Friday, 30 November 2012
Thursday, 29 November 2012
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
UPDATED: Gunn has responded, clarified and effectively apologized on his Facebook page.
ORIGINAL POST: I'm the first one to say/admit that "it was just a joke!" is more often than not a cheap dodge to get out of being called on saying something racist/sexist/etc; but the thing is... yes, there are times when I think that people go a little overboard being offended by dark/sleazy/sophmoric humor, often involving things being taken out of context - particularly in cases where the joke is at least in-part supposed to be on the teller (re: "look at what a pathetic sleaze I am for thinking these things.")
For my money, that seems to be what's happening to writer/director James Gunn right now. (NSFW)
The situation is that a blog post relating to a "50 superheroes you'd like to have sex with" poll he did a year ago has gone viral now (presumably because he's a known quantity now as writer of "Lollipop Chainsaw" and prospective director of "Guardians of The Galaxy") and is currently getting him flamed from all corners of the Internet. Of particular issue, highlighted by The Mary Sue (who are good people, for the record) is an entry about Batwoman, which reads as follows:
"This lesbian character was voted for almost exclusively by men. I don’t know exactly what that means. But I’m hoping for a Marvel-DC crossover so that Tony Stark can “turn” her. She could also have sex with Nightwing and probably still be technically considered a lesbian."
Okay. Dark, yes. And the "turn" thing is no laughing matter. But when you read the whole thing (google archive link, original has been taken down, probably to try and firewall this blowup before it loses him the "Guardians" gig - which would really suck) IMO it's pretty clear that this is meant, at least partially, as Gunn taking the piss out of the sexualization of comics in general and out of himself as well - the "homophobic" Nightwing reference, for example, is a callback to his earlier entry on a fangirl-servicey buttshot of the character: "Okay, uh, yeah, I can see where you would want some of that shit."
The commentary (particularly on the entries for male heroes) is pretty-much a note-for-note transcription of the kind of skeexy "what would it be like...?" fanboy conversations happening behind the counter of thousands of comic shops every day. I mean, here's the Kitty Pryde:
"@KittyPryde actually wrote me on Twitter after posting the nominees for heroes you most want to have sex with. I wrote her back, but neglected to mention that I wanted to anally do her. I won’t even mind if Lockheed is in the room, staring at me with a creepy look the whole time. Well, okay, I’ll mind a little. But it will be worth it."
See, to me, the combination of sophmoric fratboy fantasizing with minute fanboy details (is Lockheed even still around?) reads like pretty clear "ha ha but whoa do I have problems..." humor. This sort of thing isn't generally conveyed well in text (the whole thing is only really "passably" funny to me, honestly) but I can't look at the whole thing in the context of entries like X-23:
"Another debut, and a pretty good choice. Except, uh, isn’t she supposed to be fifteen years old? And after you fictionally fuck her fictional police are going to arrest you and put you in fictional jail for being a very real pedophile."
Or Elektra:
"Another new debut. If you’re turned on by characters whose costume always seems to be blowing in extremely harsh winds when everyone around her seems perfectly still, then Elektra is your woman. Maybe she’s like carrying one of those little mini-fans, only a mini-fan who will give you a really terrific, Ninja-trained blow job."
...and not conclude that the "point" here is less being "actually" creepy/sexist toward women/gays in general and more have an exaggerated larf at the expense of heavily-sexualized comic imagery.
The thing is, I very much support the cause of rooting of genuinely hateful people hiding behind "comedy"... in this case, I simply think they've got the wrong guy. Or maybe I'm totally off base, which is always possible. Maybe Gunn is a bad guy, a bigot, etc and it just somehow managed to never manifest in his numerous screenplays, films etc. up to this point. I honestly don't think that's the case, given the tonal context of the actual piece and the much larger context of the rest of his career... but I've been wrong before. The truth will out.
P.S. re: the "fans I do not want" thing - anyone who wants to jump into the comments and try and claim this topic for the "evil PC feminazis wanna silence every1!!!!!" bullshit be forewarned: I can ban people from this blog for abusive behavior and I won't hesitate to do so. My issue here is not that people don't have the right to be offended by the blog in question, they do. I simply think it's jumping the gun to tear down a filmmaker who has shown zero concrete evidence of deserving such otherwise - it's possible to have a grownup discussion about that, or at least it ought to be.
ORIGINAL POST: I'm the first one to say/admit that "it was just a joke!" is more often than not a cheap dodge to get out of being called on saying something racist/sexist/etc; but the thing is... yes, there are times when I think that people go a little overboard being offended by dark/sleazy/sophmoric humor, often involving things being taken out of context - particularly in cases where the joke is at least in-part supposed to be on the teller (re: "look at what a pathetic sleaze I am for thinking these things.")
For my money, that seems to be what's happening to writer/director James Gunn right now. (NSFW)
The situation is that a blog post relating to a "50 superheroes you'd like to have sex with" poll he did a year ago has gone viral now (presumably because he's a known quantity now as writer of "Lollipop Chainsaw" and prospective director of "Guardians of The Galaxy") and is currently getting him flamed from all corners of the Internet. Of particular issue, highlighted by The Mary Sue (who are good people, for the record) is an entry about Batwoman, which reads as follows:
"This lesbian character was voted for almost exclusively by men. I don’t know exactly what that means. But I’m hoping for a Marvel-DC crossover so that Tony Stark can “turn” her. She could also have sex with Nightwing and probably still be technically considered a lesbian."
Okay. Dark, yes. And the "turn" thing is no laughing matter. But when you read the whole thing (google archive link, original has been taken down, probably to try and firewall this blowup before it loses him the "Guardians" gig - which would really suck) IMO it's pretty clear that this is meant, at least partially, as Gunn taking the piss out of the sexualization of comics in general and out of himself as well - the "homophobic" Nightwing reference, for example, is a callback to his earlier entry on a fangirl-servicey buttshot of the character: "Okay, uh, yeah, I can see where you would want some of that shit."
The commentary (particularly on the entries for male heroes) is pretty-much a note-for-note transcription of the kind of skeexy "what would it be like...?" fanboy conversations happening behind the counter of thousands of comic shops every day. I mean, here's the Kitty Pryde:
"@KittyPryde actually wrote me on Twitter after posting the nominees for heroes you most want to have sex with. I wrote her back, but neglected to mention that I wanted to anally do her. I won’t even mind if Lockheed is in the room, staring at me with a creepy look the whole time. Well, okay, I’ll mind a little. But it will be worth it."
See, to me, the combination of sophmoric fratboy fantasizing with minute fanboy details (is Lockheed even still around?) reads like pretty clear "ha ha but whoa do I have problems..." humor. This sort of thing isn't generally conveyed well in text (the whole thing is only really "passably" funny to me, honestly) but I can't look at the whole thing in the context of entries like X-23:
"Another debut, and a pretty good choice. Except, uh, isn’t she supposed to be fifteen years old? And after you fictionally fuck her fictional police are going to arrest you and put you in fictional jail for being a very real pedophile."
Or Elektra:
"Another new debut. If you’re turned on by characters whose costume always seems to be blowing in extremely harsh winds when everyone around her seems perfectly still, then Elektra is your woman. Maybe she’s like carrying one of those little mini-fans, only a mini-fan who will give you a really terrific, Ninja-trained blow job."
...and not conclude that the "point" here is less being "actually" creepy/sexist toward women/gays in general and more have an exaggerated larf at the expense of heavily-sexualized comic imagery.
The thing is, I very much support the cause of rooting of genuinely hateful people hiding behind "comedy"... in this case, I simply think they've got the wrong guy. Or maybe I'm totally off base, which is always possible. Maybe Gunn is a bad guy, a bigot, etc and it just somehow managed to never manifest in his numerous screenplays, films etc. up to this point. I honestly don't think that's the case, given the tonal context of the actual piece and the much larger context of the rest of his career... but I've been wrong before. The truth will out.
P.S. re: the "fans I do not want" thing - anyone who wants to jump into the comments and try and claim this topic for the "evil PC feminazis wanna silence every1!!!!!" bullshit be forewarned: I can ban people from this blog for abusive behavior and I won't hesitate to do so. My issue here is not that people don't have the right to be offended by the blog in question, they do. I simply think it's jumping the gun to tear down a filmmaker who has shown zero concrete evidence of deserving such otherwise - it's possible to have a grownup discussion about that, or at least it ought to be.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Monday, 26 November 2012
Short version: HitFix's Drew McWeeny says that Warner Bros. is inching towards making a move that could kneecap their still-shaky "Justice League" project before it even gets off the ground. Long version? Read on...
I find myself the odd man out when it comes to the production of "The Man of Steel." The general thread that runs through a lot of the film-geek press regarding the production is that it's in constant peril of being "ruined" by the presence of Zack Snyder as director, and that we are to take comfort in the presence of producer/story-approver Christopher Nolan. But me? I'm in the opposite boat. Thus far, the sole reason my expectations are positive for the film (given the many continued demonstrations that Warner Bros. simply does not have a single fucking clue what to do with their own DC Universe properties) is Zack Snyder. I'm counting on him - not just to deliver an action movie that reminds the world that Superman is awesome, but to protect the film (and the Justice League/DCU films that are supposed to spin out of it) from Nolan's influence.
Don't get me wrong. I like Nolan. He's a good filmmaker, in full view a better and more interesting one overall than Snyder is. But everyone has their limits and place, and Nolan's governing aesthetic - businesslike, asexual, ultraliteralist - may have been good for two out of three Batman movies, but it'd be toxic for Superman and really just about any similar character other than Batman. For me, "Nolanesque" realism is the cinematic extension of the "grim n' gritty" motif that drove the genre (indeed, the entire comic-book industry) off a cliff in the 90s; and part of the reason I so celebrate the success of "The Avengers" is that it's undeniable success (the same year as the third Nolan Batman film failed to fully stick the landing, even!) might hopefully go a long way into purging the superhero-movie "scene" of the Nolan/Dark-Knight "vibe."
Again, there's at least 2 (2 1/2 if you want to be charitable) films worth of great art in question here, I don't deny that - I simply hope we do with "The Nolanverse" what we do with other great art: put it behind glass, stick it in a museum and admire it on the weekends while meanwhile, on the outside, things continue to evolve. Which is why I'm now struck with nothing short of dread to read this rumor from the typically very reliable McWeeny; which suggests that Warners is not only not mothballing the Nolanverse (which, by the way, is exactly what Nolan himself wanted them to do)... they might be gearing up to let it kill the "Justice League" movie in the crib...
According to McWeeny's sources, Warners wants Joseph Gordon Levitt to be Batman in "Justice League" and maybe turn up for a walk-on in "Man of Steel." - that is to say, they want "Justice League" to be tied-in to Nolan's Batman films, which concluded this summer with the heavy implication that Levitt's OfficerMary Sue John Blake would become the new Batman.
I... I just can't fathom the level of sheer wrongheadedness that would inform a decision like this. It's been long expected that WB would be borrowing the Marvel model of using "MOS" to plant the seeds of a larger DC Universe, but it seemed like a safe bet that they everyone involved understood that the Nolan Batman characters had no place in a larger, more comic-like world and that nobody wanted to see a "Justice League" movie whose Batman wasn't the "real" Batman.
That last part is especially key. Warner Bros? You have to know this: The pre-"Avengers" 'fanservice' stuff worked because each successive tease gave 'fanboys' further indication that things were not only lining up but lining up properly. The people you're thinking of playing these kind of continuity games (which, again, the Nolan Batman movies you'd be doing this with were designed to avoid) to try and excite are also people who are likely to write "Justice League" off before they see one scrap of film because of something like this.
Fans aren't just fans of the costumes and the names, they're fans of the characters - the "big idea" behind team-ups like this isn't just to see two guys wearing a Superman costume and a Batman costume hanging out, it's to see what happens when Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent, costumed or otherwise. I mean, not to nerd-out about it or anything... but part of the reason that the Superman/Batman thing is seen as such a big deal is that they represent opposing ideals of the same goal; the vigilante vs the do-gooder, aid vs control, protect-the-innocent vs punish-the-guilty, etc. Kal-El and Bruce Wayne have stuff to talk/argue about. Blake, on the other hand, as-presented in "Dark Knight Rises" has the same basic attitude and outlook Superman does - that's boring.
Now, it's entirely plausible that this is all being misunderstood. Maybe they want Levitt to play an entirely new Bruce Wayne Batman and this is just a jokey reference ("Heh! That guy was in a movie where they said he might be Batman!") and not a continuity nod. That'd be... dopey, but lightyear better than the alternative.
Warner Bros? Don't do this. Don't be stupid. You've got a bunch of good stuff to work with and a pretty solid template to steal from. You're working with characters and properties that have endured for decades for a reason - if you're going to show fealty, show fealty to them... not just to one adaptation that'll be well into the "oh yeah, that was pretty cool" memory-bin by the time you get this stuff together.
I find myself the odd man out when it comes to the production of "The Man of Steel." The general thread that runs through a lot of the film-geek press regarding the production is that it's in constant peril of being "ruined" by the presence of Zack Snyder as director, and that we are to take comfort in the presence of producer/story-approver Christopher Nolan. But me? I'm in the opposite boat. Thus far, the sole reason my expectations are positive for the film (given the many continued demonstrations that Warner Bros. simply does not have a single fucking clue what to do with their own DC Universe properties) is Zack Snyder. I'm counting on him - not just to deliver an action movie that reminds the world that Superman is awesome, but to protect the film (and the Justice League/DCU films that are supposed to spin out of it) from Nolan's influence.
Don't get me wrong. I like Nolan. He's a good filmmaker, in full view a better and more interesting one overall than Snyder is. But everyone has their limits and place, and Nolan's governing aesthetic - businesslike, asexual, ultraliteralist - may have been good for two out of three Batman movies, but it'd be toxic for Superman and really just about any similar character other than Batman. For me, "Nolanesque" realism is the cinematic extension of the "grim n' gritty" motif that drove the genre (indeed, the entire comic-book industry) off a cliff in the 90s; and part of the reason I so celebrate the success of "The Avengers" is that it's undeniable success (the same year as the third Nolan Batman film failed to fully stick the landing, even!) might hopefully go a long way into purging the superhero-movie "scene" of the Nolan/Dark-Knight "vibe."
Again, there's at least 2 (2 1/2 if you want to be charitable) films worth of great art in question here, I don't deny that - I simply hope we do with "The Nolanverse" what we do with other great art: put it behind glass, stick it in a museum and admire it on the weekends while meanwhile, on the outside, things continue to evolve. Which is why I'm now struck with nothing short of dread to read this rumor from the typically very reliable McWeeny; which suggests that Warners is not only not mothballing the Nolanverse (which, by the way, is exactly what Nolan himself wanted them to do)... they might be gearing up to let it kill the "Justice League" movie in the crib...
According to McWeeny's sources, Warners wants Joseph Gordon Levitt to be Batman in "Justice League" and maybe turn up for a walk-on in "Man of Steel." - that is to say, they want "Justice League" to be tied-in to Nolan's Batman films, which concluded this summer with the heavy implication that Levitt's Officer
I... I just can't fathom the level of sheer wrongheadedness that would inform a decision like this. It's been long expected that WB would be borrowing the Marvel model of using "MOS" to plant the seeds of a larger DC Universe, but it seemed like a safe bet that they everyone involved understood that the Nolan Batman characters had no place in a larger, more comic-like world and that nobody wanted to see a "Justice League" movie whose Batman wasn't the "real" Batman.
That last part is especially key. Warner Bros? You have to know this: The pre-"Avengers" 'fanservice' stuff worked because each successive tease gave 'fanboys' further indication that things were not only lining up but lining up properly. The people you're thinking of playing these kind of continuity games (which, again, the Nolan Batman movies you'd be doing this with were designed to avoid) to try and excite are also people who are likely to write "Justice League" off before they see one scrap of film because of something like this.
Fans aren't just fans of the costumes and the names, they're fans of the characters - the "big idea" behind team-ups like this isn't just to see two guys wearing a Superman costume and a Batman costume hanging out, it's to see what happens when Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent, costumed or otherwise. I mean, not to nerd-out about it or anything... but part of the reason that the Superman/Batman thing is seen as such a big deal is that they represent opposing ideals of the same goal; the vigilante vs the do-gooder, aid vs control, protect-the-innocent vs punish-the-guilty, etc. Kal-El and Bruce Wayne have stuff to talk/argue about. Blake, on the other hand, as-presented in "Dark Knight Rises" has the same basic attitude and outlook Superman does - that's boring.
Now, it's entirely plausible that this is all being misunderstood. Maybe they want Levitt to play an entirely new Bruce Wayne Batman and this is just a jokey reference ("Heh! That guy was in a movie where they said he might be Batman!") and not a continuity nod. That'd be... dopey, but lightyear better than the alternative.
Warner Bros? Don't do this. Don't be stupid. You've got a bunch of good stuff to work with and a pretty solid template to steal from. You're working with characters and properties that have endured for decades for a reason - if you're going to show fealty, show fealty to them... not just to one adaptation that'll be well into the "oh yeah, that was pretty cool" memory-bin by the time you get this stuff together.
Friday, 23 November 2012
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Well, that's that, then.
Just over a week since the first man who accused Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash of engaging him in an "innapropriate relationship" as a teenager recanted, a second accusation has arisen with implications that more are on the way. Citing that his personal life has become a "distraction," Clash has resigned from Sesame Workshop as of today.
Sad day for kids everywhere. Ironically, until the documentary "Being Elmo" last year, Clash was as anonymous as most other muppet performers, meaning that - since Sesame Workshop has confirmed that Elmo will continue to be part of the series under new performers - had this all happened a year or two ago it would've been able to do so without younger fans having to be aware of it.
Just over a week since the first man who accused Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash of engaging him in an "innapropriate relationship" as a teenager recanted, a second accusation has arisen with implications that more are on the way. Citing that his personal life has become a "distraction," Clash has resigned from Sesame Workshop as of today.
Sad day for kids everywhere. Ironically, until the documentary "Being Elmo" last year, Clash was as anonymous as most other muppet performers, meaning that - since Sesame Workshop has confirmed that Elmo will continue to be part of the series under new performers - had this all happened a year or two ago it would've been able to do so without younger fans having to be aware of it.
Saturday, 17 November 2012
What if "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" made a baby? Well, previously I'd have had to say that Harry Potter would play more like early-period Chris Claremont "X-Men" than it already does... but now I guess the more apt answer would simply be "The Mortal Instruments."
I'd managed to be largely unaware of this most-recent YA Fiction phenomenon until just now, outside of the fact that it existed and that it was considered vaugely controversial for reasons I never bothered to look up, but it's yet another success story for a onetime fan-fiction author making the jump from re-writing existing material to writing something really, really similar to existing material. In this case, the pitch seems to have been "American teenage female Harry Potter," which isn't all that bad a place to start really...
Our seemignly-normal-hero-secretly-hidden-from-heroic-destiny-for-their-own-protection for this go-around is a Brooklyn high-schooler, the Secret World Just Under Our Noses is a shadow-war involving tattoo-powered magic users battling the usual urban-fantasy monsters plus The Nephilim, who somehow went from being a Biblical obscurity only theology geeks cared about to the most overused cliche in genre-fiction within the last decade. and
I'm informed that part of the "hook" is that the main characters jump on the "lets imperil our Save The World Mission by letting our hormones override every other instinct" romance-go-round pretty much right off the bat and with less... "binary" approach to who's-pining-for-who re: sexuality, so there's that. In particular, the first one is supposed to end with a "twist" (which apparently becomes THE central character-conflict of the series) that I frankly have no idea how they plan to translate to the screen without creating a minor freak-out among mainstream audiences; though maybe that's what they're counting on?
I'd managed to be largely unaware of this most-recent YA Fiction phenomenon until just now, outside of the fact that it existed and that it was considered vaugely controversial for reasons I never bothered to look up, but it's yet another success story for a onetime fan-fiction author making the jump from re-writing existing material to writing something really, really similar to existing material. In this case, the pitch seems to have been "American teenage female Harry Potter," which isn't all that bad a place to start really...
Our seemignly-normal-hero-secretly-hidden-from-heroic-destiny-for-their-own-protection for this go-around is a Brooklyn high-schooler, the Secret World Just Under Our Noses is a shadow-war involving tattoo-powered magic users battling the usual urban-fantasy monsters plus The Nephilim, who somehow went from being a Biblical obscurity only theology geeks cared about to the most overused cliche in genre-fiction within the last decade. and
I'm informed that part of the "hook" is that the main characters jump on the "lets imperil our Save The World Mission by letting our hormones override every other instinct" romance-go-round pretty much right off the bat and with less... "binary" approach to who's-pining-for-who re: sexuality, so there's that. In particular, the first one is supposed to end with a "twist" (which apparently becomes THE central character-conflict of the series) that I frankly have no idea how they plan to translate to the screen without creating a minor freak-out among mainstream audiences; though maybe that's what they're counting on?
Friday, 16 November 2012
Thursday, 15 November 2012
All that changes within the first few minutes of "Breaking Dawn: Part II," however - and the bit that does it made the trailer. What you're hearing is true: The movie is a STUNNINGLY magnificient disaster - and the animated gif at your right encapsulates WHY:
 |
| By all means, feel free to share around: |
The upside to being Kristen Stewart in the "Twilight" movies has always been that, since Bella never gets to do anything, she's thus far been spared any truly humiliating footage that will follow her around - unlike poor Taylor Lautner, who will still be associated with "Jacob is unhappy with his mail" when he's in his 70s.
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Sam Raimi's "Oz: The Great and Powerful," is officially a non-canonical prequel to Baum's original "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz;" but from the brand-new full trailer it's very apparent that they want audiences to take it as a prequel to the classic MGM film: Here's Oz as you (and your parents, and their parents...) grew up with it - right down to the black-and-white 'real world' - but now even bigger and realized with state-of-the-art FX and 3D cinematography.
Given that, the powerful place the MGM "Oz" has in the cultural memories of millions worldwide and the fact that the film is looking pretty handsome; it's probably appropriate that the trailer includes a scene of the main character tumbling into a mountain of gold coins to shame Scrooge McDuck:
Ho. Ly. SHIT is that final shot money - the sound of five generations worth of movie audiences reacting the way Marvel fans do whenever Guy-No-One-Else-In-The-Audience-Has-Heard-Of turns up after the credits. There's a lot of Margaret Hamilton's Witch in the way Raimi tends to depict monsters and/or evil in general, and you can tell that they know full well that that's the character to be teasing here; even as the rest of the trailer is going "YELLOW BRICK ROAD! EMERALD CITY! FLYING MONKEYS! MUNCHKINS!"
The whole point of this project, initially, was to beat "Wicked" to theaters before that production stalled. MY question now is, if this is even close to good... do they still bother with "Wicked?" I know the play is a huge deal, but don't movie audiences look at the trailer for that and go "Didn't we already see that?"
As expected, both Ted Raimi and Bruce Campbell are scheduled to appear. Film opens in March.
Given that, the powerful place the MGM "Oz" has in the cultural memories of millions worldwide and the fact that the film is looking pretty handsome; it's probably appropriate that the trailer includes a scene of the main character tumbling into a mountain of gold coins to shame Scrooge McDuck:
Ho. Ly. SHIT is that final shot money - the sound of five generations worth of movie audiences reacting the way Marvel fans do whenever Guy-No-One-Else-In-The-Audience-Has-Heard-Of turns up after the credits. There's a lot of Margaret Hamilton's Witch in the way Raimi tends to depict monsters and/or evil in general, and you can tell that they know full well that that's the character to be teasing here; even as the rest of the trailer is going "YELLOW BRICK ROAD! EMERALD CITY! FLYING MONKEYS! MUNCHKINS!"
The whole point of this project, initially, was to beat "Wicked" to theaters before that production stalled. MY question now is, if this is even close to good... do they still bother with "Wicked?" I know the play is a huge deal, but don't movie audiences look at the trailer for that and go "Didn't we already see that?"
As expected, both Ted Raimi and Bruce Campbell are scheduled to appear. Film opens in March.
In case you haven't been keeping up with The Other Blog, here's what's up: TGO's original home on ScrewAttack is now inhabited by a spin-off series, "OverBytes." The original series has been retitled "Adventures of The Game OverThinker" and now appears on Blip. Here is the debut episode:
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Steve Head and John Black had me back on the Post-Movie Podcast this week, talking "Wreck-It Ralph," "SkyFall" and whatever else popped up.
The New York Times reports that the yet-unnamed man who alleged that he'd engaged in innapropriate relationship while underage with Elmo voice/puppeteer Kevin Clash has recanted his accusations through his attorney.
Good news for Clash, certainly, and it's done with quickly enough that the scandal didn't quite go irreparably memetic; but I get the sense Sesame Workshop is probably still going to dial it back on Elmo for just a bit. Still sucks, but could've shaken out a lot worse.
Good news for Clash, certainly, and it's done with quickly enough that the scandal didn't quite go irreparably memetic; but I get the sense Sesame Workshop is probably still going to dial it back on Elmo for just a bit. Still sucks, but could've shaken out a lot worse.
UPDATE: Owing to an error on my part, a bunch of comments that should've gone through got dumped into moderation. Should be fixed now, learning curves and all that.
Assuming all the coding works out, this post and all others for the forseeable future will be running on a new commenting system called "Intense Debate," which I'm going to assume most web users are familiar with by now.
This decision was made because it allows for last-resort measures such as banning IPs, usernames and emails from trolls, spammers, threadjackers and other abusive behaviors while simultaneously giving readers more options to comment overall.
Anonymous comments are no longer enabled, but using Intense Debate you can log in under Twitter or OpenID (working on Facebook logins, seems to be an API Key issue currently) OR get a FREE IntenseDebate login ID at their homepage.
Assuming all the coding works out, this post and all others for the forseeable future will be running on a new commenting system called "Intense Debate," which I'm going to assume most web users are familiar with by now.
This decision was made because it allows for last-resort measures such as banning IPs, usernames and emails from trolls, spammers, threadjackers and other abusive behaviors while simultaneously giving readers more options to comment overall.
Anonymous comments are no longer enabled, but using Intense Debate you can log in under Twitter or OpenID (working on Facebook logins, seems to be an API Key issue currently) OR get a FREE IntenseDebate login ID at their homepage.
Monday, 12 November 2012
I'm just over the line of too old to have ever had any kind of serious affection for Elmo, as he wasn't the "big thing" on Sesame Street until years after I was too old to be watching. Never the less, my heart is breaking for the GenY folks who now have to go through this: Kevin Clash, the performer who has puppeteered and voiced the character since 1984 (recently the subject of the well-recieved documentary "Being Elmo"), has taken voluntary leave from the series in order to defend himself from allegations of an innapropriate relationship with an underaged accuser.
This sucks.
The whole thing raises a massive amount of red flags, most egregiously the fact that the accuser and his attorneys took their issue to Sesame Workshop first rather than the police (officially, there have been no criminal charges) automatically looks like straight-up "settlement-extortion" stuff... but in terms of "guilty or innocent, this guy's career is probably screwed" that's somewhat beside the point.
Thus far, Clash has admitted to having been in a relationship with the accuser, but when he (yeah, I know, I'll come back to that) was of legal age. Sesame Workshop, however, notes that he (Clash) had been disciplined for "poor judgement" regarding company email - plausible translation of that? He was corresponding with the accuser in some way when he was underage (the now 23 year-old man claims the relationship took place when he was 16) but they didn't "get together" until he was a legal adult.
To my understanding, that chain of events may or may not be technically illegal... but it doesn't look "good" at all for Clash (who's in his 40s) to be skating that close to over-the-line when he's a public figure in an industry involving children. Sesame Worskshop is merciless when it comes to ditching characters, storylines and segments at even the hint that their presence might in some way negatively effect their intended audience (the entire Snuffalupagus "everyone thinks he's Big Bird's imaginary friend" characterization was famously junked and retooled when it was pointed out that kids might be taking it as confirmation that adults wouldn't believe them about... well, use your imagination) so if this thing snowballs I can easily imagine them either pushing Elmo (the nominal "star" of the series for over a decade now) to the rear or dropping him completely.
The fact is, even if Clash didn't break any laws... it sounds like he's made at best some questionable decisions. And given the way the media works now, just the known facts of the case right now are enough to fuel a year's worth of outrage (are the wretched dwellers of right-wing forums already celebrating the scandal because it reflects badly on PBS? Of course they are...) and bad jokes, which will almost certainly taint the character - a beloved icon of (at least) two generations. A whole lot of kids grow up with an Elmo toy (and plenty of adults still have theirs) and it'll likely be impossible for them to avoid hearing about this and thus impossible for this not to become one of the main things they think about when they look at them now. Something that was "pure" for a lot of people is now tainted.
And that sucks.
Now, just for the record: I would be saying that it sounds like Clash exercised questionable judgement (re: getting involved with a teenager, legal aged or not) regardless of whether or not it was a younger man or a younger woman - and Sesame Workshop would almost certainly be reading him the riot act wither way... but let's be real: The only reason this is a scandal in the media is that the accuser is male. If Clash was being accused of being "involved" with a 16 year-old girl, well... there'd still be "jokes" but they'd be of the "Duuuuuude! Elmo's a PIMP!!!!" variety, the story would be over in a week or two and the guy's career would not be in the jeopardy it is right now. You know it, I know it, it's a lousy double-standard but it's how things are.
Either way... not enough is known yet for me to say I feel "bad" for the guy, since even the best case scenario boils down to him behaving pretty irresponsibly IMO. The people I feel bad for are the Sesame Street-aged (and maybe a little older) kids who're having to hear "Elmo did something bad" on TV, radio, web or general conversation today; and for their parents who'll now be forced to have very difficult discussions about what's "going on." That breaks my heart.
This sucks.
The whole thing raises a massive amount of red flags, most egregiously the fact that the accuser and his attorneys took their issue to Sesame Workshop first rather than the police (officially, there have been no criminal charges) automatically looks like straight-up "settlement-extortion" stuff... but in terms of "guilty or innocent, this guy's career is probably screwed" that's somewhat beside the point.
Thus far, Clash has admitted to having been in a relationship with the accuser, but when he (yeah, I know, I'll come back to that) was of legal age. Sesame Workshop, however, notes that he (Clash) had been disciplined for "poor judgement" regarding company email - plausible translation of that? He was corresponding with the accuser in some way when he was underage (the now 23 year-old man claims the relationship took place when he was 16) but they didn't "get together" until he was a legal adult.
To my understanding, that chain of events may or may not be technically illegal... but it doesn't look "good" at all for Clash (who's in his 40s) to be skating that close to over-the-line when he's a public figure in an industry involving children. Sesame Worskshop is merciless when it comes to ditching characters, storylines and segments at even the hint that their presence might in some way negatively effect their intended audience (the entire Snuffalupagus "everyone thinks he's Big Bird's imaginary friend" characterization was famously junked and retooled when it was pointed out that kids might be taking it as confirmation that adults wouldn't believe them about... well, use your imagination) so if this thing snowballs I can easily imagine them either pushing Elmo (the nominal "star" of the series for over a decade now) to the rear or dropping him completely.
The fact is, even if Clash didn't break any laws... it sounds like he's made at best some questionable decisions. And given the way the media works now, just the known facts of the case right now are enough to fuel a year's worth of outrage (are the wretched dwellers of right-wing forums already celebrating the scandal because it reflects badly on PBS? Of course they are...) and bad jokes, which will almost certainly taint the character - a beloved icon of (at least) two generations. A whole lot of kids grow up with an Elmo toy (and plenty of adults still have theirs) and it'll likely be impossible for them to avoid hearing about this and thus impossible for this not to become one of the main things they think about when they look at them now. Something that was "pure" for a lot of people is now tainted.
And that sucks.
Now, just for the record: I would be saying that it sounds like Clash exercised questionable judgement (re: getting involved with a teenager, legal aged or not) regardless of whether or not it was a younger man or a younger woman - and Sesame Workshop would almost certainly be reading him the riot act wither way... but let's be real: The only reason this is a scandal in the media is that the accuser is male. If Clash was being accused of being "involved" with a 16 year-old girl, well... there'd still be "jokes" but they'd be of the "Duuuuuude! Elmo's a PIMP!!!!" variety, the story would be over in a week or two and the guy's career would not be in the jeopardy it is right now. You know it, I know it, it's a lousy double-standard but it's how things are.
Either way... not enough is known yet for me to say I feel "bad" for the guy, since even the best case scenario boils down to him behaving pretty irresponsibly IMO. The people I feel bad for are the Sesame Street-aged (and maybe a little older) kids who're having to hear "Elmo did something bad" on TV, radio, web or general conversation today; and for their parents who'll now be forced to have very difficult discussions about what's "going on." That breaks my heart.
As you may have heard, "The Game OverThinker" is undergoing a bit of a shakeup. The original series has made the leap to Blip as "The Adventures of The Game OverThinker" - a trailer for which is now available at THIS link:
Meanwhile, we also recently debuted the ALL-NEW spinoff series filling TGO's previous spot at ScrewAttack, OVERBYTES!
Meanwhile, we also recently debuted the ALL-NEW spinoff series filling TGO's previous spot at ScrewAttack, OVERBYTES!
Saturday, 10 November 2012
James Rolfe, aka "The Angry Video Game Nerd," is more or less the godfather of my entire ridiculous profession; and like a lot of us, he also started out as an aspiring filmmaker. Now, he's finally gone and parlayed his online persona into a feature film of his own making... and I think it looks pretty damn good:
Yes, fine - the "Gen-X geeks on a reference-ladden road trip" premise is by now a whole genre unto itself, but considering this is "The Movie" of the webseries that helped create a lot of the memetic in-jokes that seem to populate this I'm willing to let it "slide" if the movie itself is fun, which looks to be the case. Good on you, Nerd - can't wait to see it.
Yes, fine - the "Gen-X geeks on a reference-ladden road trip" premise is by now a whole genre unto itself, but considering this is "The Movie" of the webseries that helped create a lot of the memetic in-jokes that seem to populate this I'm willing to let it "slide" if the movie itself is fun, which looks to be the case. Good on you, Nerd - can't wait to see it.
Alright, people. This has to stop. Now. It's not fun or funny anymore.
It has always been my policy on this blog that anyone can post anything they want, but I will not tolerate thread-jacking or harrassment of other commenters - any other commenters.
I understand that, like any open forum, this site has it's trolls. I accept that as a reality and delete them where I find them. I understand that there are some regulars who see themselves as "helping" me by harrassing and picking on certain trolls, and while I appreciate the spirit the fact is it does much more harm than good.
Also, while I'm annoyed by (and won't tolerate) trolls... the fact is that a lot of people who engage in this kind of behavior do so at least in part because they are suffering from serious personal and/or psychological issues of their own and I'm not interested in making their lives any worse than they already are by trying to "bully" them into going away - nor will I allow any posts by others trying to do so stand without prompt deletion.
All regular commenters can consider this your final warning: If this bullshit continues (on ALL sides) I am banning anonymous comments again and this time it won't be temporary. I don't want to do this, as it innevitably lowers traffic and cuts into my income, but I Will. Not. Tolerate. Bullying. Of ANY kind. On this blog.
Do we have an understanding?
It has always been my policy on this blog that anyone can post anything they want, but I will not tolerate thread-jacking or harrassment of other commenters - any other commenters.
I understand that, like any open forum, this site has it's trolls. I accept that as a reality and delete them where I find them. I understand that there are some regulars who see themselves as "helping" me by harrassing and picking on certain trolls, and while I appreciate the spirit the fact is it does much more harm than good.
Also, while I'm annoyed by (and won't tolerate) trolls... the fact is that a lot of people who engage in this kind of behavior do so at least in part because they are suffering from serious personal and/or psychological issues of their own and I'm not interested in making their lives any worse than they already are by trying to "bully" them into going away - nor will I allow any posts by others trying to do so stand without prompt deletion.
All regular commenters can consider this your final warning: If this bullshit continues (on ALL sides) I am banning anonymous comments again and this time it won't be temporary. I don't want to do this, as it innevitably lowers traffic and cuts into my income, but I Will. Not. Tolerate. Bullying. Of ANY kind. On this blog.
Do we have an understanding?
Friday, 9 November 2012
Rachel Maddow is my favorite TV News personality. Not necessarily because of her politics, but because I like the way she puts on a show: Funny without being unserious, serious without being maudlin, obsessed with the history/politics geek minutiae of the news business but without the unctuous, obnoxious macho swagger that you got from Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly.
I'll happily admit that she's as "biased" in favor of her own opinions (it's an editorial/opinion show, after all) as the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity are, but I'll offer sincerely that it's not really at the same level because a lot of her biases are not so much in favor of leftist political THEORY as they are biases in favor of apolitical fact. That's really the difference between the "Left" and "Right" in America now: Conservatives aren't just asked to defend the theoretical philosophies of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan etc but also a set of provably false lies about evolution, climate-change, life-science, birthplaces of certain persons, etc. Liberals, for all their faults, don't have that problem... they ONLY have to defend their philosophy; all the other things American Liberals are expected to "believe" (evolution is real, climate change is real, etc) aren't beliefs at all - they're proven, settled, demonstrable FACTS.
Which is why this clip of Rachel Maddow "gloating" over the results of the 11/06/2012 election is quite possibly the least biased 3 minutes of cable news you'll watch for a long time:
I'll happily admit that she's as "biased" in favor of her own opinions (it's an editorial/opinion show, after all) as the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity are, but I'll offer sincerely that it's not really at the same level because a lot of her biases are not so much in favor of leftist political THEORY as they are biases in favor of apolitical fact. That's really the difference between the "Left" and "Right" in America now: Conservatives aren't just asked to defend the theoretical philosophies of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan etc but also a set of provably false lies about evolution, climate-change, life-science, birthplaces of certain persons, etc. Liberals, for all their faults, don't have that problem... they ONLY have to defend their philosophy; all the other things American Liberals are expected to "believe" (evolution is real, climate change is real, etc) aren't beliefs at all - they're proven, settled, demonstrable FACTS.
Which is why this clip of Rachel Maddow "gloating" over the results of the 11/06/2012 election is quite possibly the least biased 3 minutes of cable news you'll watch for a long time:
Here's the new trailer for Tom Hooper's "Les Miserables" movie, the big hook of which (apart from "OMFGTHEYFINALLYDIDLESMISSQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!") is supposed to be that the singing was all done live on set for the cameras and mics, as opposed to ADR'd in later like usual. So... yeah. Lots of well-liked actors performing a visibly-taxing physical feat onscreen, adaptation of legendarily beloved novel/broadway mainstay, cue torrent of Oscars.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
The hook of Max Brooks' "World War Z" was that it told a mostly conventional zombie movie story (zombies happen, things go bad) in the style of a historical narrative. Judging by it's trailer, "World War Z: The Movie" - which is already almost-garaunteed to be a huge pile of shit, BTW (seriously, your movie is so bad that a Damon Lindelof ending is going to HELP!? - has opted to just be a mostly conventional zombie movie. Brad Pitt stars, because other actors were starting to get jealous of him having been in nothing but really good movies for the last half-decade or so and Brad Pitt is humble like that:
So... doesn't look TOO bad, but also doesn't look deserving of Brooks' awesomely exploitationish title. If you're not going to film the book, then a title like "World War Z" where the Z is for Zombies should be selling something that looks like "Starship Troopers" crossed with "Planet Terror;" whereas this just looks like the flashback parts of "I Am Legend" with less interesting cinematography.
BUT, I'll give it this: Zombies are reliable enough that if you can't think of anything new to do with them narratively something new visually can still be "good enough;" and in this case swapping their default behavior patterns from "feral humans" to "fire ants" looks like it could maybe do the trick - the "zombie wave" is a money shot if I ever saw one, regardless of how the rest of the thing is.
I don't think I'll ever be "okay" with fast zombies, if only because it just doesn't "work" with that whole "walking dead-person" thing that's supposed to be the whole point of this particular monster. When "28 Days Later" invented this schtick, part of the new angle it took was that it was "zombie horror" but with creatures that weren't zombies - they ("The Infected") were something else. I feel like we should've stuck with that, instead of conflating the new "Infected" monster with the then-resurgent zombie meme.
Maybe that's still the best move: Someone should come up with an entirely new classification for "Fast Zombies." It would actually make more sense, since the whole point of Zombies as monsters was to play on fear of death and the fast ones aren't really doing that - especially not in THIS. I like the wave/ants motif partly because it's the next logical extension of what Fast Zombies represent - no fear of death, but fear (and, let's get real, hatred) of other humans. A big, writhing, mindless, vicious horde of humanity (but "de-humanized" so it's okay to enjoy mowing them down, importantly) bulldozing over and through everything in it's path? That's not about death anxiety, that's about... well, take your pick: Overpopulation? Urban sprawl? Crowd panic? General disconnect from "everyone else" in our increasingly self-centric modern lives?
So... doesn't look TOO bad, but also doesn't look deserving of Brooks' awesomely exploitationish title. If you're not going to film the book, then a title like "World War Z" where the Z is for Zombies should be selling something that looks like "Starship Troopers" crossed with "Planet Terror;" whereas this just looks like the flashback parts of "I Am Legend" with less interesting cinematography.
BUT, I'll give it this: Zombies are reliable enough that if you can't think of anything new to do with them narratively something new visually can still be "good enough;" and in this case swapping their default behavior patterns from "feral humans" to "fire ants" looks like it could maybe do the trick - the "zombie wave" is a money shot if I ever saw one, regardless of how the rest of the thing is.
I don't think I'll ever be "okay" with fast zombies, if only because it just doesn't "work" with that whole "walking dead-person" thing that's supposed to be the whole point of this particular monster. When "28 Days Later" invented this schtick, part of the new angle it took was that it was "zombie horror" but with creatures that weren't zombies - they ("The Infected") were something else. I feel like we should've stuck with that, instead of conflating the new "Infected" monster with the then-resurgent zombie meme.
Maybe that's still the best move: Someone should come up with an entirely new classification for "Fast Zombies." It would actually make more sense, since the whole point of Zombies as monsters was to play on fear of death and the fast ones aren't really doing that - especially not in THIS. I like the wave/ants motif partly because it's the next logical extension of what Fast Zombies represent - no fear of death, but fear (and, let's get real, hatred) of other humans. A big, writhing, mindless, vicious horde of humanity (but "de-humanized" so it's okay to enjoy mowing them down, importantly) bulldozing over and through everything in it's path? That's not about death anxiety, that's about... well, take your pick: Overpopulation? Urban sprawl? Crowd panic? General disconnect from "everyone else" in our increasingly self-centric modern lives?
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
The Future, as it must, has defeated The Past.
Obama winning is important. His presidency being both historic AND successful is important to the narrative of history. But, more immediately, American voters have - whether by intent or incident - protected the Supreme Court from anti-choice, anti-science nominees for another four years and maybe longer... NOTHING was more important than that.
However, other things of profound importance were either decided or are in the process of being decided tonight. Among them:
Puerto Rico has voted, for the first time, "YES" on a non-binding referendum stating that they wish to become the 51st full member-state of The United States of America. Both Obama and Romney were on record as saying that they support and would sign off on the change, but if this really does get to the U.S. Congress expect a massive fight from Republicans - the zealously anti-Hispanic Tea Party wing of the GOP will not support a predominantly-Latino Spanish-speaking territory becoming an American State. In a very real way, this could be the biggest thing that happened tonight.
Marijuana has been legalized or semi-legalized in at least three more states than before by solid margins. This is the beginning of the end for Marijuana prohibition.
When the next session begins, more Women will sit in the U.S. Senate than ever before.
One of those aforementioned women, Tammy Baldwin (Democrat, Wisconsin) is also the first openly-gay woman to be elected in U.S. Senate history.
Four states had gay marriage legalization ballot initiatives on their ballots. Previously, such initiatives have either lost or won AGAINST marriage-equality 30 times with no victories. Tonight, all four were affirmed. The tide is changing.
Here in Massachusetts, archetypal preening alpha-male bully Scott Brown was trounced by Progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren - kiss my actual working-class Boston guy ASS, Scotty.
The down side to all of this is that there will be no "wakeup call" to the Republican Party. The spin tomorrow morning will be that Romney lost because he was too moderate, not a "real" Christian and not a "real" conservative; and the push will be on to run a true believer next time. They will only become more intractable, more fundamentalist and more committed.
But, still, little by little we are improving. With each battle won over the forces of "tradition," anachronism and superstition; persons of open-mind get one step closer to building the Superior America that we both need and - to be frank - deserve for the 21st Century.
This week's show is about the "Cloud Atlas" casting controversy.
If you're of age and in the U.S., please go vote today.
If you're of age and in the U.S., please go vote today.
Friday, 2 November 2012
Did you have a good Halloween? I had a good Halloween. Go see "Wreck-It Ralph."
Also! I interviewed The RZA. That was surreal.
Also! I interviewed The RZA. That was surreal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
