce Springsteen. The first time I heard one of his songs was when I heard his impromptu rendition of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." You'd think it'd be impossible to screw up a song about a jolly old guy who brings presents to little kids and joy to the world, but he managed it. A performance like that would've garnered a "participation" trophy at an elementary school talent show. But since it's Springsteen, everybody goes "OH MAN THIS IS THE BEST CHRISTMAS SONG EVER!" They play that thing three times an hour when it's the Christmas season! It actually puts me in the Christmas mood about as much as reading about Rasputin, Nazis, and Richard Simmons. Some of his more popular songs I find to be good (lyric-wise) but it just sounds like a bunch of shouting and warbling to me. Why not be fans of someone that has both (not that I know of any such band).
I think I understand why these singers are popular. First, people don't understand what he's saying. Then, they listen to it a bunch more because all of their friends say it's great (although they don't get it either, I call this the New Yorker phenomenon). They finally understand the lyrics, but think there's nothing to them. BUT NO! There has to be! So they try to find meaning where there is little or none of it present, and of course end up finding some. Or they don't understand it, assume it's profound beyond their intelligence level. Since nothing is profound beyond my intelligence level (hyperbole need not apply here) I don't have this problem.
And then there are people whose lyrics are actually fairly interesting from time to time, like U2 or the Dave Matthews Band. Well, if I have to look up your lyrics online to see that they're interesting, then you're basically useless as a band and should perhaps focus on poetry. There were probably plenty of people who had ideas that were just as interesting as Cicero's, but no one remembers who they were. So this leads me to believe that people are fans of Dave Matthews because they feel sorry for him. I guess they say, "Oh he sounds terrible, but he has some nice ideas so let's drop a quarter in the guitar case." (proverbially of course, as much as Dave Matthews likes to talk about consumerism tearing apart society I don't see him giving away his CDs for free) And remember, obscurity does not equal profundity!
This situation is not inherent to music, it also relates to Independent Films (I say if a studio doesn't pick you up, there's a reason). There are some Indie films like Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs which are excellent, and that's why they're backed by major companies. Then there are others like The (obscure word for turmoil) of (some societal outcast individual) and their love of (some type of chocolate). The movie is really just some dude or some girl trying to be different, or "go against the grain." And they say, "Oh you know what hasn't been done? How about a sci-fi movie, yeah that's it, but in the past! Sci-fi in the past! And all of the creatures could be like, rocks, yeah that's it, walking rocks! Which will showcase how we as a society are...like rocks!" Because it's so strange, this movie will likely attract a large proportion of the arthouse crowd and cause ordinary human beings to say, "huh?" (I wouldn't be surprised if it won Best Picture either, provided that it stars people from another country and makes less than ten million dollars on its first weekend at the box office)
I suppose it is quite rare that you get a film like Pulp Fiction which simultaneously appeals to the "I thought the way they satirized the crime drama while adhering to it excellently was quite brilliant" crowd and the "I thought it was cool when that guy's head exploded" crowd. (In case anyone is wondering, I am a member of both of these crowds) However, this doesn't mean we need to pretend like something is better than it is. (Modern art is crap! Admit it! All the good artists go into the comic book industry, leaving the artsy crowd to make shapeless junk and pretend it's good.) I'd rather people say, "Hey you know, the Beatles aren't a group anymore but I suppose we can settle for these U2 guys for the time being" and still go to their concerts, rather than "Dave Matthews Band is way better than the Beatles! Cuz...cuz...cuz they're around now! That's why!"
So, do I have anything against any of these filmmakers or songwriters personally? No. (although Bob Dylan is kind of a hippie and I don't like hippies) However, it's the response to them that enrages me. Do I really hate Grey's Anatomy all that much? Not inherently (okay yes inherently, but not as much as I do when taking into account whatever the opposite of inherently is). But the fact that so many people watch it, and only it (along with ANTM of course), when modern masterpieces like Lost and House should be at the top of everyone's list. Now, I'm not asking everybody to listen to movie soundtracks like I do (although you'd be better off, they make even the most mundane activities seem cool) but if you're so eager to use your brain to analyze something, good! That's what's missing from society these days (and pretty much ever). But instead I say you take the time to read a good book or analyze a film, by the time you listen to American Pie (not a song by any artists I've mentioned, I know, but I still hate it) enough times to figure out what it's saying, you could've watched the whole Godfather trilogy a few times.
To begin with, do I think any of the aforementioned people are so terrible that my ears bleed every time I hear them on the radio? (I call this the Beyonce phenomenon) No, but I don't think they're very good though. What really makes me angry isn't so much the fact that I think Bob Dylan sounds like a drunk hobo when he sings, it's the fact that he does this and people call him one of the greatest singers of all time. I can barely understand a word the man is saying. So I look up the lyrics. Are they bad? No, not exactly. Nor are they: "OH MY GOD! THESE ARE THE MOST PROFOUND LYRICS OF ALL TIME AND THEY SHOULD NAME A MAJOR MAGAZINE AFTER THEM!" The only time I've ever liked a Bob Dylan song is when they used his "The Times They Are A-Changin'" in Watchmen and that's because the lyrics fit the scene. But I wouldn't want to just listen to the song, because then it just sounds inebriated.
Now, on to Bruce Springsteen. The first time I heard one of his songs was when I heard his impromptu rendition of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." You'd think it'd be impossible to screw up a song about a jolly old guy who brings presents to little kids and joy to the world, but he managed it. A performance like that would've garnered a "participation" trophy at an elementary school talent show. But since it's Springsteen, everybody goes "OH MAN THIS IS THE BEST CHRISTMAS SONG EVER!" They play that thing three times an hour when it's the Christmas season! It actually puts me in the Christmas mood about as much as reading about Rasputin, Nazis, and Richard Simmons. Some of his more popular songs I find to be good (lyric-wise) but it just sounds like a bunch of shouting and warbling to me. Why not be fans of someone that has both (not that I know of any such band).
I think I understand why these singers are popular. First, people don't understand what he's saying. Then, they listen to it a bunch more because all of their friends say it's great (although they don't get it either, I call this the New Yorker phenomenon). They finally understand the lyrics, but think there's nothing to them. BUT NO! There has to be! So they try to find meaning where there is little or none of it present, and of course end up finding some. Or they don't understand it, assume it's profound beyond their intelligence level. Since nothing is profound beyond my intelligence level (hyperbole need not apply here) I don't have this problem.
And then there are people whose lyrics are actually fairly interesting from time to time, like U2 or the Dave Matthews Band. Well, if I have to look up your lyrics online to see that they're interesting, then you're basically useless as a band and should perhaps focus on poetry. There were probably plenty of people who had ideas that were just as interesting as Cicero's, but no one remembers who they were. So this leads me to believe that people are fans of Dave Matthews because they feel sorry for him. I guess they say, "Oh he sounds terrible, but he has some nice ideas so let's drop a quarter in the guitar case." (proverbially of course, as much as Dave Matthews likes to talk about consumerism tearing apart society I don't see him giving away his CDs for free) And remember, obscurity does not equal profundity!
This situation is not inherent to music, it also relates to Independent Films (I say if a studio doesn't pick you up, there's a reason). There are some Indie films like Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs which are excellent, and that's why they're backed by major companies. Then there are others like The (obscure word for turmoil) of (some societal outcast individual) and their love of (some type of chocolate). The movie is really just some dude or some girl trying to be different, or "go against the grain." And they say, "Oh you know what hasn't been done? How about a sci-fi movie, yeah that's it, but in the past! Sci-fi in the past! And all of the creatures could be like, rocks, yeah that's it, walking rocks! Which will showcase how we as a society are...like rocks!" Because it's so strange, this movie will likely attract a large proportion of the arthouse crowd and cause ordinary human beings to say, "huh?" (I wouldn't be surprised if it won Best Picture either, provided that it stars people from another country and makes less than ten million dollars on its first weekend at the box office)
I suppose it is quite rare that you get a film like Pulp Fiction which simultaneously appeals to the "I thought the way they satirized the crime drama while adhering to it excellently was quite brilliant" crowd and the "I thought it was cool when that guy's head exploded" crowd. (In case anyone is wondering, I am a member of both of these crowds) However, this doesn't mean we need to pretend like something is better than it is. (Modern art is crap! Admit it! All the good artists go into the comic book industry, leaving the artsy crowd to make shapeless junk and pretend it's good.) I'd rather people say, "Hey you know, the Beatles aren't a group anymore but I suppose we can settle for these U2 guys for the time being" and still go to their concerts, rather than "Dave Matthews Band is way better than the Beatles! Cuz...cuz...cuz they're around now! That's why!"
So, do I have anything against any of these filmmakers or songwriters personally? No. (although Bob Dylan is kind of a hippie and I don't like hippies) However, it's the response to them that enrages me. Do I really hate Grey's Anatomy all that much? Not inherently (okay yes inherently, but not as much as I do when taking into account whatever the opposite of inherently is). But the fact that so many people watch it, and only it (along with ANTM of course), when modern masterpieces like Lost and House should be at the top of everyone's list. Now, I'm not asking everybody to listen to movie soundtracks like I do (although you'd be better off, they make even the most mundane activities seem cool) but if you're so eager to use your brain to analyze something, good! That's what's missing from society these days (and pretty much ever). But instead I say you take the time to read a good book or analyze a film, by the time you listen to American Pie (not a song by any artists I've mentioned, I know, but I still hate it) enough times to figure out what it's saying, you could've watched the whole Godfather trilogy a few times.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Who Watches the Watchmen? Not Enough of You!
Actually, I'm glad that Watchmen didn't do as well as projected. The reason being that if it made too much money they'd have almost certainly wanted to do a sequel and that would've been grounds for my head to explode. As it stands, Watchmen is an incredible film which I love dearly (even more than I love the graphic novel, in some ways). Unfortunately, it's another one of those films that people don't seem to like that much, a fact that keeps me awake at night (not an exaggeration). Well, as usual I'm here to set people straight (by the way, at this point I say "as usual" so many times that it's probably redundant, how long until it becomes a catchphrase?).
First off, people have a problem with the running time, which is a fairly hefty two hours and forty something minutes. My question is, didn't you people check the running time before you went down to the theater? Are you telling me this is a common dilemma:
"I have two hours to spare before I have to pick up Joey from soccer camp, I think I'll go see a movie. Gee, should I go see Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over or The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King? They're the same running time, right?"
Wrong! You would either be on time to pick up Joey having seen a mediocre kids' movie, or you would've been late having seen the greatest film of all time. Moral dilemma, I know. But that's not the point, the point is, why don't people check? Don't they have schedules to adhere to? They clearly do as they need to text people about it during the movies that I've waited three years to see (example: The Bourne Ultimatum).
As long as a film deserves its running time, I say go for it. I'll sit there for four hours if it's good stuff, whereas Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's running time of about two hours felt like I was stuck in an infinite time loop of Chinese soap opera.
Anyway, the length of a movie shouldn't be an issue. And if it is, don't go to see it. Another criticism of Watchmen seems to be the choice of music. I personally love all of the choices they made. Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" plays in the opening scene as the Comedian is killed by his assailant. This was truly an inspired choice. They could've had the composer create some music to fit the scene or they could've chosen some cool rock song or something, but then it would've been just like every other fight scene in every movie. Instead, the song represents the Comedian's reminiscence of the good old days as he's about to die. In fact, the entire movie is about the good old days, so it's a very fitting piece of music. And when I got the CD, I saw that's exactly what the director said, so HA! Of course not all of the songs are quite so layered with the story, but Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" is probably my second favorite choice (it's played during the Comedian's funeral). It's a song about a man who sees everything that's wrong with society, but when he tries to tell people, no one will listen. This exactly describes the Comedian's character (gasp! I'm sure that was a coincidence). So instead of hating on a director's choice, do some thinking and some research first. How long does it take to look up a song's lyrics online? About 2.76 seconds. So don't tell me you don't have the time, because that means you didn't have the time to see the movie either (no matter how long you abstractly guessed it was).
Now here's the main issue I hear from people who even liked the film: Dr. Manhattan and his lack of clothing. Well you know what? Don't look down! If you have such an issue with it, don't look there. It's not as though he looks like a real person, he looks like a blue Michelangelo's David walking around. This is part of the character, a verifiable god would neither feel shame nor a drafty breeze and thus not feel the need to cover himself up. He's also supposed to resemble a Greek god walking around, as this very much exemplifies his character. Plus, my feeling is that if you're going to giggle and say "oh look at the naked guy!" then you're probably not old enough (mentally or otherwise) to be seeing the movie anyway, and if you're not giggling but shivering, this is understandable. And I say look at the lovely Malin Akerman instead.
Of course, the most scrutinizing viewers are fans. These people enrage me more than any other. Because they should be able to recognize the fact that maybe, just maybe, the filmmakers improved upon the original vision. As an example, I personally like each and every change they made to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As long as they're adhering to the story and not betraying the characters, it's fine. In the case of Watchmen, (and I warn you now, SPOILERS AHEAD!) there are a few minor changes that I rather like. When Rorscach kills his first criminal, it's much more personal and gives us much more of an insight into his distorted mind (the details are a bit gory, so you can see for yourself).
There are also a few changes at the end which I thought were big improvements. In the novel, Ozymandias (the bad guy, you were warned of spoilers) used a psychic's brain and the talents of a graphic artist to create an squid-like being, which is teleported to New York, and the teleportation itself destroys most of the city. The intent of which is to bring the world together against an alien threat. Yeah that was going to fly with audiences. Either people would see it as silly, or people around people who see it as silly would have the moment ruined. Plus, if no more aliens show up, wouldn't that be a clue at some point that maybe all is not as it seems? In the movie, Ozymandias essentially uses Dr. Manhattan's own technology and power to destroy cities all over the world, thus framing Manhattan (which people are likely to believe, because everyone knows he exists) and accomplishing the same goal in a way that makes more sense. Finally, after all is said and done, Rorscach is killed because he refuses to lie about what really happened. Instead of Nite Owl (Rorscach's only friend) shrugging his shoulders and making out with Silk Spectre like he does in the novel, he becomes upset and beats down Ozymandias for a bit. He then leaves in disgust as Mozart's "Requiem" plays. That's way cooler.
As I could likely write a whole book about how much I love this movie, I'll leave it at that. What I want people to remember though, is the fact that when you just sit and ponder why a director might have made a certain choice, you often figure something out about the story/characters/etc. These guys put a lot of work and effort into their projects, and the odds are that they know better than you do how something should be handled. At the very least, we should be able to appreciate their take without simply writing it off because perhaps the newscaster didn't use the same coffee mug that he did in the novel.
First off, people have a problem with the running time, which is a fairly hefty two hours and forty something minutes. My question is, didn't you people check the running time before you went down to the theater? Are you telling me this is a common dilemma:
"I have two hours to spare before I have to pick up Joey from soccer camp, I think I'll go see a movie. Gee, should I go see Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over or The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King? They're the same running time, right?"
Wrong! You would either be on time to pick up Joey having seen a mediocre kids' movie, or you would've been late having seen the greatest film of all time. Moral dilemma, I know. But that's not the point, the point is, why don't people check? Don't they have schedules to adhere to? They clearly do as they need to text people about it during the movies that I've waited three years to see (example: The Bourne Ultimatum).
As long as a film deserves its running time, I say go for it. I'll sit there for four hours if it's good stuff, whereas Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's running time of about two hours felt like I was stuck in an infinite time loop of Chinese soap opera.
Anyway, the length of a movie shouldn't be an issue. And if it is, don't go to see it. Another criticism of Watchmen seems to be the choice of music. I personally love all of the choices they made. Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" plays in the opening scene as the Comedian is killed by his assailant. This was truly an inspired choice. They could've had the composer create some music to fit the scene or they could've chosen some cool rock song or something, but then it would've been just like every other fight scene in every movie. Instead, the song represents the Comedian's reminiscence of the good old days as he's about to die. In fact, the entire movie is about the good old days, so it's a very fitting piece of music. And when I got the CD, I saw that's exactly what the director said, so HA! Of course not all of the songs are quite so layered with the story, but Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" is probably my second favorite choice (it's played during the Comedian's funeral). It's a song about a man who sees everything that's wrong with society, but when he tries to tell people, no one will listen. This exactly describes the Comedian's character (gasp! I'm sure that was a coincidence). So instead of hating on a director's choice, do some thinking and some research first. How long does it take to look up a song's lyrics online? About 2.76 seconds. So don't tell me you don't have the time, because that means you didn't have the time to see the movie either (no matter how long you abstractly guessed it was).
Now here's the main issue I hear from people who even liked the film: Dr. Manhattan and his lack of clothing. Well you know what? Don't look down! If you have such an issue with it, don't look there. It's not as though he looks like a real person, he looks like a blue Michelangelo's David walking around. This is part of the character, a verifiable god would neither feel shame nor a drafty breeze and thus not feel the need to cover himself up. He's also supposed to resemble a Greek god walking around, as this very much exemplifies his character. Plus, my feeling is that if you're going to giggle and say "oh look at the naked guy!" then you're probably not old enough (mentally or otherwise) to be seeing the movie anyway, and if you're not giggling but shivering, this is understandable. And I say look at the lovely Malin Akerman instead.
Of course, the most scrutinizing viewers are fans. These people enrage me more than any other. Because they should be able to recognize the fact that maybe, just maybe, the filmmakers improved upon the original vision. As an example, I personally like each and every change they made to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As long as they're adhering to the story and not betraying the characters, it's fine. In the case of Watchmen, (and I warn you now, SPOILERS AHEAD!) there are a few minor changes that I rather like. When Rorscach kills his first criminal, it's much more personal and gives us much more of an insight into his distorted mind (the details are a bit gory, so you can see for yourself).
There are also a few changes at the end which I thought were big improvements. In the novel, Ozymandias (the bad guy, you were warned of spoilers) used a psychic's brain and the talents of a graphic artist to create an squid-like being, which is teleported to New York, and the teleportation itself destroys most of the city. The intent of which is to bring the world together against an alien threat. Yeah that was going to fly with audiences. Either people would see it as silly, or people around people who see it as silly would have the moment ruined. Plus, if no more aliens show up, wouldn't that be a clue at some point that maybe all is not as it seems? In the movie, Ozymandias essentially uses Dr. Manhattan's own technology and power to destroy cities all over the world, thus framing Manhattan (which people are likely to believe, because everyone knows he exists) and accomplishing the same goal in a way that makes more sense. Finally, after all is said and done, Rorscach is killed because he refuses to lie about what really happened. Instead of Nite Owl (Rorscach's only friend) shrugging his shoulders and making out with Silk Spectre like he does in the novel, he becomes upset and beats down Ozymandias for a bit. He then leaves in disgust as Mozart's "Requiem" plays. That's way cooler.
As I could likely write a whole book about how much I love this movie, I'll leave it at that. What I want people to remember though, is the fact that when you just sit and ponder why a director might have made a certain choice, you often figure something out about the story/characters/etc. These guys put a lot of work and effort into their projects, and the odds are that they know better than you do how something should be handled. At the very least, we should be able to appreciate their take without simply writing it off because perhaps the newscaster didn't use the same coffee mug that he did in the novel.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Michael Bay Sucks
I couldn't think of a more clever way to put it. Okay, I love Transformers as much as anybody (actually less, I think it's great but overrated. Why was Sam the one to kill Megatron? Optimus should've stabbed him in the face!) but the man is a terrible director. It would be difficult to not make an awesome movie about Transformers. I mean, it's about robots in disguise that transform and beat the crap out of each other with high tech weaponry that happens to be an appendage on their mechanical bodies. A chimp could make an enjoyable summer flick about that (a theory I'm not discounting). But since he recruited Megan Fox solely because "she has a great stomach" (a true statement, but so do lots of people who can actually act) this tells me maybe he's not the best filmmaker. He also put the song "What I've Done" which is very Lex Luthor esque, over a scene where the main characters make out and Optimus states his mantra to protect Earth. This makes no sense.
Interlude: Michael Bay is an action film director who, unlike real directors such as Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) doesn't know how to mix action with anything relatively worthwhile. Or really even how to do action correctly. Or really anything.
In fact, has anyone seen the Bad Boys films? Let me rephrase, has anyone seen the Bad Boys failed attempts at filmmaking? They're enjoyable solely for the reason that you keep thinking someone is going to get shot, or something will blow up, but it never happens. All that happens is Martin Lawrence making jokes that are stupid, Will Smith making jokes that are awesome, and people pulling their guns (in an action movie!) without firing them. And yet, Michael Bay is allowed to keep on making movies. I also enjoy his film The Rock but once again, it's a movie with Sean Connery fighting people and cracking jokes where Ed Harris is the bad guy. Pretty tough to screw that up. Although Nicolas Cage is in it too, and it's somehow good despite this fact.
Now here's where the real enraging part of this story comes from: there are any number of innovative and awesome TV shows that get shafted, and people like Michael Bay get to keep on making movies. Studios keep backing (and yes, lots of times they're the same studios that back TV. Mostly it's Disney, they own basically everything. They're the major shareholder in childhood happiness itself) stupid horror films for the first four months of the year. How many House of Wax movies do we really need? I mean, if you want to put Elisha Cuthbert on screen so we can all stare at her, fine with me! (Paris Hilton was in it too though, shudder) But how about in a real movie? So here studios are backing crap like that, but what about when shows like Pushing Daisies could use about three more episodes after they've been cancelled to bring closure to the storyline? Out of luck I'm afraid, they spent all of their money on a remake of the Spanish horror film Manos: The Hands of Fate.
This brings me to another point, very soon I may very well be losing two of my favorite shows: Dollhouse and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Both of which have low ratings because (shocker!) they're on Friday nights. When your main audience is men aged 18-25 like myself, and the only one of them that's home watching TV on a Friday night is me, you won't get too many viewers. And yet, they refuse to count online viewing and in some case, DVR/Tivo recordings when making their final decision. Even though this would multiply the aforementioned shows' ratings by about 5. Terminator just finale-ed (a new word I invented just now) on a huge cliffhanger, which may well either fly in the face of Terminator mythos or create it or I DON'T KNOW AND I MAY NEVER KNOW!
Very frustrating.
And as for Dollhouse, it's a Joss Whedon show (Buffy, Angel, and Firefly for those of you not privileged enough to have watched them) so of course it's awesome! As my friend Andrew mentioned, "It keeps getting better but its ratings keep going down!" This is all quite infuriating, especially considering that when Michael Bay picks up the phone and says, "Hey (insert movie studio here) I was thinking, can we spend 10 million dollars to change all of Megan Fox's clothes in the movie from purple to yellow? Why? Because yellow is the new purple!" they give him his money! (fake situation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was accidentally accurate)
The entertainment industry brings me the most joy, but also the most frustration. So as usual, I've come up with the perfect solution:
The way they should run their shows is this, when a show gets picked up they should automatically have as part of their contract, a post cancellation clause that states that they can have five episodes or so to sum things up. If a show is able to get a second half of their season, they should automatically get a bit of the next season. This way, the studios can see how the DVD sales measure up (which should also be released way earlier than they usually are, summer is a good time to get caught up on a show) and decide how much they want to promote it for the fall season. Or if ratings turned out to be low and sales low, then just stick it on Saturday nights for the die hard fans. Or, people like me could "commit to buy" a show on DVD so that they have some idea ahead of time who all will buy the DVD, and thus give the show more of a chance. Or here's another idea: how about leave Megan Fox's color scheme alone and use that money to bring me some more Terminator!
We should have charities for failing TV shows. "Walk to Save the Viewerless." Why not? It's more worthwhile than Alec Baldwin's charity for retired circus animals (Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire, check the tapes). TV is what brings us all together, and it's worth saving for morale purposes as much as anything else. Know what I'd talk to my friends about without it? Trick question, I wouldn't have any friends.
Interlude: Michael Bay is an action film director who, unlike real directors such as Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) doesn't know how to mix action with anything relatively worthwhile. Or really even how to do action correctly. Or really anything.
In fact, has anyone seen the Bad Boys films? Let me rephrase, has anyone seen the Bad Boys failed attempts at filmmaking? They're enjoyable solely for the reason that you keep thinking someone is going to get shot, or something will blow up, but it never happens. All that happens is Martin Lawrence making jokes that are stupid, Will Smith making jokes that are awesome, and people pulling their guns (in an action movie!) without firing them. And yet, Michael Bay is allowed to keep on making movies. I also enjoy his film The Rock but once again, it's a movie with Sean Connery fighting people and cracking jokes where Ed Harris is the bad guy. Pretty tough to screw that up. Although Nicolas Cage is in it too, and it's somehow good despite this fact.
Now here's where the real enraging part of this story comes from: there are any number of innovative and awesome TV shows that get shafted, and people like Michael Bay get to keep on making movies. Studios keep backing (and yes, lots of times they're the same studios that back TV. Mostly it's Disney, they own basically everything. They're the major shareholder in childhood happiness itself) stupid horror films for the first four months of the year. How many House of Wax movies do we really need? I mean, if you want to put Elisha Cuthbert on screen so we can all stare at her, fine with me! (Paris Hilton was in it too though, shudder) But how about in a real movie? So here studios are backing crap like that, but what about when shows like Pushing Daisies could use about three more episodes after they've been cancelled to bring closure to the storyline? Out of luck I'm afraid, they spent all of their money on a remake of the Spanish horror film Manos: The Hands of Fate.
This brings me to another point, very soon I may very well be losing two of my favorite shows: Dollhouse and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Both of which have low ratings because (shocker!) they're on Friday nights. When your main audience is men aged 18-25 like myself, and the only one of them that's home watching TV on a Friday night is me, you won't get too many viewers. And yet, they refuse to count online viewing and in some case, DVR/Tivo recordings when making their final decision. Even though this would multiply the aforementioned shows' ratings by about 5. Terminator just finale-ed (a new word I invented just now) on a huge cliffhanger, which may well either fly in the face of Terminator mythos or create it or I DON'T KNOW AND I MAY NEVER KNOW!
Very frustrating.
And as for Dollhouse, it's a Joss Whedon show (Buffy, Angel, and Firefly for those of you not privileged enough to have watched them) so of course it's awesome! As my friend Andrew mentioned, "It keeps getting better but its ratings keep going down!" This is all quite infuriating, especially considering that when Michael Bay picks up the phone and says, "Hey (insert movie studio here) I was thinking, can we spend 10 million dollars to change all of Megan Fox's clothes in the movie from purple to yellow? Why? Because yellow is the new purple!" they give him his money! (fake situation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was accidentally accurate)
The entertainment industry brings me the most joy, but also the most frustration. So as usual, I've come up with the perfect solution:
The way they should run their shows is this, when a show gets picked up they should automatically have as part of their contract, a post cancellation clause that states that they can have five episodes or so to sum things up. If a show is able to get a second half of their season, they should automatically get a bit of the next season. This way, the studios can see how the DVD sales measure up (which should also be released way earlier than they usually are, summer is a good time to get caught up on a show) and decide how much they want to promote it for the fall season. Or if ratings turned out to be low and sales low, then just stick it on Saturday nights for the die hard fans. Or, people like me could "commit to buy" a show on DVD so that they have some idea ahead of time who all will buy the DVD, and thus give the show more of a chance. Or here's another idea: how about leave Megan Fox's color scheme alone and use that money to bring me some more Terminator!
We should have charities for failing TV shows. "Walk to Save the Viewerless." Why not? It's more worthwhile than Alec Baldwin's charity for retired circus animals (Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire, check the tapes). TV is what brings us all together, and it's worth saving for morale purposes as much as anything else. Know what I'd talk to my friends about without it? Trick question, I wouldn't have any friends.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
If Scarface was Made Today, Tony Montana would be a Bicycle Thief
Back in the Glorious Golden Age of America (notice that double G double A alliteration/assonance? If you didn't, go read my previous blog entry) they used to reprimand people who committed actual crimes. People for whom the highest punishments should be reserved. You know, the big ones: murder, drug dealing, and talking during movies. Nowadays, it seems as though the only people being punished are the good guys, for minor vices.
As an example, my father has gotten two (count them, two!) parking tickets for parking (wait for it) in front of our own house. We have a driveway but we also park on the grassy knoll outside of our house. Well, the first ticket was for parking against the flow of traffic, even though we live on a one lane street where there's no real traffic and you can drive either way on it. Then he got one for "parking on the grass" even though we're not allowed to pave over the grass because it technically belongs to the city, and in addition, we've been parking in the same place for 20 years and no one has cared.
The first of these tickets was on Christmas Eve, and the second was on Good Friday. Coincidence?
I don't believe in them.
Tickets are, and will always be, a way to siphon money out of people who are too busy being productive in society to contest it in court. A way to put down the nice guys. Isn't it bad enough that women don't like us as much as the edgy dudes and that we end up doing all the work on our 4th grade group projects? They have to steal our money too? And when do they need this money? The holidays. They charge all the Tickle-Me Elmos and Peeps to their credit cards, and then expect me to foot the bill. Which I will likely do, and why? Because I'm too nice.
This of course brings me to my fish tank dilemma. I, like my father, am a nice guy (I like to think, I've met several people who seem to think I'm evil because I'm smarter and better looking than them, also more humble) and for this I am punished. I'm like poor Jack Bauer on 24. All he's ever trying to do is save the day, but he keeps getting arrested, tortured, infected, etc. The people I lived with in my second semester of college had ripped out the smoke detector from the ceiling, meaning that if the alcohol-soaked floor (not my doing, my brain is too important to be distorted by alcohol, I drink tea) were to catch on fire I'd basically be dead. Sadly the only thing the university could do was offer me counseling for my likely impending doom. Anything more would be an "invasion of privacy." I could give them permission to enter the common room, I learned that a year later in a law class. So HA! You have been lawyered! I'm gonna get some kryptonite-fused wiring to send this blog back in time to myself so I can bring them to justice.
I've also only been late to work a total of one time, and it was because I was up late with a cyst in my gumline (a product of the orthodontal conspiracy, more on them later) and when the Advil finally started to work, people in the dorm started throwing beer bottles out of the dorm onto the ground, from the ground onto the dorm, as well as a few firecrackers here and there. Have any of them been reprimanded? No. How about the guy who dealt drugs? Nope.
But poor Domenic, who has only ever broken the "don't talk when the teacher is talking" rule? Domenic who doesn't drink, smoke, or disturb others in his place of dwelling? Yeah, he has a fish tank that's too big and it's causing the fabric of the universe to unravel. Would I have brought it in had I known? Of course not, I'm an obsessive follower of the rules (although I do tend to follow the stupid ones while complaining about them constantly in the hopes that they will be changed). They give you all of about twelve seconds to initial twenty-five pages on the lease, and when you occasionally look down to see what it is you're signing you see the usual: No sacrificing goats (unless it turns a profit for the University), no C4 explosives (or Semtex, we've played video games too!), and no waging technological warfare with Lichtenstein from your laptop (because their infrastructure just can't handle it!). I didn't see anything about fish tanks until later when they wanted me to move it and they whipped out the lease. It could've been a different lease for all I know, I never got a copy. Lawyered again!
The point is, the University clearly feels insignificant. With the threat of lawsuits protecting the activities of real criminals, they have to assert their authority somehow. So they take down anyone they can find. They do this by finding nice people like myself to destroy. Let's look at some fictional examples that might have turned out differently with this line of thinking:
In Return of the Jedi, what if the Rebel Alliance decided to cease their attack on the Empire in favor of arresting Luke for making out with his sister? Well, let's just say the Ewoks wouldn't have fared so well by themselves. Thanks for killing the teddy bears, Rebel Alliance.
In Spider-Man, what if they arrested Spider-Man for his use of quirky one-liners, along with second degree theft of Superman's colors? Well the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom weren't just going to wait around for Spidey to change his repoir or his color scheme. We'd have had to deal with those baddies by ourselves (or see if Ant-Man can get the job done, which I doubt).
In the X-Men series, what if they arrested Wolverine for having sideburns that exceed regulations and are a possible harm to passersby? Well, Magneto would have destroyed the human race in the name of mutant power three times over (possibly four if there's another sequel)!
So as you can see, we should be going after the Dr. Dooms of the world, and not the Captain Americas.
As an example, my father has gotten two (count them, two!) parking tickets for parking (wait for it) in front of our own house. We have a driveway but we also park on the grassy knoll outside of our house. Well, the first ticket was for parking against the flow of traffic, even though we live on a one lane street where there's no real traffic and you can drive either way on it. Then he got one for "parking on the grass" even though we're not allowed to pave over the grass because it technically belongs to the city, and in addition, we've been parking in the same place for 20 years and no one has cared.
The first of these tickets was on Christmas Eve, and the second was on Good Friday. Coincidence?
I don't believe in them.
Tickets are, and will always be, a way to siphon money out of people who are too busy being productive in society to contest it in court. A way to put down the nice guys. Isn't it bad enough that women don't like us as much as the edgy dudes and that we end up doing all the work on our 4th grade group projects? They have to steal our money too? And when do they need this money? The holidays. They charge all the Tickle-Me Elmos and Peeps to their credit cards, and then expect me to foot the bill. Which I will likely do, and why? Because I'm too nice.
This of course brings me to my fish tank dilemma. I, like my father, am a nice guy (I like to think, I've met several people who seem to think I'm evil because I'm smarter and better looking than them, also more humble) and for this I am punished. I'm like poor Jack Bauer on 24. All he's ever trying to do is save the day, but he keeps getting arrested, tortured, infected, etc. The people I lived with in my second semester of college had ripped out the smoke detector from the ceiling, meaning that if the alcohol-soaked floor (not my doing, my brain is too important to be distorted by alcohol, I drink tea) were to catch on fire I'd basically be dead. Sadly the only thing the university could do was offer me counseling for my likely impending doom. Anything more would be an "invasion of privacy." I could give them permission to enter the common room, I learned that a year later in a law class. So HA! You have been lawyered! I'm gonna get some kryptonite-fused wiring to send this blog back in time to myself so I can bring them to justice.
I've also only been late to work a total of one time, and it was because I was up late with a cyst in my gumline (a product of the orthodontal conspiracy, more on them later) and when the Advil finally started to work, people in the dorm started throwing beer bottles out of the dorm onto the ground, from the ground onto the dorm, as well as a few firecrackers here and there. Have any of them been reprimanded? No. How about the guy who dealt drugs? Nope.
But poor Domenic, who has only ever broken the "don't talk when the teacher is talking" rule? Domenic who doesn't drink, smoke, or disturb others in his place of dwelling? Yeah, he has a fish tank that's too big and it's causing the fabric of the universe to unravel. Would I have brought it in had I known? Of course not, I'm an obsessive follower of the rules (although I do tend to follow the stupid ones while complaining about them constantly in the hopes that they will be changed). They give you all of about twelve seconds to initial twenty-five pages on the lease, and when you occasionally look down to see what it is you're signing you see the usual: No sacrificing goats (unless it turns a profit for the University), no C4 explosives (or Semtex, we've played video games too!), and no waging technological warfare with Lichtenstein from your laptop (because their infrastructure just can't handle it!). I didn't see anything about fish tanks until later when they wanted me to move it and they whipped out the lease. It could've been a different lease for all I know, I never got a copy. Lawyered again!
The point is, the University clearly feels insignificant. With the threat of lawsuits protecting the activities of real criminals, they have to assert their authority somehow. So they take down anyone they can find. They do this by finding nice people like myself to destroy. Let's look at some fictional examples that might have turned out differently with this line of thinking:
In Return of the Jedi, what if the Rebel Alliance decided to cease their attack on the Empire in favor of arresting Luke for making out with his sister? Well, let's just say the Ewoks wouldn't have fared so well by themselves. Thanks for killing the teddy bears, Rebel Alliance.
In Spider-Man, what if they arrested Spider-Man for his use of quirky one-liners, along with second degree theft of Superman's colors? Well the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom weren't just going to wait around for Spidey to change his repoir or his color scheme. We'd have had to deal with those baddies by ourselves (or see if Ant-Man can get the job done, which I doubt).
In the X-Men series, what if they arrested Wolverine for having sideburns that exceed regulations and are a possible harm to passersby? Well, Magneto would have destroyed the human race in the name of mutant power three times over (possibly four if there's another sequel)!
So as you can see, we should be going after the Dr. Dooms of the world, and not the Captain Americas.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Let's Take a Break from Advice and Quantumize some Solace
First off let me say, that the only ridiculous thing that I noticed this week was how drug deals on my campus go unpunished and yet my fish tank must go. There's a full blog on that to come. But for today, I wanted to set people straight in a different fashion. Every once in a while, I'm going to post reasons why one of my favorite movies is incredible, even though other people don't like it. They'll be even more long-winded than my other stuff because the only thing I love more than pointing out stupidity, is watching a good film. And if after reading my review, you still don't like the movie, that's fine. We can agree to disagree.
You'll just be in a strait jacket.
To begin, I think Casino Royale is the greatest Bond film of all time. I don't think they'll ever make a better one. I had accepted this fact before Quantum of Solace even came out. As such, I love Quantum. Why are people so surprised to find out that it's not as good as Casino? That's like going to a restaurant, eating a delicious steak, and then spitting it out because it's not quite as delicious as one you had two years ago. And then telling all of your friends to evade that restaurant like it's Al Capone's taxes.
Absolutely preposterous. Well, first let's go into why Casino is so good. The first hour functions as its own mini Bond film, meant to introduce us to Daniel Craig's intense and excellent Bond. Once we meet Vesper, the real movie begins (if you've got no idea what I'm talking about, then grow some taste and go watch these movies). She's the perfect Bond girl. She's gorgeous and smart but she doesn't steal the spotlight from Bond (like a certain Berry of the Halle variety). Put that together with a realistic plot, a great (not over-the-top) villain, some visceral fight scenes, and you've got one of the five films I'd take with me on a desert island (the kind with the DVD players made from reconstituted tree bark and LCD displays where the liquid is coconut milk).
Well, of course, the best part of the film is actually his relationship with Vesper. She manages to "melt his cold heart" to the point that he's ready to quit the service. I find that characters who are truly broken often have a turning point moment just before their identities are solidified where they could've been different. Under different circumstances, they might've chosen the other path. Batman was ready to give up the mantle and become Bruce Wayne again in The Dark Knight right before Rachel (the love of his life, and the representation of his childhood/humanity) died. Interlude: who says comic books can't be poetic? Michael Corleone was trying to start a family in Sicily before he truly became The Godfather. And it's the same case with Bond. He was ready to throw in the towel and rejoin the human race when he found out Vesper had been betraying him the whole time. That being said, he still tries to save her from dying, to no avail. Well, as complicated as the situation was, he summed it up with a single phrase: "The job's done, the bitch is dead." He was forcing himself to think that he felt nothing for her. How else could he be successful at his job? You can't very well deter hostile takeovers if you're all weepy that your girlfriend gave money to terrorists.
And thus we have Quantum of Solace, in which Bond finds his (wait for it) quantum of solace, i.e. his "minimal amount of comfort" or as the short story by Ian Fleming put it, the "connection that allows him to keep living." This is where people fail to see the point of the film. It's not really a sequel. It's the second half of the same film, or a dark reflection of it. The Bond girl is as screwed up as he is, the locales he visits are dirtier, the violence is more brutal, and Bond is colder than ever. This is what makes it so good. Bond is essentially in recovery. He ends up killing every lead that his investigation turns up. This is the mourning of an assassin. He's trying to do his job, but he's also trying to exact retribution on those who took away his happiness.
Now, one can debate about the plot. Is it very involved? No. But it's not supposed to be. It's realistic, which is good, and the villain is slimy and low-key, which also works for this type of film. That being said, we care about as much about the plot as Bond does. I personally like the amount of plot that is present, because it allows us to experience the story emotionally, as Bond does. He finds himself caught in the hero's "infinite loop" as I call it. As an example, Batman deters crime almost to the point of obsession (actually yes, to the point of obsession) because somewhere in his psyche, he actually believes that if he rids the city of crime, maybe his parents never would have died. They're never coming back, but he can't accept that. It's the same for Bond, he becomes attached to Camille, hoping on some level that if he aids her in her quest for revenge, he will have saved Vesper in a sense. However, it's not until the end of the film that he realizes that Camille was more like him than Vesper. And once she had her revenge, she says, "I keep thinking, now what?" She has nothing left.
It is at this point that the movie becomes truly incredible. Bond tells Camille, "I don't think the dead care about vengeance," which is fascinating when compared to M's line from earlier in the movie, "You'd have to be an exceptionally cold bastard to not want revenge for the death of someone you loved." This comparison is revealed to us more clearly when Bond tracks down the man responsible for Vesper's death, and then lets him go. Because that was his job. He decided that what would really bring him comfort, and give him a reason to live, was his duty. Not his feelings toward another person. When he steps outside to meet M, it's snowing. This is the first time it's snowed in a Bond film. Yes, he's been skiing a few times, but this is different. As he himself becomes colder, and in some ways, less human, (a necessity for the job) he literally steps out into the cold. When M asks him if he's back, he tells her, "I never left." This is similar to his line at the end of Casino. He's lying to himself so he can shut out his emotions for Vesper and move on with his life. He then casually tosses Vesper's necklace aside and walks off into the night. At this point, it's worth clarifying that all throughout the film, composer David Arnold brought back Vesper's theme music, a few soft notes on a piano, to reflect Bond's reminiscence. The final shot is of the necklace being overcome by the snow, and as this happens, Vesper's theme gradually fades until it's finally gone. The necklace represented what little amount of his heart he had managed to hold onto, and in the end he just threw it aside as though it had never really been there at all.
So there you go. Who says a Bond film can't have all the character depth of a boring Indie film AND explosions? I say a gifted filmmaking team can blend all of these things. You won't see any of that with Roger Moore, that's for sure. So rewatch Casino Royale and then give Quantum of Solace another shot, I think you might be surprised by what you find.
You'll just be in a strait jacket.
To begin, I think Casino Royale is the greatest Bond film of all time. I don't think they'll ever make a better one. I had accepted this fact before Quantum of Solace even came out. As such, I love Quantum. Why are people so surprised to find out that it's not as good as Casino? That's like going to a restaurant, eating a delicious steak, and then spitting it out because it's not quite as delicious as one you had two years ago. And then telling all of your friends to evade that restaurant like it's Al Capone's taxes.
Absolutely preposterous. Well, first let's go into why Casino is so good. The first hour functions as its own mini Bond film, meant to introduce us to Daniel Craig's intense and excellent Bond. Once we meet Vesper, the real movie begins (if you've got no idea what I'm talking about, then grow some taste and go watch these movies). She's the perfect Bond girl. She's gorgeous and smart but she doesn't steal the spotlight from Bond (like a certain Berry of the Halle variety). Put that together with a realistic plot, a great (not over-the-top) villain, some visceral fight scenes, and you've got one of the five films I'd take with me on a desert island (the kind with the DVD players made from reconstituted tree bark and LCD displays where the liquid is coconut milk).
Well, of course, the best part of the film is actually his relationship with Vesper. She manages to "melt his cold heart" to the point that he's ready to quit the service. I find that characters who are truly broken often have a turning point moment just before their identities are solidified where they could've been different. Under different circumstances, they might've chosen the other path. Batman was ready to give up the mantle and become Bruce Wayne again in The Dark Knight right before Rachel (the love of his life, and the representation of his childhood/humanity) died. Interlude: who says comic books can't be poetic? Michael Corleone was trying to start a family in Sicily before he truly became The Godfather. And it's the same case with Bond. He was ready to throw in the towel and rejoin the human race when he found out Vesper had been betraying him the whole time. That being said, he still tries to save her from dying, to no avail. Well, as complicated as the situation was, he summed it up with a single phrase: "The job's done, the bitch is dead." He was forcing himself to think that he felt nothing for her. How else could he be successful at his job? You can't very well deter hostile takeovers if you're all weepy that your girlfriend gave money to terrorists.
And thus we have Quantum of Solace, in which Bond finds his (wait for it) quantum of solace, i.e. his "minimal amount of comfort" or as the short story by Ian Fleming put it, the "connection that allows him to keep living." This is where people fail to see the point of the film. It's not really a sequel. It's the second half of the same film, or a dark reflection of it. The Bond girl is as screwed up as he is, the locales he visits are dirtier, the violence is more brutal, and Bond is colder than ever. This is what makes it so good. Bond is essentially in recovery. He ends up killing every lead that his investigation turns up. This is the mourning of an assassin. He's trying to do his job, but he's also trying to exact retribution on those who took away his happiness.
Now, one can debate about the plot. Is it very involved? No. But it's not supposed to be. It's realistic, which is good, and the villain is slimy and low-key, which also works for this type of film. That being said, we care about as much about the plot as Bond does. I personally like the amount of plot that is present, because it allows us to experience the story emotionally, as Bond does. He finds himself caught in the hero's "infinite loop" as I call it. As an example, Batman deters crime almost to the point of obsession (actually yes, to the point of obsession) because somewhere in his psyche, he actually believes that if he rids the city of crime, maybe his parents never would have died. They're never coming back, but he can't accept that. It's the same for Bond, he becomes attached to Camille, hoping on some level that if he aids her in her quest for revenge, he will have saved Vesper in a sense. However, it's not until the end of the film that he realizes that Camille was more like him than Vesper. And once she had her revenge, she says, "I keep thinking, now what?" She has nothing left.
It is at this point that the movie becomes truly incredible. Bond tells Camille, "I don't think the dead care about vengeance," which is fascinating when compared to M's line from earlier in the movie, "You'd have to be an exceptionally cold bastard to not want revenge for the death of someone you loved." This comparison is revealed to us more clearly when Bond tracks down the man responsible for Vesper's death, and then lets him go. Because that was his job. He decided that what would really bring him comfort, and give him a reason to live, was his duty. Not his feelings toward another person. When he steps outside to meet M, it's snowing. This is the first time it's snowed in a Bond film. Yes, he's been skiing a few times, but this is different. As he himself becomes colder, and in some ways, less human, (a necessity for the job) he literally steps out into the cold. When M asks him if he's back, he tells her, "I never left." This is similar to his line at the end of Casino. He's lying to himself so he can shut out his emotions for Vesper and move on with his life. He then casually tosses Vesper's necklace aside and walks off into the night. At this point, it's worth clarifying that all throughout the film, composer David Arnold brought back Vesper's theme music, a few soft notes on a piano, to reflect Bond's reminiscence. The final shot is of the necklace being overcome by the snow, and as this happens, Vesper's theme gradually fades until it's finally gone. The necklace represented what little amount of his heart he had managed to hold onto, and in the end he just threw it aside as though it had never really been there at all.
So there you go. Who says a Bond film can't have all the character depth of a boring Indie film AND explosions? I say a gifted filmmaking team can blend all of these things. You won't see any of that with Roger Moore, that's for sure. So rewatch Casino Royale and then give Quantum of Solace another shot, I think you might be surprised by what you find.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What Did Pluto Ever Do To You?
I was enraged several years ago when they demoted Pluto. Why would they do such a thing? What was it about Pluto's existence that prevented scientists from sleeping at night? Just because it's made of ice shouldn't matter. An ice cold heart can still break.
Well I've checked Wikipedia (the end all and be all of knowledge) and it says Pluto fails to adhere to the third criteria for being a planet. Which is to say it doesn't "clear the neighborhood around its orbit." What does this mean exactly? Good question, it has something to do with this equation:
So why can't we just have in an encyclopedia: "these are the nine planets, they all adhere to blah blah blah*"
*Except Pluto, which is an honorary planet because we like it that way.
No harm done, everybody's happy. I ask you: how is the world any better now that Pluto is a "dwarf planet?" I'm thinking it's worse off, since people like me are pissed. If William Henry Harrison (or good old one month Willy as I like to call him) still counts as a president then Pluto counts as a planet. Just because our friend Tippecanoe (sans the Tyler this time) didn't do anything in his one month, doesn't change the fact that he was once our beloved POTUS back in 1841. If I decided to change the definition of "United States President" to: "Someone who is elected by the United States and who didn't die after a month" then the list of Presidents goes from 43 (Grover Cleveland shouldn't count twice, I don't care what anyone says) to 42.
Interlude: Who here doesn't get my historical jokes? Well then go back to high school you bum.
I came across a similar situation in a Biology class. The professor enlightened the class about the vigorous debate raging amongst biologists concerning which Kingdom seaweed belongs to.
Who cares?
These people are all highly paid professors and researchers and whatnot, and we're paying them to sit in a room and chat about what seaweed should be classified as? Unless this is the little known "13th task of Hercules" I don't think we should be wasting our time, and more importantly my money. (side note: the twelfth task was to kidnap Cerberus, who was Hades' a.k.a. Pluto's dog. So first we steal his pet then we neuter them both. That's not cool.)
This phenomenon isn't limited to science, I come across it all over the place. In English, I got a question wrong on a quiz concerning "what kind of word connects ideas?" I said, a conjunction. As in, "what's your function?" Well the correct overall term was "connecting word," or some other such nonsense I don't remember (I did get it wrong after all). The point is, that it doesn't really matter what something is called. (unless it's a film, I'm not sure how good Apocalypse Now would have been had they kept the original title, Apocalypse at a To-Be-Determined Date in the Near Future)
Do I really care that Pluto has been demoted? No. Pluto and I will always be pals, no matter what. Do I care that they care? Absolutely. What a bunch of whiners. Shouldn't they be coming up with technology that allows me to fight Klingons and hang out with Orion slave girls? (just kidding, their skin is green and kinda gross. I'd rather find myself a nice Betazoid.) Now that's a plan I can see myself supporting. Let the discussions about how to classify planets exist on the same forums that discuss the age-old question: "Who would win in a fight between the Green Lantern and a werewolf/martian hybrid?"
Well I've checked Wikipedia (the end all and be all of knowledge) and it says Pluto fails to adhere to the third criteria for being a planet. Which is to say it doesn't "clear the neighborhood around its orbit." What does this mean exactly? Good question, it has something to do with this equation:
- Like anyone knows what that means. (if you do, please keep it to yourself) The point is, "planet" is a defined term. Meaning, if they decided to define planet as: "something that orbits the Sun that humans can inhabit" well then presto chango! Now there's only one planet! See how easy that was? I'm going to rename my turkey sandwich "hope diamond" and see if I can buy Denmark with it.
So why can't we just have in an encyclopedia: "these are the nine planets, they all adhere to blah blah blah*"
*Except Pluto, which is an honorary planet because we like it that way.
No harm done, everybody's happy. I ask you: how is the world any better now that Pluto is a "dwarf planet?" I'm thinking it's worse off, since people like me are pissed. If William Henry Harrison (or good old one month Willy as I like to call him) still counts as a president then Pluto counts as a planet. Just because our friend Tippecanoe (sans the Tyler this time) didn't do anything in his one month, doesn't change the fact that he was once our beloved POTUS back in 1841. If I decided to change the definition of "United States President" to: "Someone who is elected by the United States and who didn't die after a month" then the list of Presidents goes from 43 (Grover Cleveland shouldn't count twice, I don't care what anyone says) to 42.
Interlude: Who here doesn't get my historical jokes? Well then go back to high school you bum.
I came across a similar situation in a Biology class. The professor enlightened the class about the vigorous debate raging amongst biologists concerning which Kingdom seaweed belongs to.
Who cares?
These people are all highly paid professors and researchers and whatnot, and we're paying them to sit in a room and chat about what seaweed should be classified as? Unless this is the little known "13th task of Hercules" I don't think we should be wasting our time, and more importantly my money. (side note: the twelfth task was to kidnap Cerberus, who was Hades' a.k.a. Pluto's dog. So first we steal his pet then we neuter them both. That's not cool.)
This phenomenon isn't limited to science, I come across it all over the place. In English, I got a question wrong on a quiz concerning "what kind of word connects ideas?" I said, a conjunction. As in, "what's your function?" Well the correct overall term was "connecting word," or some other such nonsense I don't remember (I did get it wrong after all). The point is, that it doesn't really matter what something is called. (unless it's a film, I'm not sure how good Apocalypse Now would have been had they kept the original title, Apocalypse at a To-Be-Determined Date in the Near Future)
Do I really care that Pluto has been demoted? No. Pluto and I will always be pals, no matter what. Do I care that they care? Absolutely. What a bunch of whiners. Shouldn't they be coming up with technology that allows me to fight Klingons and hang out with Orion slave girls? (just kidding, their skin is green and kinda gross. I'd rather find myself a nice Betazoid.) Now that's a plan I can see myself supporting. Let the discussions about how to classify planets exist on the same forums that discuss the age-old question: "Who would win in a fight between the Green Lantern and a werewolf/martian hybrid?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)