Four Nerds

Okay, I'm way too tired to get into it now, but Batman Begins is an incredible movie. It was everything I've wanted in a Batman movie, short of an adaptation of Batman: Year One. Anyway, Family Guy's on. Gotta go...

Aqua Nerds

Why the new look?

I left this AMA seminar with two thoughts. Wow, I'm doing no where near enough for the Four Nerds blog, and make nice with Blogs because they are going to take over the world.

I never realized just how many people have taken to this form of voyeuristic psychotherapy. They call blogs online journals or diaries when in fact they are the complete antithesis of a diary. Diaries are secret tomes, the contents of which are known only to the pages, the author, and occasionally a pain in the ass sibling. Blogs however are open to everyone.

Anyway, I wanted to cut my teeth on stlysheet "coding" so I paid homage to "Lucky" The Leprechaun. If we don't like the green I'm open to suggestions. Just be gentle, this was my first time.

OH! Check out the two Vlogs (shakes head, ya I know, I'm also ashamed that's a term) on this page. This lady at my mom's blog is the blogging equivelant of David Letterman's Mom. She presented at the seminar.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rent
I'm combining this post with my my House Keeping one because as is the case with circles of men, theater rarely gets prolonged air time. I'm not sure how I feel about the movie version of Rent.

I saw the production on Broadway about two months before 9/11. I remember because I commented to my wife that we should go to the top of the towers if we had time since she had never been before. Sadly, we didn't have time.

Anyway, so I saw the production, but not with the original cast. It was amazing, and the way the show is presented is almost like a dream. Fragmented bits of one year in these people's lives. And there lies my main concern.

Did they write dialogue for the film or is it going to be sans libretto (sp?) like the stage production? The stage production functions virtually without a set. How will people singing, dancing and cavorting across real NYC back drops play out?

Believe me, I want it to work. Idina Menzel, who starred in the Original production of Rent is one of my favorite singers. I had the privelage of seeing her in Wicked last year. Best show I ever saw. Also, anytime a musical succeeds on film it sparks a revival in theater for a short time.

Dweebs, Spazoids, and Geeks! Lend me your ears!

I've been reading a lot of comments on the web about the upcoming War of the Worlds movie. Everyone seems to come out of the woodwork in order to profess how much this will suck, how much it will rock, or that the director should be hanged for not being faithful to the original source material. This seems to happen every time there's a new Sci Fi flick out. Nobody gets passionate about movies quite like a Sci Fi geek.

Let's set aside the idiocy of saying a movie sucks before it's even been released and go straight to the heart of the subject. Because this is based on a novel, people have naturally been bitching about the fact that it's not faithful to the original. The prevailing sentiment amongst my fellow dweebs is that Spielberg is an abomination because he A) didn't set it in 1898, and B) did not set it in England.

It's comments this stupid that make me ashamed of being a geek.

First of all, it doesn't matter where they stage it. It could be England, France, Iowa, or Outer Mongolia. The Martians invade the whole planet, not just England. That's why H.G. Wells called it War of the Worlds.

Wells put it in England mainly because he was English. I think he probably had a lot of fun trashing the parts of England that he didn't like. Also, in Wells' time, England was the most powerful nation on Earth. The point of the story was that even the mightiest on nations could not stand up to the Martians.

Now, we have a new War of the Worlds. It's 2005 and the most powerful nation is the US. The director of the film is an American, as is the star. So, where do you suppose their gonna set it? I'm thinking East Timor.

Secondly, watching Martians trash a Victorian Era military isn't that impressive, considering the modern military could do the job just as easily. "Ooh, those guys on horses are no match for that Martian Walker. Ooh, the thrills!" Give me a break. Who the hell wants to see the Martians do what the First Armored Division could do just as easily?

Guess what, my little dweeboids. There is never going to be an adaptation of anything that will make you happy. It's never gonna happen, so suck it up and shut the fuck up. Honestly, you'll bitch about anything. If you want your perfect War of the Worlds, I have good news. It's in public domain, so anyone can make a movie based on it. So go make your own damn movie.

Not sure when the firewall started shooting roids', but its beefy new protection will no longer allow posting. Browsing is more than acceptable, but posting is a sin beyond salvation.

I'm sure there's a way around it, but I'm far too lazy.

I'm also a little blogged out. This is where I'll be Thursday and Friday for work: http://marketingpower.blogs.com/american_marketing_associ/2005/05/the_ama_hottopi_1.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Times of uncertainty. All time is uncertain, except for those rare prestidigitators who claim to see into the waves of the 4th dimension.

**RANT**Speaking of, I know this goes off topic but, where were the FUCKING PSYCHICS ON 9/11? If they say they didn't know that it wasn't going to happen they are charlatans, if they did know they, are cold callous shells of human beings. Which is it psychics? Are you frauds or baby killers? Fess up'**/RANT**

9/11 did change the world and I guess you could say it made times uncertain. That's certainly not inaccurate. A bit of a melodramatic way to simply mark the passage of time, but you gotta do what you need to do to fill the seats in entertainment.

Maybe that's the fundamental problem. I just said entertainment when I wanted to refer to news. For the sake of sensationalism, news is now no more than a sound bite. Instead of telling me the whole story, the media just collapses it into "times of uncertainty". Don't blame the news, blame the efficiency we keep striving for as a species.

I agree though the news sucks and the fear mongering performed by the media is deplorable.
--------------------------------------
I have left EQII. I'm not sure if I am cut out for the MMORPG environment. I loved the original EQ. Fogel will attest to the fact I widdled away many hours as a digital wizard.

I just couldn't get into EQ2 like I did the original. Every time I logged in felt like a chore. Like I had to log on becasue I was paying for it.

So what changed? Well the game it self. The original forced you to group. When you got neyond level 20. It was group or hunt the same shit over and over again each level. The content for soloing was sparse. This forced a lot of poeple to give up on the game becasue they couldn't find groups. So for EQ2 they put in a bunch of solo adventures, and therein lies the rub. As a solo game EQ is only average at best. The quests are overly repetitive and not incredibly original. For the MMO aspect it is still king, but as an RPG it's a resounding ehhhh. I will be ahappy man when the new Morrowind comes out.

--------------------------------

Fogel are you in training or dead??

And an eiree silence fell over the blog...




Where is everyone?

I have been feeling the need to rant lately, and I think the time has come. It's been brewing in me for some time.

I was working on a project at the office today (for those of you who don't know me, I work for a video production company) and I was reviewing a video when something caught my attention. The subject said "We, of course, live in very uncertain times..."

I almost lost it. When, exactly, were times certain? When was it that everything was hunky-dory? Was there an era in which the world just chilled out?

This is a phrase that seems to pop up every so often, ever since September 11th. It really pisses me off. Yes, the world changed on September 11. There is no denying that. Yes, it was not only a pivotal day in our nation's history, but one of our most terrible tragedies. I do not want anyone to think for a second that I am belittling that event.

What gets to me is that phrase, uncertain times. The entire history of the world is one big, long uncertain time. I think some people harken back to the good ol' days when they were kids and think about when times were simpler, and the world was more innocent.

Bullshit. Times were simpler back then because A) You were a kid, and B) your parents made it seem that way. To say that times were simpler back then is a disservice to those who made it seem that way for us.

There were no simpler times. There never has been. Just different times. Sure, there's pockets of time when things seem okay. For most of us in the US, the 1990s were pretty good. The US was more prosperous than ever. But was it a simpler time? Ask anyone in Rwanda or Yugoslavia.

I think the issue here is a question of how you are judging a film. What kind of eye are you looking at the film; a critic's eye or a movie watcher's eye. Most people go to a movie with one thing in mind: Will this be worth the $10 I just shelled out (not to mention the $42 I spent at the snack bar)? If it's a comedy, will I laugh? Will I be scared at a horror movie? In other words, will I have a good time at the theater?

If it's an action movie, then people want to see explosions, car chases, gunfights, kung fu fighting and that sort of a thing. If it's got that, then most people will be happy. If the acting is passable, the actors are at least tolerable, the story is believable (or at the very least, you can suspend your disbelief), the script is somewhat interesting and you can follow what's going on, then most people will enjoy the flick.

Now I know what a lot of you may think: "Captain Spaulding thinks that the American people are idiots and just want lowest-common-denominator entertainment. " That's not the case. While I firmly believe that there is never a shortage of stupid people, I do not think that Americans have a monopoly. No, in this case, I think it's all a question of why people go to the movies. Most people, I think, go to the movies as a form of escape. It allows them to turn off their lives for a couple of hours and be immersed in a different world.

On the other side of the coin, there are those who judge a film by more than just "was it fun." These are the people who leave a film with thought of "well, the acting was very good, and the concept was interesting, but the direction was lacking. There was no sense of flow to the story." This is a small minority in the film going community. Most people don't leave a theater thinking about the editing or pondering the sound design.

There is a third category of film watcher. That person is the cult member, otherwise known as the fanboy. These are people who have much more invested in a film than it's artistic merits or it's entertainment value. Rather, these are folks who are hyper critical of films, particularly Sci Fi and fantasy films. They will analyze every exacting detail of the film in painstaking detail. Often, they have a very clear mental picture of how the film should be long before the film comes out. If it doesn't pan out the way they were hoping, then the film sucks, despite whatever artistic or entertainment merits it has. In the case of sequels (or prequels), the film will always be judged by that which came before.

I think a lot of Star Wars fans fall into this category. It was their favorite movie as a kid. They love the story, the characters, and the whole universe. They play the video games, read the books, and buy the toys. They show up to the theater in costume with plastic lightsabers. It's their mythology. In the days when people my age were called "Generation X," the elder generations thought that we were slackers with no ambition. They felt that part of the reason was that we had no heroes growing up like they did. Bullshit. Our heroes were Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. And unlike some of our parents' real life heroes like Babe Ruth, our heroes were flawless.

Anyway, I think the problem is that we are looking at Revenge of the Sith from two different perspectives. I don't think Cheese needs to rethink his grade, and I don't think he's too easy on movies. We're talking about a subjective measurement here. I think saying that someone's opinion is an insult to great films is ridiculous. People love Forest Gump. Love it. I think it's a piece of crap. Do I think that all the raving reviews and the Oscars and the millions of fans somehow diminishes masterpieces like Casablanca? No.

There's some sort of need in our society today to rank everything. What is the best movie of the year, what are the top ten guitarists of all time? The problem is that these are purely subjective critiques. There's no empirical scale for the quality of a movie. There never has been and never will be. You can't quantify personal taste.

I don't buy that statement that an A movie will be remembered as an achievment in film 50 years from now. When Citizen Kane came out in 1941, it bombed and the critics panned it. Granted, most of those critics were under the employ of William Randolph Hearst, but most people were turned off by Welles' radical approach to filmmaking. People just didn't like it. 64 years later, Citizen Kane is conisdered by many to be the greatest american film ever made. I think it's unwise to make bold statements about how history will judge something.

Anyway, for me, I give Revenge of the Sith the following grades:

Entertainment Scale: B+. Very Entertaining. Found some parts unbelievable and annoying, but full of adventure and excitement. Well worth the ten bucks.

Artistic Scale: B-. Visual concept was excellent. The script was lacking in several key areas, including Anakin's turn to evil. The acting from the leads (Anakin and Padme) was sub-par and wooden, and was carried by the supporting cast, namely Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid, who were excellent. Visual effects, sound design and musical score were excellent as always.

Fanboy Scale: C-. While this film was leagues better than the last two films, it still pales in comparison to the original trilogy. George Lucas still doesn't get it, but given what has come before, I am satisfied with this completion to the series.

I spent htis week wondering where has my drive to create gone?

Personally I want to blame corporate America. Through endless rounds of minimal value-add (value-add! See, I have been labotomized by THE MAN) edits, I realize I've lost my balls when it comes to the written word.

I've finally learned the pattern for writing for a corporation. Be it a product, a service or a solution, verbiage is created once and then just repurposed through the life of the offering. If the offering (you know offering, like the virgins we used to give to Ra) has legs and lasts for a few years the message will be changed. But, then you just start the cycle of repurposing over again. Repurposing is not creating. Hopefully you have enough products going out to make repurposing enjoyable, but of you don't good luck holding on to sanity.

So, I've decided I'm going to create something. A super hero story. I'm saying fuck good, bad or indiffernet I want to create a continuing story.

No editors -- Just my own story.

I'm about half way through issue one of The Keepers

Check it out and let me know thoughts or suggestions:

http://thekeepersicomic.blogspot.com/

I finally had the opportunity to see the final installment as to what will surely be dubbed as the unholy trinity and...I loved it.

Now this love, like any other that is close to 30 years old comes with conditions and provisions. To say I loved the movie as its own entity would be misleading. As a movie standing on its own two legs it had flaws, most of which we've already touched on. There were times during some of the Padme and Anakin scenes I did find my mind wandering off to dinner, work, and the Father with his little bastard next to me ensuring that the kid understood that Anakin will be Darth Vader, meanwhile all the little crumb snatcher wants to see is Jar Jar Binks (glad I got that off my chest). So as a movie I give it a A- (Fogle will attest to the fact that I'm notoriously easy on movies).

As far as it's place in the grand scheme of Star Wars, I couldn't have asked for a better...uhmmm...ending. I spent the last half of the film on the edge of my seat. Capt. you were dead on when you mentioned that the change seemed too fast for Anakin, but I liked the fact that the dark Lork of a 1000 galaxies becomes that way for a woman. As someone who has done one stupid action after another in his life all for the sake of "love", I could relate. Were this a long time ago in a galaxy far far far away I would have ended up a cybernetic schmuck for my High School girlfriend instead of just transferring colleges.

When Luke's adoptive parents are holding him, looking out at the same sunset that he will be looking on in twenty years, I became a little welled up. What saved me from all out bawling? 10 minutes prior during Padme's funeral when they shot to Jar Jar Binks and my Dad leaned over to me and said "There, that's the goofy fuck I hate".

It was a fitting end to an epic story. I'm truly excited to sit and watch all six in succession.