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.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
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.
(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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)