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.
Showing posts with label geek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geek. Show all posts
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, February 21, 2011
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.
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
--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
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
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tron Lunacy
A few weeks back I wrote an entire blog about how the new "Tron" was being insanely overhyped and later trailers looked to be a mess.... also, the entire crew was green except for The Dude (green as in "no experience," not "earth safe," though I suppose the latter could be true, too).
NOT GEEK
Clu looked like ass. The rest was pretty cool, though. Would watch again. Olivia Wilde is more than just a pretty face and out-acted everyone in the movie who wasn't Jeff Bridges (nobody out-acts Jeff Bridges).
GEEK
The writers came from "Lost," the television equivalent of a handjob from a famous person. Sure, everyone talked about that show and it garnered a huge amount of viewers, but at the end of the day, it was still a handjob. Yep, it had an ending, but only an idiot would think it was going to be a satisfying one.
That said, the writers dropped in some pretty clever things. Dillinger Jr (aka Peter Warner aka Sark)'s kid shows up in the opening minutes, played by Cillian Murphy. Bringing back Bruce Boxleitner (who is still a competent actor and was in Babylon 5, even if I didn't watch that, either). ... Wait. On second thought, those were largely casting decisions. The dialogue was nothing special or memorable, except for everything that Flynn says, and I'm pretty sure that was just Jeff Bridges' real personality. Knock on the sky and listen to the sound? Seriously? Imagine if someone said that in the 1982 original movie. Ronald Reagan's head would have exploded.
Not that there's anything wrong with Ronald Reagan's head exploding. I can say that now, on account of he's dead.
Alright, fuck the writers: cinematography, production design, costumes, all great. Acting all great, except for Garrett Hedlund (Sam Flynn) who was adequate. The 3-D neither added nor subtracted from the viewing experience. It'll be the last 3-D movie I ever see, if given the choice.
The director is Joseph Kosinski, which was my primary fear going into the movie, because he'd never directed anything but commercials. This is often a bad sign. Not that directors with his lack of experience always fail, it's just that they fail more often. This guy? Pulled his shit together. To wit:
David Fincher. Started in commercials/music videos. Now has a viable movie career. Kosinski isn't as good as this guy, but it's an example of what to shoot for (even if Fincher is merely a visual stylist. Wilde's performance in T:L shows Kosinski CAN work with actors... Fincher is hit or miss on this).
Gore Verbinski. Started in commercials/music videos, directed 3 movies before he did the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" for Disney. He knocked it out of the park and made 1.21 kajillion billon dollars. He's doing pretty okay.
Rob Minkoff. Directed "The Lion King," which was excellent, then moved to live-action with Stuart Little (pretty okay) and The Haunted Mansion, which was a steaming pile of shit. Pirates: 3 sequels. Mansion: Zero sequels. Nicely done, Rob.
My point is, even in interviews Kosinski talked about having a shorter amount of time than he'd like to shoot the movie, storyboarded things that never got to be shot, working on the script... he may not be a writer, but he took the resources available to him and made a movie that was both entertaining, and true to the original. He done good. And, granted, the grosses may be artificially inflated because of increased 3-D ticket prices, but the movie's still making a decent amount of money. His next announced project? A remake of "The Black Hole." I'm in if you are.
NOT GEEK: A-
GEEK: A
I don't know who's running Disney these days, but this is the smartest move they've made in forever. Of course, they hired a dance choreographer to direct the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, so..... we'll see.
NOT GEEK
Clu looked like ass. The rest was pretty cool, though. Would watch again. Olivia Wilde is more than just a pretty face and out-acted everyone in the movie who wasn't Jeff Bridges (nobody out-acts Jeff Bridges).
GEEK
The writers came from "Lost," the television equivalent of a handjob from a famous person. Sure, everyone talked about that show and it garnered a huge amount of viewers, but at the end of the day, it was still a handjob. Yep, it had an ending, but only an idiot would think it was going to be a satisfying one.
That said, the writers dropped in some pretty clever things. Dillinger Jr (aka Peter Warner aka Sark)'s kid shows up in the opening minutes, played by Cillian Murphy. Bringing back Bruce Boxleitner (who is still a competent actor and was in Babylon 5, even if I didn't watch that, either). ... Wait. On second thought, those were largely casting decisions. The dialogue was nothing special or memorable, except for everything that Flynn says, and I'm pretty sure that was just Jeff Bridges' real personality. Knock on the sky and listen to the sound? Seriously? Imagine if someone said that in the 1982 original movie. Ronald Reagan's head would have exploded.
Not that there's anything wrong with Ronald Reagan's head exploding. I can say that now, on account of he's dead.
Alright, fuck the writers: cinematography, production design, costumes, all great. Acting all great, except for Garrett Hedlund (Sam Flynn) who was adequate. The 3-D neither added nor subtracted from the viewing experience. It'll be the last 3-D movie I ever see, if given the choice.
The director is Joseph Kosinski, which was my primary fear going into the movie, because he'd never directed anything but commercials. This is often a bad sign. Not that directors with his lack of experience always fail, it's just that they fail more often. This guy? Pulled his shit together. To wit:
David Fincher. Started in commercials/music videos. Now has a viable movie career. Kosinski isn't as good as this guy, but it's an example of what to shoot for (even if Fincher is merely a visual stylist. Wilde's performance in T:L shows Kosinski CAN work with actors... Fincher is hit or miss on this).
Gore Verbinski. Started in commercials/music videos, directed 3 movies before he did the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" for Disney. He knocked it out of the park and made 1.21 kajillion billon dollars. He's doing pretty okay.
Rob Minkoff. Directed "The Lion King," which was excellent, then moved to live-action with Stuart Little (pretty okay) and The Haunted Mansion, which was a steaming pile of shit. Pirates: 3 sequels. Mansion: Zero sequels. Nicely done, Rob.
My point is, even in interviews Kosinski talked about having a shorter amount of time than he'd like to shoot the movie, storyboarded things that never got to be shot, working on the script... he may not be a writer, but he took the resources available to him and made a movie that was both entertaining, and true to the original. He done good. And, granted, the grosses may be artificially inflated because of increased 3-D ticket prices, but the movie's still making a decent amount of money. His next announced project? A remake of "The Black Hole." I'm in if you are.
NOT GEEK: A-
GEEK: A
I don't know who's running Disney these days, but this is the smartest move they've made in forever. Of course, they hired a dance choreographer to direct the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, so..... we'll see.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Manliness vs. Geekiness (or, Scott Pilgrim is not Expendable)
NOT GEEK
Some fan (we assume) made a new trailer for "The Expendables," in which many explosions and guns are highlighted, culminating with the statement, "If this movie doesn't beat 'Eat Pray Love' at the box office the weekend of August 13th, we as a nation are doomed."
Yes.
Never mind that "Eat Pray Love" was directed by Ryan Murphy, director of the cult hit "Running with Scissors," and more notably creator of the TV series "Glee." Never mind that it stars Julia Roberts, one of the few lasting female American movie starts of the last 30 years. NEVER MIND THAT THE POSTER HAS HER QUIRKILY EATING ICE CREAM ON A BENCH.
And never mind that "quirkily" is probably not a word.
Romantic comedies are cute and what-not, and guys will occasionally see them on the presumption it will get them laid (at least that is what they will say to other guys; I have certainly never ever watched a Meryl Streep movie willingly *cough*) ... BUT THIS IS THE DAMN EXPENDABLES.
The greatest action heroes of the 1980's, nay, of an entire generation (save for Chuck Norris) unite to blow up every damn thing in their way. Machismo will be wielded like a double-edged sword, asses will be kicked, set pieces will detonate in a manner rarely seen since Ronald Reagan was fucking up the White House. Stallone has been building back up his empire with "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo," and here he's got all his buddies to show the younger generation how it's done.
And also Jason Statham for no apparent reason. Good for him. Having appeared in a Uwe Boll movie is a bigger stain on his career than any ten Dolph Lundgren movies.
Go for the nostalgia. Stay for the possible homoeroticism. THE 1980'S ARE OVER. LONG LIVE THE 1980's.
GEEK
Look.
It's not that I'm not grateful for this conflagration of testosterone, because I enjoy seeing someone get punched in the face as much as the next XY-type person. I'm a fan of things exploding, but where the Rampant Geekness comes into it is, I want a story to go with it. Not simply a chain-link fence of fight scene after car chase after fight scene, in much the same way porn compilations get boring after too long. If there's not a story linking it together, who gives a fuck?
Stallone won an Oscar in 1976 for writing "Rocky," but 1976 was a long time ago. He's written a number of movies since then, but none had the same reception... and, in fact, despite his recent career Renaissance with "Rocky Balboa" (pretty good) and "Rambo" (fucking awesome), he's still only directed eight movies in his entire life.
Since 1978.
Including "The Expendables."
Paradise Alley, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV, Rocky Balboa, Rambo, The Expendables.
That's it. That's the sum-total of his directorial experience.
No living human being has ever actually seen Paradise Alley, and having taken a moment to google it, I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to add it to my Netflix queue. I did recently re-watch the Rocky movies just before "Balboa" came out, and time has been kind to some, but not all.
Rocky III and Rocky IV are exceptionally manly to the point of bordering on parody, and hell, in IV, Rocky single-handedly brings down communism. Good for him. Even Schwarzenegger couldn't pull that one off.
.... And yet, despite its awesomeness, he didn't direct a movie at all between 1985 and 2006. That's 21 years. George Lucas went 20 years between directing "Star Wars" and "The Phantom Menace" .... yes, TPM came out in 1999, but this is the 'geek' section and TPM began production in 1997. Anyway. My point being:
Twenty years is a long time. Rocky Balboa was not without its flaws, and Rambo, while awesome, was actually rather short, and within weeks Stallone talked publicly about yet another Rambo sequel, in which the boy fought aliens or some fucking thing. You know.... ruining it. Bad Stallone. Bad, naughty Stallone.
Will "The Expendables" be awesome? Well, it's not even out yet, but it's already leaning toward self-parody... the 1980's hair-metal song over the trailer is actually NOT a point in its favor, because people Stallone's age have grown out of that, and people born in the 1980's don't give a fuck. You can either re-invent it, or live in the past; you can't do both.
The cast is great, and I'm sure all their checks cleared. But... what if, say, not a single famous person appeared in the movie? Or what if it were just Stallone and a bunch of no-names? (like in, say, Rambo?). Would the movie still be good? Would the dialogue still be memorable, the action sequences original?
I have no fucking idea. And when I see it Saturday afternoon (like a damn old person), those will be the things I (and you) will be judging it on, casting be damned. Because once you get over the shock of seeing Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Stallone and in the same scene together, there better be some important shit going on, or else all you're left with is.... well, your two favorite porn stars sitting on a couch together and talking about People Magazine. Entertaining for a minute, but then you're frustrated.
"Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" opens August 13th in America, at a theater near you. I'm getting my geek on, because despite Edgar Wright having directed less than 8 movies in his life, all of them have happened since 2004, and they've all been worth watching multiple times, sharing with friends, and quoting along with joyously.
Not a single "Paradise Alley" in the bunch.
And, seriously. "Rocky II" was just plain bad. Like really, really awful.
It's the 21st century now, bitches.
Some fan (we assume) made a new trailer for "The Expendables," in which many explosions and guns are highlighted, culminating with the statement, "If this movie doesn't beat 'Eat Pray Love' at the box office the weekend of August 13th, we as a nation are doomed."
Yes.
Never mind that "Eat Pray Love" was directed by Ryan Murphy, director of the cult hit "Running with Scissors," and more notably creator of the TV series "Glee." Never mind that it stars Julia Roberts, one of the few lasting female American movie starts of the last 30 years. NEVER MIND THAT THE POSTER HAS HER QUIRKILY EATING ICE CREAM ON A BENCH.
And never mind that "quirkily" is probably not a word.
Romantic comedies are cute and what-not, and guys will occasionally see them on the presumption it will get them laid (at least that is what they will say to other guys; I have certainly never ever watched a Meryl Streep movie willingly *cough*) ... BUT THIS IS THE DAMN EXPENDABLES.
The greatest action heroes of the 1980's, nay, of an entire generation (save for Chuck Norris) unite to blow up every damn thing in their way. Machismo will be wielded like a double-edged sword, asses will be kicked, set pieces will detonate in a manner rarely seen since Ronald Reagan was fucking up the White House. Stallone has been building back up his empire with "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo," and here he's got all his buddies to show the younger generation how it's done.
And also Jason Statham for no apparent reason. Good for him. Having appeared in a Uwe Boll movie is a bigger stain on his career than any ten Dolph Lundgren movies.
Go for the nostalgia. Stay for the possible homoeroticism. THE 1980'S ARE OVER. LONG LIVE THE 1980's.
GEEK
Look.
It's not that I'm not grateful for this conflagration of testosterone, because I enjoy seeing someone get punched in the face as much as the next XY-type person. I'm a fan of things exploding, but where the Rampant Geekness comes into it is, I want a story to go with it. Not simply a chain-link fence of fight scene after car chase after fight scene, in much the same way porn compilations get boring after too long. If there's not a story linking it together, who gives a fuck?
Stallone won an Oscar in 1976 for writing "Rocky," but 1976 was a long time ago. He's written a number of movies since then, but none had the same reception... and, in fact, despite his recent career Renaissance with "Rocky Balboa" (pretty good) and "Rambo" (fucking awesome), he's still only directed eight movies in his entire life.
Since 1978.
Including "The Expendables."
Paradise Alley, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV, Rocky Balboa, Rambo, The Expendables.
That's it. That's the sum-total of his directorial experience.
No living human being has ever actually seen Paradise Alley, and having taken a moment to google it, I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to add it to my Netflix queue. I did recently re-watch the Rocky movies just before "Balboa" came out, and time has been kind to some, but not all.
Rocky III and Rocky IV are exceptionally manly to the point of bordering on parody, and hell, in IV, Rocky single-handedly brings down communism. Good for him. Even Schwarzenegger couldn't pull that one off.
.... And yet, despite its awesomeness, he didn't direct a movie at all between 1985 and 2006. That's 21 years. George Lucas went 20 years between directing "Star Wars" and "The Phantom Menace" .... yes, TPM came out in 1999, but this is the 'geek' section and TPM began production in 1997. Anyway. My point being:
Twenty years is a long time. Rocky Balboa was not without its flaws, and Rambo, while awesome, was actually rather short, and within weeks Stallone talked publicly about yet another Rambo sequel, in which the boy fought aliens or some fucking thing. You know.... ruining it. Bad Stallone. Bad, naughty Stallone.
Will "The Expendables" be awesome? Well, it's not even out yet, but it's already leaning toward self-parody... the 1980's hair-metal song over the trailer is actually NOT a point in its favor, because people Stallone's age have grown out of that, and people born in the 1980's don't give a fuck. You can either re-invent it, or live in the past; you can't do both.
The cast is great, and I'm sure all their checks cleared. But... what if, say, not a single famous person appeared in the movie? Or what if it were just Stallone and a bunch of no-names? (like in, say, Rambo?). Would the movie still be good? Would the dialogue still be memorable, the action sequences original?
I have no fucking idea. And when I see it Saturday afternoon (like a damn old person), those will be the things I (and you) will be judging it on, casting be damned. Because once you get over the shock of seeing Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Stallone and in the same scene together, there better be some important shit going on, or else all you're left with is.... well, your two favorite porn stars sitting on a couch together and talking about People Magazine. Entertaining for a minute, but then you're frustrated.
"Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" opens August 13th in America, at a theater near you. I'm getting my geek on, because despite Edgar Wright having directed less than 8 movies in his life, all of them have happened since 2004, and they've all been worth watching multiple times, sharing with friends, and quoting along with joyously.
Not a single "Paradise Alley" in the bunch.
And, seriously. "Rocky II" was just plain bad. Like really, really awful.
It's the 21st century now, bitches.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Brevity is a Virtue
GEEK
CRAP. No good movies open until August 13th! NOOOOOOO! "Scott Pilgrim" FTW!!!
NOT GEEK
CRAP. No good movies open until August 13th! NOOOOOOO! "Expendables" FTW!!!
CRAP. No good movies open until August 13th! NOOOOOOO! "Scott Pilgrim" FTW!!!
NOT GEEK
CRAP. No good movies open until August 13th! NOOOOOOO! "Expendables" FTW!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)