Live Tweeting Twilight 4: The Twilightening

My first instinct when I knew I'd be taking my girlfriend to "Breaking Dawn" was just to live tweet the entire thing out of sheer ornery-ness. Then I remembered two things: (1) It's rude to tweet in a theater, and I am not a douchebag, AND (2) Only like three real people actually follow me on Twitter.

ELAPSED NUMBER OF SECONDS INTO MOVIE BEFORE JACOB TAKES HIS SHIRT OFF: Ten. It's literally in the opening shot of the movie.

At this point, I'd like to remind my loyal reader that I have never read any book by Stephenie Meyer (I literally did not notice it was Stephenie, not Stephanie, until I watched this movie), nor have I watched any of the movies. I knew there was some fighting and some shirtless dudes and the bad guy from "Tron Legacy" was also occasionally the bad guy here, but other than that, this was my first foray into the world of Team Edward vs Team Jacob vs Team Abercrombie vs Team Fitch.

Some observations:

1. To be fair, Jacob does not appear shirtless again for the entire movie. Sort of once for a half second, as a special effects, but only because:

2. Jacob, and his family of homeless racially-neutral-possibly-mostly Native Americans, must have a HUGE clothing budget. He's constantly shredding his clothing so he can turn into a werewolf, then has another comfortable, stylish shirt on the next time we see him. At one point, he even kicks over his motorcycle. How is he paying to repair this? Does he have a job? Does the wolfpack work down at the Jamba Juice? These are things I need to know.

3. The first time we see Jacob, after the opening shirt-rending scene, he emerges from a forest. As he is fully clothed, we must assume he walked on two legs. Where the hell did he park? How did he avoid getting his clothes jacked up by the forest, especially in "Washington," in what I presume is the springtime? And if he did park somewhere, why does he act all weirded out when he thinks he hears a noise from the forest behind him? He JUST walked out of there. Was he worried somebody was fucking with his bike? Then why does he kick over the bike later in the movie? Had they fucked up the paintjob, and now it's ruined? This DOES seem consistent with his character, I must admit.

4. Kristen Stewart is not a shitty actress. Everyone be nice to poor, misunderstood K-Stew. She was good in "The Runaways," and she was good ten years ago in "Panic Room." She has the skills. It's just awkward to do things with scenes like,

Bella (who is pregnant): I'm so happy I'm pregnant.

Jacob (who half an hour ago said he couldn't see her again): It's not human. You don't know what it is.

Bella: (who excelled in school and plays chess with her new husband as a way to pass the time) I'll be fine. I'm tough. I will survive a half-vampire baby that is already making me visibly ill, and will quite possibly tear out of my stomach like that movie "Alien," which I didn't see because if I'm 18 in 2011 that means I was born in 1993 and all the good Alien movies came out before then.

Jacob: I can't watch you do this. I'm leaving. I can't see you again. (20 minutes later, he totally does)

Other actors of note: every female vampire. Both Bella's parents. Pattinson is given absolutely nothing to do, but he does look suitably tortured all the time. Why is he tortured? I have no idea. Probably because of all those people he killed.

Wait what? Literally, second scene in the movie:

Bella: OMG, I can't believe I'm 18 and about to marry my 150-year-old boyfriend, which is SEVEN TIMES OLDER THAN ME. Totes for realz.

Edward: No, wait, you don't know everything about me. Even though the wedding is tomorrow, I'm dropping this on you now. Remember the whole basis for us falling in love? Me being peaceful and vegetarian and shit? I'm a fucking liar. I killed people. Often. Totally dudes that were gonna kill people, but I can't prove that, because this all happened fifty years before you were born.

Bella: I'm sure they were all bad. Enjoy your bachelor party! Bye-ee!(falls asleep)

5. Ladies. Have you seen the movie? You've been fantasizing about your wedding all your life, I bet. Those of you who are married, I bet you secretly wish you could have another one, just to feel like a Princess. Now, given all that going on in your head.... do you know which hand you wear your wedding ring on? Yeah? .... BELLA DOESN'T. Watch that shit. It jumps hands like five times.

6. Jumping back to early in the movie, at the wedding...

JACOB: Well, he's gonna murder you and turn you into a vampire. Oh well, that sucks. But as long as you're happy.

BELLA: OMG, totally not yet. We're gonna fuck on our honeymoon, shit's gonna be HOT. Totes.

JACOB: He's a vampire. Ten minutes ago you saw one carrying an entire tree over his shoulder. To say nothing of three previous movies. If he fucks you, his orgasm might quite possibly blow your head off.

BELLA: THAT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, JACOB. I'M EIGHTEEN, I DO WHAT I WANT.

EDWARD: (who had just left to dance with someone, but has now reappeared suddenly) I say, kindly back away, what what.

JACOB'S POSSE: (one of whom I'm sure jacked up Jacob's bike) QUITE RIGHT, WHAT WHAT. LEAVE BELLA ALONE. SHE'S SO PRETTY AND YOU ARE CAUSING FROWN LINES.

JACOB: Bella, fine. Whatever. I can't see you anymore. (runs off into the forest)

EVERYONE: JACOB, LEAVE YOUR SHIRT ON!

JACOB: NO!

7. Vampires. There's Edward, then there's blonde-wig guy, who's on Nurse Jackie. Then there's big-forehead girl, who was on Grey's Anatomy a few seasons back. Then there's short pixie-cut girl, who actually seems to have a fun character to play. Then there's big beefy stupid-looking guy, who probably fucked the director to get the part, except he's so dumb he doesn't know where his penis goes. Then there's random vampire chick who hates werewolves and that's all she ever talks about, then Edward hands her the baby at the end anyway, because there wasn't a basinette handy, I guess. Then... THEN... there's the other guy. Other blonde dude, I think he's attached to pixie-cut girl in some way. THAT GUY. He got paid for an entire movie and says three words. HOW IS THIS FAIR.

SCREENWRITER: Here's your scene for the day. I know you dressed up in costume for the wedding scene, but you totally get to talk this time.

THAT GUY (Who I'm assured is Jackson Rathbone): Possibly.

SCREENWRITER: JUST LIKE THAT. Say your line JUST LIKE THAT.

.... srsly. That's his only line in the first 110 minutes of a 117 minute movie. In the final minutes, I think he says something like, "Not anymore." Not even a complete sentence. But two words definitely. I'll bet he pulls all kinds of tail with that kind of street cred.

8. The closest thing to an action sequence is when the vampires and Jacob hole themselves up in their fortified compound (in fucking FORKS), and they're all slowly starving to death because there's no blood... except Jacob is not starving to death because apparently vampires keep cheeseburgers and protein shakes. Anyway, Jacob stages a brilliant diversion to distract the surrounding werewolves, so 2-3 vampires can escape and get more blood. ACTUAL DIALOGUE FROM THE MOVIE:

Jacob: Did They make it out?

Edward: Yes.

... HOW DOES EDWARD KNOW THIS? Was he watching with binoculars? Well, no, he was too busy staring at Bella. Do the vampires have cell phones? Well yes, because Bella makes a call on Edwards earlier in the movie. ... IF YOU HAVE A CELLPHONE, WHY NOT JUST CALL FOR HELP INSTEAD OF SENDING THREE GUYS OUT THROUGH A PACK OF WEREWOLVES? Are these the only six vampires in the entire world? That's not very convenient. Their fetishes must be very boring, headstrong teenage girls who excel in school and have absolutely no interest in bettering themselves in any way, only landing a husband.

9. Bella has a baby. It's horrific. You can't see anything, but they have to rip her dress for an emergency operation. Once that's over, the dress has mysteriously healed itself. VAMPIRE DRESS.

10. Bill Condon directed this movie, who is also the director of "Gods and Monsters," a movie about the gay director of the first two black-and-white Frankenstein movies... and also "Dreamgirls." Seriously. This guy has Oscars. So. How did he do with the material, a book that most people said was unfilmable?

With the exception of the plot only moving forward because Bella or Jacob must occasionally do things that no human being could possibly choose ("It will kill you!" ... "That's my choice!" / "If you don't let me kill her, I'll kill you!" ... "I'mma go hide in the woods like a BITCH!")

... yeah. With those exceptions, the photography, pacing, acting (except for Jacob, who CAN'T), sets, costumes, are all great. The characters are mostly legally retarded, but that's not the fault of the director, only Stephenie Meyer. And the people who buy her books.

WHAT IS THE PLOT OF BREAKING DAWN?

A plot is typically something involving (a) a complicating incident, (b) rising action, (c) climax, (d) denoument.

For this movie, (a) the complicating incident is.... um. Hmm. Well, the movie starts with Jacob seeing the wedding announcement, and immediately taking his shirt off... 20 minutes later the wedding is over. So that's not it. Is it the pregnancy? No, that's halfway through the movie. Is it Jacob taking his shirt off? Yes, I suspect so.

(b) rising action. Nothing happens for the first half hour, except the wedding, which is all just wacky hijinks and a broken bedroom set. Bella has two bruises. I bruised my girlfriend more than that while playing Halo. Fucking amateurs.

Then Bella is pregnant, and everyone's all freaking out. Vampires don't want this, werewolves just don't want Bella to die, because she's so pretty, or something. Jacob has much angst over taking his shirt off.

(c) Climax? Uh... the baby is born. Jacob decides not to kill it, because apparently he is extremely sexually attracted to 5-minute-old infants. Also Bella dies. Except not really.

(d) Denoument... the werewolves decide not to kick Jacob's ass, because you do not fuck with a man who is sexually attracted to 5-minute-old infants. And that's it. Bella wakes up as a vampire, and the movie ends. What was resolved? Uh... Bella lost her virginity. And Jacob decides to keep his shirt on.

ELEVEN:

BOOK PUBLISHER: Hey, so, what do you want to name Bella's baby?

STEPHENIE MEYER: I'm going to name that precious little girl..... RENESMEE. As a combination of Renee and Esmee.

BOOK PUBLISHER: That is the stupidest goddamn thing I ever heard. Even your fans will think so. Don't call her that.

STEPHENIE MEYER: I'M STEPHENIE MEYER, MOTHERFUCKER. I SOLD FORTY MILLION COPIES. SUCK MY MOTHAFUCKIN' DICK.

.... and that's my review of the movie. Hugz?

xoxo

PA13

p.s. (twelve: i love my girlfriend and wanted to do something nice for her. brought her flowers, took her and her ten-year-old son to see this movie. he was bored to death, slightly scared during birth scene. girlfriend kissed me a lot and later at home totally asked me to take my shirt off. everyone wins. except Jacob, who is still a virgin. Hugz?)

Harry Potter: The Last Relic of the 20th Century

Initially I was content to keep up with movies and/or TV shows, or really any media, but eight years of a Republican Administration totally ruined the economy, and since it takes 2 years for a movie to get made, things are still pretty iffy on the Hollywood side. Even things I was excited about beforehand... now, it's like, "Eugh. I was excited about Tron Legacy? I hope my unborn children never read these."

So things sort of stalled out after Thor, which I suspect will retain a certain limited rewatchability in the coming years (albeit not the first 20 minutes of it)... Kenneth Branagh is not coming back for the sequel, so perhaps we'll have some modest improvement there come 2013. In the meantime, what's a geek left with?

The Avengers is next summer, as is The Dark Knight Rises. Cowboys and Aliens comes out later this month, and the Joss Whedon co-scripted Cabin in the Woods finally landed a release date this October, two years after it finished filming.

But first, a paragraph about Joss Whedon:

A lot of people will rant against his particular oeuvre of work, and as much as that annoys me, I'm starting to realize they're well within their rights. Shows like "CSI" (or indeed, anything with Jerry Bruckheimer's name on it) are designed to appeal to the largest number of people possible, but I daresay those people will never love that thing as much as they love their favorite book, or favorite, say, car. Joss Whedon is happy to say he appeals to a niche audience, and I'm ready to let him. Because he has said, and I've quoted (paraphrased) this here before, "I'd rather make something 3 million people love, than something 30 million people like." Granted, he probably won't apply that to The Avengers, but he's still pretty nerdy.

You know who else is nerdy? Harry Potter fans.

If Star Wars fans are dorks for dressing up like Chewbacca and Slave Leia (hopefully not at the same time), then Harry Potter fans are dorks for dressing up like Hermione and Severus Snape (actually, there's a mash-up that totally works). And their last movie is coming out in a week.

NOT GEEK

I've seen the first Harry Potter movie, then 3-7. As this is the non-geek section, I don't know that I could even include the books here if I HAD read them (I haven't), but a shitload of fantasy-literature has been rushed to the bookshelves because of this series, and I've read a small sampling of it. The movies I've seen were all entertaining, if some felt a bit rushed. Also then you have people behind you as you walk out of the theater, saying, "YOU KNOW, THE REASON HARRY'S FRIEND BEAUREGARD KENSINGTON WAS WEARING A POSEY IN THAT SCENE WAS BECAUSE HIS PARENTS WERE BOTH MURDERED BY DEATH-EATERS ON A TUESDAY, AND AS A RESULT HE CAN NO LONGER DIGEST LACTOSE. IT'S IN THE BOOKS. THE BOOKS ARE SO MUCH BETTER. YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOKS."

If you like the books so much, read the books again. If any book you have ever loved has ever been turned into a movie, it got screwed up. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.

A "niche" market means something is made for a small group of people who love a thing. In movies this is called a "cult" following. A small amount of people love this thing and will fight for it, but Hollywood can't make any money off it. You know what we call that in the publishing industry?

A "book."

There are so many books, that EVERY book is a niche market. Even something like "The Da Vinci Code" still sold less copies than the last Ke$ha album*, and that thing was on the best-seller list for a year. Because if it's in hard-cover, you plunk down $30 one time, and it's your book. You own it. You can lend it to a friend, and re-read it for free as many times as you like.

And somewhere someone in Hollywood is saying, "What a stupid business model."

Movies, on the other hand, are made to appeal to the highest number of people possible, and therefore make the most amount of money possible. This is why a small art film might make $5 million it's entire theatrical run, and your favorite mainstream movie might cap out between $50 to $150 million... and then Transformers 3 made $200 million its first week. Because any brain power is removed, and it's just explosions for no reason. ANYONE can enjoy that.

"But Warren," you might say, "Transformers 3 IS my favorite mainstream movie."

To which I respond, "Get the hell off my blog."

So, anyway, to tie this up: Every movie made from a book is dumbed down not because the director is stupid (though in the case of Harry Potter One and Two, he was), but by design.

You know where shit is less stupid? Other than in books, I mean:

GEEK

In 2001, when the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's and/or Philosopher's Stone came out, that was the only thing that happened to a successful book: You make a movie of it. You hire a director who has directed something else that made money (in this case, Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire), you hire a screenwriter who has written any movie, ever, put out a press release to make people excited about casting, and there you go. Guaranteed income, just because your movie has "Harry Potter" in the title. Who CARES if it's good? IT'S HARRY POTTER. IN MOVIE FORM. OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

(this same unexplainable phenomenon is why Smallville was on TV for ten years).

Now, I'm not hating on Harry Potter. Like my Non-Geek counterpart, I enjoyed movies 3-7 very much, enough to keep going back to the theater for each sequel. They're not all created equal, but they're all still a good time at the movies. The first film made enough money, and the books sold enough copies, that 7 movies (or now 8) were all but guaranteed. Because, again, in 2001, a popular book got made into a movie. The end.

But now it's 2011, and something has changed over the last decade. Sure, we all had 500 channels in 2001 as well, but so have we seen the advent of actual long-form literature get turned into something other than a TV movie (yes, that happened once too, but even that capped out at 4 hours or so, unless you were "Roots"). The book "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" was turned into a 13-episode first season of "Dexter." The book "Dead Until Dark" was turned into the first season of "True Blood." And so on. Game of Thrones. Even "Flash Forward." Serialized television has become the next big thing, because even though shows like "CSI" and "Law & Order" remain popular, there is a growing interest in televison shows where you can actually see character development, rather than just wait 60 minutes until someone says, "The character named (blah) killed the victim by (insert ridiculously complicated, scientifically impossible explanation here)." Snoozeville. Pass the remote.

Another book series that (sort of**) got turned into a TV show was the "Dresden Files" series by Jim Butcher, a story about a licensed private investigator in modern-day Chicago, who also happens to be a wizard. In fact, he's the only person listed in the phone book under "wizard," and thus his client base can be pretty eclectic. The first book in the series was the authors first novel (the same can be said for J.K. Rowling), but while Harry Potter was designed to stop at book 7, "The Dresden Files" releases its 13th full novel this summer, amongst short stories and novellas published in other compendiums. The style is similar to Harry Potter in only one way:

These stories cannot be contained in a two hour film (and also magic... okay, two ways. But that's it).

In a movie, you have 3 acts... 5 acts if you can keep your audience interested. Person A received a goal, they spend the middle of the movie chasing said goal, there is a showdown at the end of the movie. Sometimes it's circuitous, like in Bridesmaids, where there was no set goal, only a list of shenanigans until the stated goal was eventually reached (the wedding). But while some books are designed to take place in two hours (say, for example, any heist novel), some books are episodic and work better as such.

The Sookie Stackhouse novels are one example (now "True Blood").

"Harry Potter" is another.

So is the Lord of the Rings, but Peter Jackson has a stranglehold on that, so let's bring this back to Harry Potter:

I'm watching Deathly Hallows Part I, and they get to the bit where Harry, Hermione and Ron have to infiltrate the such-and-such bureau of magic (yes, I KNOW it's called the whatever, HUSH). You know, the joint with the horizontal elevator. In the movie this entire sequence takes maybe 10 minutes, 15 tops, and I was told it's much longer in the book.

Unfortunately, the first movie came out in 2001. Had the book been optioned in 2011, Harry Potter would be a 13-episode series on Showtime or HBO.

And the sequence in the bureau of magic would have been an ENTIRE EPISODE. Take the actors playing the kids, give them the week off, and their human-disguises walk in before the opening credits on their undercover gig. At any second they could be found out, they have time to nearly be caught in so many more situations, and rather than a quick "OMG!" in the middle of the movie, you have the climax of 58 minutes of cable TV ending with Harry standing up and saying, "YOU SHOULD NOT TELL LIES!" ... then they run. They dash for the exit, with Voldemort's cronies fast on their heels. They reach the exit just as the bad guy dives for them..... BOOM. Closing credits. See you next week for another exciting episode.

That's the way it should be, because while 8 Harry Potter movies take up maybe 16-17 hours of entertainment, a 7-season TV series means (1) each book is now one 13-hour movie, and 13x7 = 91, and (2) All that shit you're so pissed off that they left out, but forgave them cuz you understood it had to be movie-length? All that's back in. Then a three-month summer vacation. Then back next fall for Book Two.

Because Making a movie from a book is SO last century.

A fleshed out story with characters you love can now exist on television, and not just in the form of Lucy getting into another wacky adventure every week. They change over time, and "Mad Men" winning a best-drama Emmy for 3 seasons running is a good indicator of that... as were the 3-in-a-row best comedy wins for "30 Rock." Sure, it's wacky and often low-brow (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the characters changed over time, in both shows. You're rewarded for watching each week. Back in the 80's, the only time a character changed on Who's the Boss or Miami Vice was when somebody had a baby, or got shot, or was having a contract dispute behind the scenes. Nobody is going to buy 8 seasons of "Who's the Boss" on DVD. At least I hope not. What a disturbing thought.

Anyway, my entire point here is: This is why I didn't blog out X-Men: First Class. Though technically the source material was not one book, it was many, that entire movie felt like it was one 13-hour first season of a TV show, hacked up and crammed down into a 2-hour movie. And that actually made me mad. Because what was left over was STILL that good.

I'm gonna find me something non-movie related to bitch about.

But have fun at Harry Potter 7.5, and if we're real lucky and eat all our vegetables and say our prayers, maybe we'll get a 7-season TV show remake in 2025, after Rowling's next book bombs, and TV-special effects catch up to what "Avatar" had to offer.

Because, I mean, seriously. Do you REMEMBER the special effects in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? What a bunch of crap.

xoxo
WGH

p.s.
*Yes, I'm sure if you googled the numbers, Ke$ha didn't outsell the Da Vinci Code, because no one is buying books or CDs anymore. No one buys Ke$ha CD's in France, for example, while TDVC sold 40 million copies worldwide. But even with such a big seller, people who loved that book FREAKING loved it. I worked at a bookstore the entire 2 years it was on the best-seller list. Nobody ever came in and said, "Stop what you're doing, I HAVE to find Season 3 of 'House' on DVD."

**"The Dresden Files" TV show in no way resembles the books. The lead character has the same name, both are wizards, both are set in Chicago, both had their parents die in mysterious circumstances, and both have a female cop friend with the last name 'Murphy.' That's it. Everything else has been changed, and for the worse, which I guess is a given when you're a TV show executive-produced by Nicolas Cage.

Total Thor-Fest

NOT GEEK

It was a fun movie with the right amount of explosions and funny one liners.

That's it. That's all I have to say about it. Sometimes one side has more to consider than the other.

I give it a B, B-, depending on how much CGI BUGS the SHIT out of you.

GEEK

The director is Kenneth Branagh. Marvel made a big deal out of this and they were right to do so, because he's a Name. Not a Name in the sense of "He's a good film director" (he isn't), but simply a Name in the sense that.... you've heard of him, he's famous enough to generate buzz. Comic Nerds might not even cry foul because Branagh the Director has domain over a separate Nerd Kingdom: Shakespeare. So internet buzz was genuinely positive, or at least optimistic.

The problem with this, and I called it at the time too (did it still count if I didn't have a blog?), is that Kenneth Branagh hasn't had a commercial hit, OR a good movie, since before Clinton was President. He is not good at this. What little success he DID have came when he was in a relationship with the ethereal, expansively talented, Oscar-winning Emma Thompson. A woman who left him when he nailed Helena Bonham-Carter (hindsight, much?). ET went on to win an Oscar, KB went on to direct no-budget Shakespeare adaptations for Showtime. I've seen them. They are visually and conceptually below average. "As You Like It" literally lays there like a bloated corpse, daring you to poke it with a stick.

After the overblown, much-hyped, mediocre-received "Hamlet" in 1996, he didn't direct anything for four years, no doubt to lick his wounds and figure out what other pretentious, self-serving project he wanted to work on next. In 2000 and 2006 he did two other Shakespeare adaptations (Love's Labour's Lost, and As You Like It, respectively), the first of which had a higher budget than the second, neither were memorable nor interesting to look at. The acting was adequate, but that's what happens when you get good actors. Under no circumstances should you rent these from Netflix. Even if you're a fan of interesting Shakespeare productions (which I am), neither of these are good. This is a failed director trying to get a toehold back into the industry.

And so someone listened, and gave him "Sleuth" (2007), a movie which is only kind of not very good on its own, and then a complete failure when held up next to the original with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. AND YET THEY GAVE HIM THE THOR JOB ANYWAY.

All of these movies were bad, Branagh's last that was a big hit was "Dead Again" in 1990, which was 21 years before Thor. You know, when Chris Hemsorth was seven.

Anyway, in failing to be concise yet again, the upshot is this: Kenneth Branagh is a shit director. He might be able to direct theatre, yes, he seems to have a knack with actors. But that is only one small part of film directing, a job which also includes shot selection, lenses, depth of field and length of shot, all of which Branagh has proven time and time again that he is no damn good at, and he has shown no progress in getting any damn better. He simply doesn't care.

THOR: The first act of this movie is wasted. It opens on some humans in the desert, who then run into Thor. Then there's a brief flashback that shows how Thor got there, and this brief flashback goes on for 45 FUCKING MINUTES. It is the entire first act of the movie, and CGI is layered onto it like the producers never saw a single movie after "The Phantom Menace," they commit every sin except for a main character MADE of CGI (wisely, they make the head of CGI-bad guys an actual actor in makeup. This works spectacularly well and creates the only bit of menace in the entire overblown battle sequence). Watching cartoons bounce off each other for 45 minutes is uninteresting if you've ever played a video game in your life. It is every bit as awful as the first act of Spider-Man 3. Thor, Act 1: F.

Finally we get back to Earth. Character development actually begins here, and despite the films terrible track record up to this point, Branagh actually stands back and lets his actors emote, in a movie where they are not required to. Portman seems genuinely concerned, yet distracted by her work. Hemsworth seems bold and douchey, yet distracted by his lust for glory. And Tom Hiddleston as Loki bothers to give his character layers, when other action movies would just have him walk in and recite plot points. The jokes fly quickly, there's no one character just to be comic relief. The humor is situational, and it works. When it's time to get serious, everyone gets serious. The production design is quite lovely. The costume design is so lazy it looks like the non-Vikings just put on whatever was in their closet and went to work. Act 2: A.

The last third of the movie has a lot of shit blow up, which is fine, but then Thor goes back to Asgard and shit blows up there too, and it's all CGI bullshit and despite the city/planet looking absolutely fantastic, you're basically left with CG characters beating each other up on a CG rainbow bridge. I don't fucking care. The interesting stuff happens between the actors, and that's what any geek will be talking about the next day. Not Geek? You may not mind the CG so much. I am a geek, and I was there for Spider-Man 3. Sam Raimi made many an enemy that day. Act 3: B-.

Hollywood movies know that as long as they finish strong, the audience will be happy and recommend the movie and maybe even see it again. The first act can be as weak as anything, as long as there's gigantic set-pieces in the end. Branagh doesn't have a lot of Hollywood muscle so probably had to do what he was told; Jon Favreau had insisted on models and such for the Iron Man movies, the Marvel execs probably just wanted a big CG movie to feel like they were doing their jobs. Well, they got their way, and it made the movie worse. Congratulations, you're a producer.

On the side:
Five credited screenwriters:

WRITTEN BY: Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz and Don Payne
STORY BY: J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Prostovich

Broken down:
Miller and Stentz worked on "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles." When that got cancelled, they went to work on "Fringe." Their geek cred is unimpeachable.

Don Payne used to work on "The Simpsons." When he eventually left that, he wrote "My Super Ex-Girlfriend." It is my theory they brought him in to add jokes.

There's nothing about the screenplay I find off or flawed, my only problem is that Branagh rushes through the entire first act as if he has to go to the bathroom, tilting the camera for no reason and point it at talking shots when he should be shooting reaction shots, and vice versa. Shooting a high-budget movie is NOT the same as shooting a low-budget play. The flaws in the movie lie solely with him; the writers are great. Online buzz say this "Thor" is closer to JMS's Thor in the comics, and I guess that seems to work out okay. Ultimately it's probably out of his hands, though: Prostovich wrote the script back in 2002 for a production that never got off the ground; its doubtful much of his script remains, but they probably had to credit him for legal reasons. JMS, presumably, didn't have much more input.

So from a Geek perspective, that's where we're at. But the thing is, I have a feeling... by the time Captain America rolls around, we'll have forgotten. All that we'll really remember is the "Not Geek" perspective, and that's all anyone can ask. If we're getting the Huge Stack o' Marvel Movies, like we were promised, they can't all be perfect. They just have to be good enough to (a) interest the casuals, and (b) not piss off the hardcore fans. And since there are no hardcore fans of Thor, this was the safest one to trust with a green director.

Onward to Cap, and then The Avengers.

Victory to Marvel, death to Michael Bay.

Art vs. Commerce vs. Explosions

I wanted to do another 'Game of Thrones' thing, but two in a row seems overly... gushy, plus there's other stuff in the world going on. Also it's Friday and even though it's not noon yet, I want some damn chicken and waffles.

NOT GEEK

Reception was decidedly mixed for "Kick Ass" last year, and a review in a local newsweekly cited this and "Hanna" with a very good point: Young girls ARE the new action heroes because adult male action stars are practically expected to walk into the first scene, kill fifty guys with a paper clip, then drive a car off the top of a building while it explodes in the background. If the protagonist is a teenage or pre-teen girl, all of those actions can still manage to be surprising, emotionally effective, or (still) shocking, while for an adult male it's just... rote.

Despite knowing better than to see "Tron Legacy" JUST because of the soundtrack, I did notice the words 'Chemical Brothers' featured prominently on every poster for "Hanna" and had to wonder if the studio thought the group was SO mainstream that it would really sell that many more tickets (probably they did, but no it didn't work). The trailer was confusing as shit. I watched the trailer again after I watched the movie and STILL didn't understand where the trailer was coming from... it made Hanna look like the bad guy. The people cutting the trailer did not know what the fuck they were doing, and the studio exec who said Yes to it also did not know how to do his or her job. These things will kill your movie faster than a racist lead actor.

The action? Ranged from the mediocre to the exceptional. The acting? All top form. The soundtrack? I dug the shit out of it but I know that that genre isn't for everyone. Still, it was bouncy as fuck, and used subtly... there was literally no score for the first 20 minutes of the movie or so, and then it's slowly brought in via feedback and sonic noise.... but then it begins, just as the plot does. BLAM. Well, there's no going back now......

Not to overuse the word, but it's an exceptional and fun time at the movies. It's a highbrow action movie, which shouldn't scare you away: It respects the intelligence of the audience, instead of editing out character in favor of blowing shit up. Also Olivia Wilde tweeted that she loved the movie, which pretty much closed the deal for me.

Because I am a whore.

GEEK

WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE ON THE POSTER BUT I WOULD'VE LOVED TO SEE:

"From the director of 'Pride & Prejudice' and 'Atonement'."

I mean, really, can you get a better recommendation for an action movie than that? My geek side and non-geek side agree: the trailer was fucking terrible, and that's how theatrical runs are murdered, though the good ones will resurface on DVD. But imagine if the trailer hadn't been cut by someone who was a drooling idiot, and had featured "From the Director of...."

I am a firm believer in the fact the Director makes or breaks the movie. Not the producer-- they are the money, and impose certain economic limitations, but do not make creative decisions (at least never any good ones) ... and not the actors, they are simply talking meat sticks. And yet most Americans can name 328548594058640 actors and about three directors: Spielberg, Scorsese, George Lucas. Maybe Christopher Nolan and James Cameron too if you're really into it, and while I admit most of us are busy and don't have time to be glasses-pushing virginal fatties like me (5'10", 130 lbs, for the record), there ARE names worth remembering, instead of dumbing it down to "From the director of..." in a trailer, or even more retarded, "From the producer of...." or "From the studio that brought you...."

Or my new personal favorite, "This movie uses the cameras that were used in...."

I am the biggest film geek walking the planet, and even *I* don't give a fuck what cameras you used to shoot the movie. Also studios are way too full of themselves, "From the studio that brought you...." is like buying a Ford Escort under the promise of, "From the car company that brought you the Mustang....."

But arrogant rich assholes is an entire different media feed. Back to what's at hand:

"Hanna" won the title for Best Unproduced Screenplay back in 2006, not a list I regularly follow but it's important that these things get made into good movies. Another screenplay garnering such kudos was "Hancock," which was then turned from the original good script into Generic Shitty Will Smith Vehicle #937. And in case I haven't mentioned it here before, Will Smith is an egotistical douchebag. Fuck Will Smith. He hasn't made a good movie since 1997 and people still line up to suck his dick. We as a people need to get over our debilitating Will Smith addiction.

Once again, back to what's at hand:

The dialogue is efficient while not exactly quotable, tells a constantly interesting and slowly revealing story. It doesn't talk down to the audience, you're rewarded for paying attention, the emphasis is on the characters and who they are, not just the next set piece. I've always felt that every generic 90-minute action movie is just a 2-hour drama that got whittled down for simplicity. Imagine if "Heat" had all the talking scenes taken out... you'd be left with something like "Jumper." Lots of exciting things happening and guns going off, but nothing to latch on to emotionally. No, I did not just compare DeNiro to Hayden Christensen.

Joe Wright is the director, he of, again, Atonement and the oh-my-god-I'm-male-why-is-this-movie-awesome Pride and Prejudice. Saw them, loved them, yet still didn't feel obligated to see "The Soloist," and it's not relevant to "Hanna" at all, anyway. When it's time for action, you know it, and it's clearly motivated. When there's no shiny object to distract you for an entire half hour, the characters and plot remain interesting and riveting enough to keep you watching.

The cinematography is gorgeous, and Joe Wright knows how to compose a shot, while occasionally faltering on an action stereotype or two, at other times he'll completely confound expectations and throw you for a loop. The chase scene amongst the shipping containers dropped my jaw as much as the first time I saw the car chase in "Bullitt."

Essentially if you're a big fan of CSI, you will fucking hate this, because whenever I catch a minute of that while flipping channels, I effectively feel lobotomized by the oversimplification and talking down to the audience. Everything is spelled out for you like you're a child, because otherwise you might change the channel to something simpler and more condescending, like Fox News. It warms my heart and puts poetry into my soul to know that Intelligent, Well-Crafted Character Pieces are slowly, from around the fringes of society, making a comeback.

So in that sense, it's from the same age as "Game of Thrones" after all. You are rewarded for paying attention, learning the characters, feeling what they feel.... and not fucking around in the kitchen until you hear an explosion and dash back to the TV to see what's happening. It will actually keep you rapt from start to finish.

And if it doesn't, well.... David Caruso still has a job. But something like "Hanna" can actively move the genre forward, while CSI, Law & Order, or The Expendables just tow the line of the tired status quo.

26 Things I Learned from 'Game of Thrones' Episode 1

--If you like a woman, fuck her from behind. Whores are for missionary and cowgirl.

--It doesn't matter what kinky shit you're into. The royal family has you beat.

--It doesn't matter what you saw. If you desert your post, your head is forfeit.

--If your mom tells you not to climb something, DON'T CLIMB IT.

--It is acceptable to call the King fat, so long as he calls you fat first.

--All dwarves are bastards in their fathers eyes.

--Yes, you can have a dog. Provided you walk it, clean up after it, train it, and bury it if it dies.

--If the King asks you to go somewhere, you fucking go. If the Prince asks you how old you are, run for your fucking life.

--There is no Dothrakian phrase for "Thank You."

--If less than three people die at a Drogo wedding, it is considered a boring affair.

--Having 40,000 sexual partners is acceptable, provided it wins your brother his throne back.

--If the dead people are not where you left them, do not go looking for them.

--The penalty for interrupting public sex is half your entrails.

--He who passes the sentence must also carry it out.

--Once the man next to you has begun fucking a whore from behind, it is common courtesy to allow him to finish before taking your turn. If you interrupt him, no one may re-enter the whore until one of you is dead.

--Let me give you some advice, bastard: Never forget who you are. Wear it like armor. And it can never be used to hurt you.

--If you live in a castle, and you hear two people having sex..... ignore it.

--If you are not sure about the quality of your breasts, your brother will give you his honest opinion.

--If you're 10 and learning to be a man, don't do it anywhere near your tomboy older sister. Also, relax your arm and don't over-think it.

--In the absence of black people, the man in the darkest cloak dies first.

--If you are female and under 18, you are either good at sports, or a vacuous shallow whore. There is no in between.

--Everyone manning the Wall is a red-shirt Ensign. Jon Snow is the only exception.

--If you are walking in the forest and the man you're facing suddenly looks at you in a frightened manner, do not look at him questioningly. Drop to the ground immediately and question it later.

--The carriage is for the prince and princess. Kings ride a fucking horse.

--Fossilized dragon eggs are still pretty.

And finally,

--If you are a European actor, you will grow up to do quality work like this. If you are an American actor, you will be cast as an extra in "Transformers 3."

What If You Spent $50 Million on a CGI Man Taking a Shit?

SUCKERPUNCH
(2011, "directed" by Zack Snyder)

GEEK / NOT GEEK

It's kind of difficult to comment on the movie, without just writing, "Terrible," and clicking the submit button. To write a good comment, one must write WHY it is terrible... but where to begin? If someone came into your home, and took a shit in the middle of your living room, would you need to explain in a calm manner, three reasons why the person was wrong for doing such a deed? No. You'd toss them by their ear out onto the street, left with the unenviable task of having to clean up. Perhaps you'd even call the police.

If, on the other hand, you spent $50 million (or whatever the budget was; it was too high, in any event) to have someone take a CGI dump in your living room... is that any better? There are three actors in this movie, and only three: Scott Glenn, Jena Malone, and Carla Gugino. Four, if you count Jon Hamm, but he's not in the movie long enough to matter. There are these three, and everything else is there to talk until it's time for another special effect. Jena Malone isn't even required to do any of these things (i.e. act), but because she has actual experience as an actress, bothered to create a character and reflect an emotional state during the 'story.' Everyone else just showed up, put on the costumes, and talked until the director said 'cut.' Vanessa Hudgens should have been a clue.

Even if the story is awful, unmemorable, or predictable (Suckerpunch is all three), other Hollywood movies may rely on memorable action sequences or visuals. In a movie roughly 100 minutes long, these action sequences take up roughly five minutes of screen time. Then Snyder detonates an explosive in New York. Again.

It's not so much that Zack Snyder hates audiences, it's just that he's incredibly naive, like a 12-year-old suddenly given the keys to his dads liquor cabinet. He wants you to like a character, he makes them female and puts them in a low-cut top. He wants you to hate a character, he makes that character a rapist or molester of children. He does this again and again; these appear in every movie he's ever made, save for his first (and best) film, Dawn of the Dead, which was written by someone else entirely. Someone who understands subtlety and character development. Realize, too, that I'm saying this about a movie where a smarmy rich dude accidentally chainsaws his most recent sexual partner.

Whatever fancy visuals made it to the trailer for Suckerpunch, the movie is this: Zack Snyder wrote a script with his camera-man, and it is neither funny nor exciting. It's a 100-minute demo reel, and considering this is his fifth movie, he really should have actually created something with weight, by this point.

I went in with low expectations (especially after his shitty cover version of Watchmen and a movie about CGI owls that was so bad, even the trailer couldn't give it life), expecting that even if the movie rose slightly above these expectations, I'd have something to show for it. I paid half-price for a matinee, and not only do I feel ripped off, I feel physically violated.

I'm not going to call the police, but I am going to be mad for a week, because even though I've cleaned my floor, the smell lingers on. 3/10.

I Will Not Apologize for Disliking Halo

NOT GEEK

I suck at video games. I used to be good-- when the NES was still a thing-- but then I got distracted for a few years by college and girls and learning to drive. Also beer. Suddenly I pick up a controller again and I'm supposed to know complex military tactics. Fuck you. THAT'S why I have Uno and Pac-Man on my XBox.

GEEK

The XBox has been in my apartment about two years, and the games I have enjoyed most, INITIALLY (I stress that point), are....

1) Wet
2) Borderlands
3) Left 4 Dead (both)

I am aware-- Anyone who knows anything about games, knows that "Wet" sucks. A hardcore gamer here in town told me it reminded him of John Woo's "Stranglehold," which I then checked out just to see if the comparison was apt. Strangehold came out when I was still working at Borders (so 2004-5 roughly), and by 2010 standards, it was pretty crap. Your character hit more targets only if you were jumping through the air in slow-motion. That got repetitive and boring after five minutes. I quit the game after ten and sent it back. "Wet" was exactly like this, except you could also run up walls and do flips. That only took about 10-15 hours to tire of, or maybe I kept expecting boobs.

Borderlands was spectacular, with a levelling system, and a crazy variety of guns that actually forced you to think about what you were going to keep vs. drop. I played it for like a month straight, then I went back to start again with a second character, since you're given four to choose from. The second time through, it felt boring and frustrating, because I'd already beaten all those levels, and it took so long to level up. So.... I went back to my original character. Soon after, I don't know if the game got too hard, or if it reached the upper limits of my skill, but I had to quit. Still, really, really fun up until that point.

I don't play Halo, because going online, it's even harder to find a good game than it would be on a PC. I've beaten 1 & 2, but Halo seems to be more about the culture than the individual gameplay. It's all about going online and playing versus other people in an arena mode, and I spent college doing that with Counterstrike (which had a superior vs-mode, because it contained actual objectives, not just 'kill or be killed'). Halo online is just point and blast. It reminds me of Quake. Which was also repetitive and dull.

Left 4 Dead is more co-op, which I appreciate. The game's AI decides whether or not you're getting a grenade here or more ammo there, so after over a year I haven't tired of it.

The gaming industry is more interested in safely making lots of money, than being innovative or creating something interesting, but ultimately they'll have to listen to the geeks-- not the accountants-- if they want to remain successful. For every big, stupid, shallow money-maker like the "Bayformers" movies, it's always something with actual thought put into it, that drives the genre forward and spawns new creative ideas for both the artists, and the consumers, to enjoy.

I'm not going to claim "Iron Man" or "Batman Begins" were great intellectual achievements, but in the case of the latter, literally no one previous had ever had the balls to take the comic book genre so dead seriously, and make a movie as dark as they could. It worked. Because it's all about taking risks.

"Call of Duty Five: Modern Warfare Seven: This Time With Grenades 3" is not taking a fucking risk.

There's a reason Pac-Man single-handedly spawned this industry in the first place. And to do so, it didn't need an online option to let your friends play as ghosts.

Furiouser and Furiouser

#ff - Go read the blog known only as SHAN! SHAN! SHAN! I have been totally one-upped this week by one of my friends getting to a Kurosawa movie before me, and I take full responsibility. I have no excuse other than I am a fat, lazy American.

(who's the sex machine that gets all the chicks? SHAN! then I can dig it).

I've seen a handful of Kurosawa movies, the best of which was "Rashomon" which I recommend to everybody. It's a familiar concept (one story told from four perspectives) and while in 2011 you might think it's played out.... KUROSAWA INVENTED IT. I've only ever had, like, three movies that put my jaw on the floor, and this was one of them.

So as long as we're talking about cinematic masterpieces that will span generations and have redefined all cinema that would follow it...........

FAST AND FURIOUS
(2009, dir. Justin Lin)

NOT GEEK

I saw the first one when it came out, because as hard as you may find it to believe, there was a time when Vin Diesel was not a punchline. To his credit, he's managed to ride that one-note concept for near-on a decade now, without slipping into self-parody (sup, Chuck Norris. sup, Ben Affleck. Sup, Kevin Costner. Sup, Russell Crowe).

No interest in the second two (part 2: Paul Walker sucks. part 3: Lucas Black sucks more), but the fourth one got good reviews and Netflix essentially makes them free, so I figured, what the hell.

The opening action sequence is not only exciting, it makes sense and is not ruined by ShakyCam. The last two seconds of it are enough to either chase you out of the room, or make you reach for the popcorn. If you like popcorn, read on...

It's a five-act structure, and the cast of characters are all given their moments, even characters who haven't been around since the first movie. The acting is good (except for Paul Walker). I'm not claiming Vin Diesel is a great actor, but in this movie he plays only to his strengths, meaning he (a) doesn't say much, and (b) constantly looks ready to do violence. It works for him. Meanwhile, Paul Walker in a suit looks like a penguin in a sarong.

In a bad action movie, shit happens for no reason, we don't care about the characters enough to remember their names, the explosions take place for no other reason than because nothing has blown up in a while, and there is One Good Guy, and One Bad Guy. Here, suddenly, none of that is true. It's an 8/10 easily, unless you just hate Vin Diesel on general principal, in which case there's always The Rock.

GEEK

Fuck.

Putting aside the fact, for a moment, that Justin Lin directed the third movie, let us also remember that he directed three episodes of "Community," including the 'Modern Warfare' episode. It was because of that and that alone I saw "Fast and Furious." The man knows his shit. He has one indie hit ("Better Luck Tomorrow") and two shitty studio movies where I'm sure he had little creative control, but then with this and the television, here he emerges, capable of doing talking scenes and action scenes with equal flair.

The movie was written by Chris Morgan, who wrote the third movie, sure, but also wrote "Wanted." Over the top, I know, but other than that bullshit about the Loom, everything was just fun ridiculousness.

Even from a geek standpoint, this film has no right to be good, but it is. The action is satisfying, the dialogue isn't retarded, the film is purdy to look at.

My lone complaint (other than Paul "I'd Much Rather Be Smoking Weed on a Beach" Walker): It's PG-13.

Ordinarily I don't care WHAT the rating is, but this is one of several movies in the last few years where the rating felt like a lie.

There's a sequence in the first third of the movie, where both O'Connor (Walker) and Torretto (Diesel) have to "Try out" for a drug runner, given a GPS map and a finish line and told the first person across that line gets the job. Four contestants start the race.

And the race starts off, and it's exciting and you are shown that each of the four is competent, and why they are worthy of being considered. And then I remember thinking, "This shit is so fucking dangerous. This only makes sense if at least one of these guys dies, to show the audience that shit is serious."

Then one of the cars is T-boned by a minivan.

I say "cars" because that's what happens. We see the driver look surprised, then we see one car hit another car, then the scene cuts back to the race. The accident is never shown or talked about again.

This is ridiculous. If you're showing an illegal race IN TRAFFIC, and one of your racers crashes, if you don't show his broken, bleeding body hanging out the window, then you are being dishonest, and you're cheating the audience. You are editing out Life so you can get a PG-13 rating, and thus (so they say) sell more tickets, all of them to males ages 13-17. Who now see illegal street racing without consequences.

I'm not trying to be conservative about this, I'm just saying that I'm a fucking adult, and if cars are going to speed at 80 miles an hour through busy LA streets, and if there's a crash, I want severed limbs and fireballs. I don't want a dented fender and a quick cutaway just because the producers want to sell tickets to a kid who was three years old when the first movie came out.

Some of the CG is questionable, this movie needed more nekkid women in it. I was entertained enough that I did not feel the need to shout out at the television. The story kept moving, there was more than just One Good Guy and One Bad Guy. I can recommend this. Even the ending left it open to another movie...

.... another movie that comes out next month.

With the Rock.

Vin Diesel vs. The Rock.

Fuck you, Hollywood.

Take my money.

I'll be right back, I've gotta go Dwayne The Rock Johnson

Faster (2010, d. George Tillman, Jr).

NOT GEEK
This was marketed as an action movie last December. It's isn't one. I can't tell if that was accidental or not: I can see where action scenes are SUPPOSED to take place, but then none do. The lead character, named Driver (Dwayne Johnson), will walk into a room, shoot a person, and then walk out. Occasionally he meets resistance, and in that case we get several bullets instead of just one.

What I cannot figure out was, are such sequences (a) attempted action sequences, just done really horrifically badly, or (b) not supposed to be action sequences at all, but rather emotionally tense dramatic moments?

If it's (a) then the director should cash his paycheck quickly, go home, and never embarrass himself again. If it's (b) then this was a spectacularly bad decision, again on the part of the director, because the characters aren't interesting or deep enough to invest in emotionally. Without emotional investment, there can be no drama. Only shit blowing up.

The story is interesting enough (Driver gets out of prison, after ten years... we find out in short order he has nothing else on his mind than killing the people who, ten years before, had killed his brother right in front of him). Actual thought WAS put into how things would be revealed and when.

But not any into the execution.

GEEK
"Faster" was directed by George Tillman Jr., director of the critically acclaimed but dramatically generic "Men of Honor," which starred Cuba Gooding Jr. when he was still getting work. More interestingly, it was written by Tony Gayton and his brother Joe, the former of which wrote "The Salton Sea" starring Val Kilmer (before he was fat) and "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock (before she won an Oscar). Both of those films are spectacularly written and featuring compelling stories and characters. The latter was marketed poorly when it first came out. The former wasn't marketed at all.

There's not a large percentage people who will say, "I want to see that movie because of the screenwriter," but that, I suppose, is what makes me a geek. I waited patiently for the DVD, because "Faster" didn't seem like it would be worth a full-priced movie ticket... and it wasn't. But it was an interesting failure nonetheless.

George Tilliman Jr. isn't a particularly good director, but he was a last minute replacement for Phil Joanou (who is a decent director of actors, but every film he's ever made feels like it's four hours long). He wanted to direct something more mainstream, I guess, and he did. He failed and probably won't get much more film work, but failed film directors get TV work all the time.

Carla Gugino is in the movie, one of the two cops on Driver's trail (the other is Billy Bob Thornton). She was a last-minute replacement for Salma Hayek. As this isn't a soap opera, Carla Gugino was the better choice, but ultimately it doesn't matter either way. That characters role isn't given much to do. None of the characters are given much to do, at all, except Driver.

.
.
.

This is why the "Five-Star" system on Netflix doesn't work: because two stars is "didn't like it" and three stars is "liked it." In this case, for me anyway, neither is accurate. I found the movie engaging enough, and unfolding at a fast enough pace, to remain interesting, but I cannot recommend it to anyone. The action is non-existent, but the drama is the shallow sort usually reserved for action movies. There's no reason for this movie to exist.

Skip it.

Blah Blah Oscars Blah

As a cultural milestone, the Oscars aren't really all that important; sure, we can forever look up who won what in a given year; but the ceremonies themselves are generally forgotten unless something really amazing happens, like a streaker, or a really great one-liner ("You like me, you really like me."). So even though last weekends Oscars are fresh in our minds, the ceremony itself wasn't all that important. Presenters, hosts, all were picked for business reasons, to raise their visibility in a ceremony that, in theory anyway, should be free of outside influence (at least as far as who wins).

NOT GEEK

I was bored, by and large. Anne Hathaway is multi-talented... attractive, yes, which doesn't hurt your chances of being a movie star, but at any given moment she looked poised, comfortable, and energetic. James Franco looked like he'd just been hanging out with Charlie Sheen.

Unlike Neil Patrick Harris, who had a much-deserved career renaissance in the last few years, James Franco's career arrived and died between 1999 and 2002. By the time "Spider-Man 2" came out, his career was over. But kudos to him, Harvard student that he is... he worked hard, applied himself, picked some wise projects, got his name back into the public spotlight, and used his most endearing quality-- weirdness-- to climb back into the public perception. For Round One, it was "let's make him a heart-throb." That didn't work, so now he's something else. And, it should be noted, he IS a talented actor... just not a charismatic one. Which is why he shouldn't host awards shows.

What else can any non-geek say about the evening? It was long, the speeches ranged from boring to okay, with nothing to write home about (except for the one bleep), studio execs and agents got their "products" in front of a camera for a night. Was "The King's Speech" the best movie of the year? It was really, really good.... nothing except it, The Social Network, or Black Swan really had a chance. I didn't see "Winter's Bone." No one did. No one saw "The Shawshank Redemption" in 1994, either. History tends to repeat itself.

GEEK

The most common complain the next day was, "The Social Network got ROBBED!"

Look.

There are ten nominees for best picture, for the second year in a row. We're still feeling the after-effects of the writers strike, because it was two years ago and it takes two years to make a movie. 2009 and 2010 were thin years, cinematically speaking. So you get certain movies that, while good, certainly aren't deserving of a best picture nominee (I actually did watch "The Kids Are All Right," and I stand by my statement). Good movies, but not ones that have a chance of winning. "Winter's Bone" was this years "Precious" in the sense that it was an extremely good film, and well made, but it lacked that... something, that grandiosity, that .... commercial appeal... that will win you the award. Worth watching. But not the "It" movie.

So amongst those left-- The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Social Network, 127 Hours, and I guess even Inception... you have four movies made for the younger demographic, or rather, the same demographic that Hollywood has been making movies for, and only for, since the mid 1980s. And a fifth, The King's Speech, which your grandmother would go see, and enjoy. Also your parents. I enjoyed it, too. Nothing exploded and no one got shot, but it was still a quality film. Beautiful to look at, beautifully acted, and a lovely time at the movies.

So if you're young and hip, you voted for one of the other four, or maybe the fifth. Your vote is spread out five ways.

If you're old and traditional, you vote for The King's Speech.

Which is how we got a winner.

But to be fair, the other films were not perfect. "The Social Network" had an overabundance of CGI and too little attention paid to the performances, specifically Andrew Garfield, who is generic in every way, and Justin Timberlake, of whom the audience is always quite aware, throughout the movie, "Hey, that's Justin Timberlake."

"Black Swan" had a powerful, jaw-dropping performance at its center, but was a bit fuzzy around the edges. The conceit of re-telling the ballet "Swan Lake" was clever, but outside of that, it wasn't much different from "The Wrestler." It was an old story, re-told in a brilliant way, but you'll notice the last couple years the Academy is choosing uplifting movies for Best Picture, especially post-Obama. Black Swan is an actress' dream job, but the movie itself is a bigger picture, and a fuzzier one.

Same with "127 Hours."

The ACTUAL best movies of the year, and it's been true for as long as I can remember-- instead of looking at the Best Picture winner, look to the winners of Best Original Screenplay, and Best Adapted Screenplay. THOSE are the actual best movies of the year. Those are the best stories, the most wonderfully realized, the most fun movies to watch.

Best Picture is something entirely different. Everything must come together: EVERYTHING. Not just the plot, but the dialogue to tell it. The actors realization of the characters. The lighting, the costumes, the shot selection, the blocking of the actors. Music. Locations. Truly everything.

And I can't think of anyone who cares about all that stuff. *I* don't. I'm a film geek, and I'm watching the cinematography and the costumes and the lighting and the makeup, but... what makes one better than the other? No idea. I don't do their jobs.

But Hollywood people do.

"The Social Network" did not win, in part because of what I said before, but also because David Fincher cannot direct actors. He's part of the new and current school of filmmakers, who are brilliant with effects and shot composition, but have no idea what to do with actors, how to get a good performance out of them, or where to have them stand or move. Was the movie nominated for acting awards? Yes. It's Aaron Sorkin writing the dialogue, and if you can't act, you won't survive the first sixty seconds. So you hire an actor and let them say the lines. Which is what happens in the movie. And then Andrew Garfield looks confused, Jesse Eisenberg looks cranky, Armie Hammer looks angry, and Rooney Mara cries. Cut, print, how did the lighting look?

I don't say all that in ignorance: I'm perfectly aware that the opening scene, where Zuckerberg breaks up with his girlfriend, required 98 or 99 takes. At that point, I am convinced, it is NOT about the performance. It's about the placement of the actors, who moves his or her head when, what is happening in the background. By take 15, the performance is rote. There is nothing new to learn. You don't get to take 99 unless you're micro-managing, or are looking at other things.

But I digress. I fucking loved the movie and I fucking loved all the Best Picture nominees that I saw (7 out of 10, with Winter's Bone still to be crossed off the list... probably The Fighter, too).

Just I see all these rants the next day, every year, going "(blah) got robbed!!"

I've been watching the Oscars a long time, and even when something goes wrong (which happens less often then the pop culture would lead you to believe), there's a reason for it.

In 1995, Best Supporting Actor went to Kevin Spacey for "The Usual Suspects." I maintain then, as I do now, that he won the award because of some perceived masterwork he did in hiding his true identity from the audience. In all reality, he was just saying the lines, and the secret being hidden is due in no small part to the talent of the director and screenwriter, not Spacey. And his career since then will back me up on that. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt was nominated for "12 Monkeys," was brilliant in it, but lost because he was perceived as a generic pretty-boy, and also no one saw his movie. "The Usual Suspects" was more popular, and seen by more Academy members than "12 Monkeys," so that was that.

In 2001, "A Beautiful Mind" won Best Picture, despite being (1) not Ron Howards best movie, and (2) not a very good movie anyway. It did not follow its own internal logic, and the screenwriter stole everything that was 'clever' about it from other genres. The screenwriter who, by the way, also wrote "Batman and Robin." This is not a talented man. Just one with friends in the business.

The point? No, the Best So-and-So doesn't always win, but there's never NOT a reason for it. Ron Howard won because he'd been making brilliant movies for over a decade; Kevin Spacey won because his movie was damn good, and he was given more to do than Gabriel Byrne.

But no one remembers that. They remember who won, and if the movie was good or not.

So in a year, or more likely, in a week, we'll have forgotten everything about that rushed, over-produced, over-long show. But the facts are these: "The Social Network" was the best story adapted from another medium, "The King's Speech" was the best original story. I loved them both. You probably did, too.

Or, y'know, if you didn't, then there's always "Drive Angry 3-D." Shit blows up, and there's nekkid women in it.

We are officially OUT of awards season. And there's something for everybody here.

Why You Hate Comics

Right up until 4-5 years ago, you hated comic book movies.

And I know this is true because *I* hated comic book movies, and I didn't dislike comics. I remember seeing "Spawn" as an impressionable youth, and thinking, "Well. THIS sucks."

And years later, other people had to educate me. They showed me Batman comics and Captain America comics and ... well, things that don't qualify as "comics."

I am not, by any means, a nerd about that stuff. I own less than two-dozen graphic novels, and 12 of them are the same authors' multi-volume set of "The Punisher" in which the "hero" distributes vigilante justice (via the "bullet" method) to an average of 20-30 criminals per book. It is sold in the "absolutely no children beyond this point" portion of the comic shop. If it were a movie, it would be NC-17. Even the R-rated "Punisher" movie(s) had to tone themselves down to be R-rated, compared to these books.

WHICH IS THE PROBLEM.

Robert Downey Jr. said "Yes" to Iron Man, and suddenly it was cool for mainstream actors to be in comic book character adaptations again, for the first time since "Batman Returns" in 1992. (Val Kilmer and George Clooney as Batman is what made it UNcool again, a few years later). But even now, not a lot of mainstream American actors are following in his footsteps.

Scarlett Johanssen? Yes. Chris Evans? Hardly a household name. Chris Hemsworth? Who the fuck is that.

So we're back to square one.

And people on the street, commenters on message boards, and my mom, all say things like, "Isn't that based on a comic book? It'll probably be silly."

...

Then I had an epiphany as to why people automatically assume comics are silly:


WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT.

There are a billion "Cathy" comic strips, and all of them are less funny than this one. Even humor itself, peeking its head out from under a rock, would not recognize this comic as anything remotely familial. It is anti-humor, designed to earn the author a steady paycheck. It is roughly five square inches in your daily newspaper, and there's not a fucking thing you can do to stop it.

And there's MORE LIKE IT. Dozens. Dozens of other unfunny little childish comic strips in your newspaper, distributed en masse by the millions, every day. Crazy, redonkulous exercises in non-jokes like Beetle Bailey and B.C. and One Tree Hill... I don't even read this crap anymore, because it wasn't even funny when I was twelve. When I was twelve I had to ask my parents what the joke meant, and wait for a response before I then realized it wasn't funny. By 13, I had cut out the middle man. What the hell is going on?

This runs in newspapers all over the country, and is seen by MILLIONS. Someone was PAID for this. There was probably even a first draft before it, where the author said, "No, no, wait... ten dollars isn't funny enough. It needs to be FIVE dollars."

But even that is giving it too much credit. Strips like this one have been manufactured by a computer program since 1988. I am sure of it. There is no possible way that a person could create that, and THEN an editor would read it and say, "Ha, yes, good work," and THEN pay the man. Unless the comic strip racket is run like Saturday Night Live, where you tell one funny joke then get to collect a paycheck for seven years while doing nothing at all.

Which is entirely possible. It's not like anyone is paying attention to this shit. Except for this person, my new hero:

"The Ten Newspaper Comic Strips that Need to Fucking End."
by Alicia Ashby

.......... I had ignored this crap for years, this cheap, pandering free money for bad artists, but as an adult without a great income, it pisses me off that the person who draws "Mamaduke" got paid more last year than I did. The last time I got drunk and pissed on the bathroom wall it created more interesting art than this bullshit. It is market-tested, color-coordinated, guaranteed-not-to-offend-anyone.... "art." Which would be fine, if there were five of them, but there's like EIGHTY in your newspaper every day.

And so that is what we, as a society, think comics look like. Also, comics are drawn, and as we all know hand-drawn animation is Disney's gift to the world. If it's a cartoon, it's for kids, yup yup yup!


When you write a movie, you have to make it easy to understand for the widest possible audience. There are rules, rules which most people aren't even aware of or care about: You cannot show violence against children, and if you do, it's not the hero committing such acts. The hero cannot beat women, take a dump, do drugs, and if he's shown stealing car it is always, ALWAYS for a good cause. There are never any consequences. He always wins in the end, the bad guy always dies (unless they want a sequel), any character who broke the law along the way also typically dies, lest any tiny corner of the audience feel uncomfortable.

If you are an adult, and writing a graphic novel for yourself... you can kill anyone you damn well please. If it entertains YOU, who cares if it's going to sell well in a mall? Trade it with your friends. Put it online.


You can't put that shit in the cineplexes. 100% entertainment value only. The author has set it in the near future and the Rapture occurs, except the Pope doesn't go because he's been too busy doing drugs and fucking whores. The populace is, as you can imagine, quite confused as to why the POPE didn't get called up in the Rapture... but luckily Yonder Pope is a mighty warrior in his spare time, and helps defend his fellow man against the evil left on earth.

If you read that... and you created "Funky Winkerbean" ... you should rightly hang your head in disgusted shame. You are a boil on society and you need to be lanced.

There are a thousand brilliant, multi-layered stories to tell here. And while some newspaper comics do still generate honest political commentary, or a genuinely funny gag-- you can count those comics on one hand. Doonesbury. The Boondocks. The art and content of "Get Fuzzy" is usually entertaining, and "Pearls Before Swine" has some clever wordplay.

And then there's fifty comic strips from the people who brought you "The Wizard of Id" just waiting there to suck. "Family Circus" is still allowed to exist, like a remnant of the 1950's that everyone forgot about. Alone they are nothing. Together they are skewing the perceptions of an entire nation. If YOU had lived in a foreign country all your life, and someone showed you "Garfield," what would YOU think of America?

Everything you know about the animated medium is wrong. People who write humorless, poorly drawn comic strips do it because they are contractually obligated to do so, and are under no individual obligation to be funny or interesting. It's rather like receiving tenure.

People who write movies must specifically write to appeal to the most number of people possible, particularly for a summer blockbuster (because that's what most often the stories lend themselves to), though there are a fair amount of graphic novels, too, that do not feature explosions. ("A History of Violence," for example, did not have a single car chase or flying robot).

People who write Graphic Novels do so because they honestly love it. They don't have a house in Hollywood Hills, they're not appearing on Letterman (though neither do screenwriters, really).

Screenwriter Scott Frank, who received an Oscar-nomination for adapting "Out of Sight" for the big screen, but also adapted "Get Shorty" and made his directorial debut two years ago with "The Lookout," once said...

"Writing a screenplay is like raising a child for adoption."

Telling, that. You labor over it for hours, weeks, months... then you hand it over to the studio and the director will do whatever the fuck he wants with it. You hope for the best.

Comic strip writers don't have their work changed, but that's because their editor never actually reads it.

Authors of Graphic Novels? These people, and their editors, are passionate about telling stories, and have written some good ones.

Some of them don't even have Batman in them.

Check them out, but... don't leave them lying around where your mother can find them. Just because there's a panel where someone dies does not mean we should ban all comic stores to protect the children. Context is everything, and a dramatic story well-told can teach us a lot.

But your mom doesn't know that, because she grew up reading "Family Circus."

Educate ya-self.

How to Be a Geek (in Six Easy Lessons)

So. You've decided to become a geek.

While I commend you on your choice, it must be stated at the outset that it won't be easy. Many have tried and failed. Many have succeeded, only to discover they then failed to get laid, repeatedly. This is not your fault. This is leftover high school residue and we can assure you, as you venture out in the real world of adulthood, now more than ever, you have made the right decision.

Before we begin our lesson, let's address some current, common misconceptions about geeks.

a) Geeks are ugly.

This is the most common misconception, mostly because whenever one meets a geek, they're ugly, or otherwise fat, smelly, socially awkward, or staring at your boobs. The key thing to remember here at the outset is: Cops are actually pretty cool.

Wait, what? How'd we get THERE?

The misconception about cops is, they hate you and want to make your life miserable. And the reason for this is, the only time you ever see a cop, statistically, is when you've just done something wrong: driving too fast, walking around somewhere other than a bar after a few too many drinks, maybe even jaywalking. There are a small percentage of times where you'll see a cop because you called them to rescue you, but I'm 35 and luckily, knock on wood, I've never been in a situation where I've had to summon one (or many). So it's pretty statistically small, at least from where I'm sitting. But the times I've interacted with officers outside of "I just fucked up" have gone pretty smoothly. They're people too. They just don't know you except, unlike when you work at Starbucks and can just be snarky, when a cop first sees you, he doesn't yet know if YOU'RE gonna be cool too, or if you're a meth-head about to shoot him (or her). Then again, I've tried to make friends with them during traffic stops, and they're routinely uninterested. But back to my original point:

That geek you met was weird because he's a fuckin' WEIRDO GEEK. That cute boy (or girl) standing behind him that isn't bothering you, is JUST as obsessed and/or knowledgeable about Star Wars or John Hughes movies or plantlife or something, but they're not advertising it. Because they are a well-integrated member of society with all their brain cells where they should be. How many dentists walk up to you on the street and go, "HI I'M A DENTIST!!!!!!" ... not very many. But we know dentists exist. Mine is quite nice.

b) Geeks are socially awkward.

See above. Only the geeks who are awkward are the ones you interact with; if you have a friend who's a geek, you've seen into their obsession maybe, but that was after you became friends with them first. Otherwise, they're a WEIRDO GEEK, or, to use a more accurate term...

c) Geeks and Nerds are the same thing.

WEIRDO GEEK is another term for a "Nerd." You know the stereotype? Tape around their glasses, pocket protector, plaid shirt, looks like their mom dressed them? Nerd. Chances are they get good grades, but are they obsessed with any one subject? Probably not. Most days they just obsess over books and not simple social interactions, and miss out importation cultural events like the 2011 Ford Mustang, or Vin Diesel movies, or the fact that nobody has actually worn a pocket protector since 1987. Pen technology has greatly improved since then.

Essentially, citizen, if you're getting down to brass tacks:


The general rule, if you want to be a geek is, "Keep left." Granted, most people don't get much of a choice, often following their obsession from an early age until they somehow missed out on simple social learning experiences, like, "How to dress," or "How to flirt with the cute girl and/or boy behind the counter at the bank," or, "How to bathe."

You're lucky though, gentle reader, as you have DECIDED to be a geek, rather than have geekdom thrust upon you. You can control the outcome. You can monitor your progress and make corrections as needed. You can be a geek, AND still have sex. Yes, it's entirely possible, and proven to be true.

WHY BE A GEEK?

Society, particularly American Society, has been obsessed with beauty and popularity for as long as we can remember. Everyone wants to be beautiful, to not only be desired, but to FEEL confident, sexy, and worthwhile as they walk into any room, and meet new people.

And on an aesthetic, surface level, these corrections can theoretically be made. Change your hair color, change your eye color, nip this, tuck that. Physically, you CAN be "fixed," and then you'll be normal and popular like those good looking kids in high school.

An important note: The least important part of your life was high school. You're not even fully formed until you're 18, then you get a couple test years for trial and error. Sure, we naturally want to stand next to beautiful people, but as we enter the 21st century, being intelligent is "in." Geeks are making a ton of money. Meanwhile we look at pretty people without smarts, and are given Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan as role-models. Society notices shit like this. Especially parents.

But since there's no surgery that can make someone smarter, physical beauty remained the norm for years. Geekdom was associated with being a rocket scientist, or calculus major. Comic books? Sci-fi novels? Very different. And so we shift toward geekdom, as a society, though not wholly there, as physical beauty and simple popularity still presently hold the norm....

For proof, note that we keep electing Republican presidents.

Okay, that's a dig, there's lots of other evidence too, but that one's my favorite.

"What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness."
--Leo Tolstoy

That's a good one, too.

LESSON #1 - Become interested in something you can internalize.

Or, put simply, an idea. You can go to parties and meet people, learn about their jobs or what they had for breakfast that morning, but these are just events, memorized. It's a list, albeit a personalized one. What about something that doesn't exist? Like, say, "Star Wars?" Sure, they movie exists, but Han Solo didn't ACTUALLY shoot Greedo. It's just a movie. That never really happened.

But it DID. In your HEAD.

Other examples of ideas you might want to choose from: The continuing voyages of the Starship Enterprise. The triumphs and failures of Bruce Wayne, billionaire (aka Batman). Dragons. Elves. Cybernetic alterations to living tissue, or any possible tech, real or imagined, that couldn't be available before 2021. TREES (yes, really!). Cars. But not, and I'm sorry ladies: shoes.

LESSON #2 - Read.

The reason shoes don't work (and I'm not being sexist, I just needed an example of something there's a lot of, that doesn't work) is because they're static. You can obsess and memorize the many (and there are many) facts about them, but there is nothing about them individually that can be integrated with other shoes. You can be a FASHION geek, say, but shoes just aren't specific enough. While there are a lot of cars, cars have many moving parts and options and customization. No one ever bought a shoe and then said, "Okay, now let's take it to the shop and change the straps to be purple and twice as wide."

Well, maybe they did, but it's my understanding that if you do that to a Manolo Blahnik, Sarah Jessica Parker will come to your house and beat you to death with her Prada handbag.

I am not a fashion geek or a shoe nerd, by the way. But my geek-like tendencies allow me to pick up snippets here and there. That, or I think I learned it ironically.

.... The reason everything else on the above list DOES work is because there are varied and diverse ideas you can assemble together in your own head. Star Wars alone has six movies (three excellent, three that weren't) plus about 150 bazillion books taking place in the universe. You can actually look up the reason, in said books, that spooky cave existed on Dagobah (non-geek speak: Remember that scene in Empire Strikes Back where Luke's all like, "What's in that cave?" and Yoda is all like, "Only what you take with you," and then Luke goes in there anyway and there's a trippy sequence where he sees his own face inside Darth Vader's helmet?). My point is, there's a lot of information to be had. There is always more to be learned. If you learn enough of it that you can make someone ELSE'S eyes glaze over the way I just made YOURS glaze over... you are well on your way to geekdom.

It does not have to be Star Wars, by the way. That's perhaps the most mainstream choice, and probably not a good one to get into, post-Jar Jar.

But be it science fiction, fantasy, or something more real-world like sports or fashion or the aforementioned cars.... there is resource material available. You must spend a LOT of time reading up on it, beyond what's mentioned in tonight's episode of "Two and a Half Men."

.......................... So now you've read up on it a bit. Not boring reading like that stuff you hated in high school... but exciting things you WANT to read about, with as little or as much literary merit as you personally feel up for. What now?

LESSON #3 - Obsess.

You are now aware that in addition to Kirk being the captain, that Spock was the First Officer, "Bones" McCoy was the chief medical officer, and Uhura was the communications officer. Memorizing all that alone has put you ahead of the average person who by and large ignores Star Trek unless J.J. Abrams is making a movie about it. Now you can dig deeper, on the internet and in stories, about not just things within the world, but outside of it.

For example, within the world of Star Trek, Spock is actually only half-human, and had to work harder to suppress his less logical, more emotional, human half.

Outside the world of Star Trek, its creator Gene Roddenberry struggled with how to have an alien (Spock) as a lead on his show, but still have human viewers relate to him. So, he wrote to noted sci-fi author Isaac Asimov, who advised him, "Make them (Kirk and Spock) the best of friends. That way whenever you think of one, you'll think of the other."

Now, maybe Star Trek isn't your thing. But above is an example of the different types of bullshit (technical term) you can seek out on your own. And both have their uses:

In example #1, only the information there was explicitly stated on the show, and repeated again in the recent movie. What is NOT specifically stated, but we can GLEAN from this information, is that Spock is atypical of most Vulcans, and therefore not the perfect example of what one would be like.

In example #2... well, there's nothing to glean there. But if you find that sort of random factoid interesting, YOU ARE WELL ON YOUR WAY TO BECOMING A GEEK. (also, knowing who Isaac Asimov is, would help).

LESSON #4 - Own a conversation piece.

Adults I know own Star Wars memorabilia and display it proudly. But if you choose to obsess over cars, have a specific make and model and modification of a car, in art form, on your wall. Let people know you like that sort of thing. Same with fashion. If sports is what you choose to geek out over, have World Series logo art on your wall. If design, hang something you've done, or else something done by someone you admire. Perhaps both-- my little brother is a graphic designer but by no means a geek. He has his own art sporadically placed in his home, but he has no artists he admires or has an opinion about. Not a geek. If YOU want to be a geek, you must find some piece of this subject matter and display it proudly, making it known without shoving it down each others throats.

It is very similar, in that regard, to religion. Nature has, as of yet, not popularized the term "Bible Geek."

Though if you have religion and keep it to yourself, you just may qualify. If you have religion and do NOT keep it to yourself, then you're a nerd, and nobody likes nerds.

LESSON #5 - Find like-minded individuals.

I don't read a plethora of comics, but I'm vaguely aware of a few superheroes who have not yet had Hollywood movies made about them (yes, there are many). My favorite may very, and in fact who is writing that character weighs heavily upon it, but even when I meet someone who likes a character I would never follow... we have common ground. Because these things take place in the same universe.

Ford and Chevy are both cars, and enthusiasts have common ground.

Macs and iPhones are both Apple products, so the disciples of Steve Jobs have common ground.

Etc. Even if you've followed the first four steps and truly feel you've learned EVERYthing there is to know about (x), there is always someone who knows more. Or, alternatively, they read the same thing you did and interpreted it differently. The willingness to listen and consider new ideas is what differentiates the geek from the nerd, after all, as geeks never stop learning. Nerds are incapable of learning, only memorizing.

Car conventions, comic conventions, fashion conventions (aka "Shows") are pretty damn diverse. There will be shit there you didn't even WANT to know. Yeah, they're pretty broad. It gives you options. But even if you don't pick anything up... you may just get to impart.

Which brings us to our final lesson,

LESSON #6 - Have Strong Opinions

I'm a film geek, and the biggest problem I run into is someone who doesn't just hate or love a movie, but just is "Eh" on the whole thing. "Oh, I saw the movie. It was alright." WELL THEN WHY DID YOU SEE IT? The studio gets your ten bucks whether you'd give the movie five stars or three, so why waste your time seeing three-star movies? If you liked individual bits about it, what were those bits? If you liked the visuals, see more movies from that director. If you liked the lighting and shot composition, see more movies with that cinematographer. If you liked the actors and wanted to see them naked, buy a subscription to Us Weekly and/or the internet, and don't go see more movies (seriously. I've saved like $100 by NOT seeing movies with Lindsay Lohan in them).

Even outside of film: If you love your Chevy but hate Ford, know WHY you hate Ford. If you love your PC but hate Macs, know WHY you hate Macs, not just, "I've always used a PC." Someone is eventually going to find out you're a geek, and ask questions. You better have answers ready. And even if no one ever asks you, it's important that YOU know, otherwise you've only selected your geek-subject arbitrarily. And that just makes you a high school student doing a book report.

Overall, love it. Quantify it. Look at it from all sides, and whatever you do, do NOT... under ANY circumstances... use it as a substitute for sex. That way lies nerd-hood, or worse yet, dweeb-dom.

Unless of course you're choosing to be a Sex Geek, in which case... well. Probably nobody wants Stephen King to read the novel they're writing. I'm just sayin'.

IN SUMMATION:

Lesson #1 - Find a story, unverse, idea, or concept that excites you creatively
Lesson #2 - Read up on said subject. Know more than the average bear and/or Joe.
Lesson #3 - Obsess over it until the average bear and/or Joe can no longer understand what the fuck you're talking about.
Lesson #4 - Have a conversation piece. You may never use it, but in theory if your obsession makes you happy, so too shall this.
Lesson #5 - Find like-minded individuals, such as at a convention or other social gathering. Discuss.
Lesson #6 - Have strong opinions on this subject. You have learned about it to interpret, not to memorize.

This concludes this publication of "How to Be a Geek (in Six Easy Lessons)."

As you move forward in your life, do remember that there isn't anything wrong with being a geek, as while knowledge IS what separates us from the apes, it was Einstein who said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Of course, Einstein had plenty of both.

In the end, though, people with more things in their brain have much to talk about and ideas to exchange, while people with not much knowledge and/or imagination can only really repeat things they've memorized, like what they had for breakfast this morning and that funny kitten they saw on YouTube this morning.

Good luck, and Happy Geeking.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go check out this one kitten on YouTube, I hear it does this hilarious thing.

XOXO