Presented without further unnecessary commentary, the trailer for "K-11" - an apparently sleaze-tastic thriller set in a segregated gay/transgendered California prison ward, written and directed by one Lynne Stewart, mother of Kristen:
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
The Hollywood Reporter - er... reports that director Duncan Jones, late of "Moon" and "Source Code" has landed the hypothetically coveted job of helming Legendary Pictures "Warcraft" movie; which is apparently still happening despite the property's pop-culture ubiquity seeming to have peaked a couple of years ago.
In related news: Nerds? You are now out of excuses to have not already seen "Moon" and "Source Code."
Good news for Jones, in any case, whose worked hard and definitely deserves the cache that'll come from helming a likely-successful blockbuster; but forgive me if I'm not jumping over the moon. I'm just not really seeing what a "Warcraft" movie can realistically offer beyond being a "LOTR" riff with a more D&D-inspired aesthetic. Fodder to make a good movie, certainly (particularly with a great filmmaker onboard) but "Warcraft" is more beloved for its gameplay and depth/granulaity - not its story or even really its visuals.
Honestly? THIS is the franchise I'd like to see jump in front of the "ordinary person zapped into gameworld" bullet that you ONE game-adaptation is going to have to take at some point. Let's get real: The ONLY reason "Warcraft" is worth spending $100 million+ on making a movie is because "WORLD OF Warcraft" blew up into a huge mainstream phenomenon - hence why that one "South Park" episode is probably the best narrative thing ever associated with the franchise - and it did so because of the "take a break from work/life and ADVENTURE!" aspect of the MMO. If your trying to put the "Warcraft Experience" onscreen... that's kinda IT in my estimation.
In related news: Nerds? You are now out of excuses to have not already seen "Moon" and "Source Code."
Good news for Jones, in any case, whose worked hard and definitely deserves the cache that'll come from helming a likely-successful blockbuster; but forgive me if I'm not jumping over the moon. I'm just not really seeing what a "Warcraft" movie can realistically offer beyond being a "LOTR" riff with a more D&D-inspired aesthetic. Fodder to make a good movie, certainly (particularly with a great filmmaker onboard) but "Warcraft" is more beloved for its gameplay and depth/granulaity - not its story or even really its visuals.
Honestly? THIS is the franchise I'd like to see jump in front of the "ordinary person zapped into gameworld" bullet that you ONE game-adaptation is going to have to take at some point. Let's get real: The ONLY reason "Warcraft" is worth spending $100 million+ on making a movie is because "WORLD OF Warcraft" blew up into a huge mainstream phenomenon - hence why that one "South Park" episode is probably the best narrative thing ever associated with the franchise - and it did so because of the "take a break from work/life and ADVENTURE!" aspect of the MMO. If your trying to put the "Warcraft Experience" onscreen... that's kinda IT in my estimation.
So... I generally avoid using the Blog(s) for things like this, but wide nets need to be wide.
I'm looking to get in touch with people in the book-publishing business, specifically video-gaming related stuff but really at this level any inroad would be a good inroad; but there's a pretty wide disconnect between the digital press world and the print world, so... don't really have any idea how to do that.
BUT I'm betting I've got at least a few friends/followers/fans/colleagues reading these things who might have some tidbit of advice/direction/access to offer; so if that describes you please feel free to pop said info into the comments here (or, if you prefer, a way in which I could contact you to get it.) Any little bit helps, honestly :)
Thank you.
I'm looking to get in touch with people in the book-publishing business, specifically video-gaming related stuff but really at this level any inroad would be a good inroad; but there's a pretty wide disconnect between the digital press world and the print world, so... don't really have any idea how to do that.
BUT I'm betting I've got at least a few friends/followers/fans/colleagues reading these things who might have some tidbit of advice/direction/access to offer; so if that describes you please feel free to pop said info into the comments here (or, if you prefer, a way in which I could contact you to get it.) Any little bit helps, honestly :)
Thank you.
Head's up: I'll be introducing an evening (6:30pm EST) screening of "The Avengers" on Saturday (Feb. 2nd) at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA. More details on the screening, part of The Brattle's 2012 Best Of series, can be found on their website.
(UPDATE!) Also: I can also proudly announce that I'll be a guest at SGC 2013, June 21 - 23 at the Hyatt Regency Dallas in Dallas, TX.
(UPDATE!) Also: I can also proudly announce that I'll be a guest at SGC 2013, June 21 - 23 at the Hyatt Regency Dallas in Dallas, TX.
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Here's your obligatory "JJ Abrams is doing Star Wars now, too" episode - though I'm rather proud of how it turned out despite it's own obligatory-ness...
The producers of the "Evil Dead" remake would like you to know you can go to this website and record yourself being freaked-out by the recent trailer. So... yeah, that's a thing.
For those of you asking, YES I've seen Adam Quigley's "You Don't Understand 'Sucker Punch'" video on Slashfilm and YES the similarities to my own work from four months ago - starting from the title and down through... everything else, really - are hard to miss. But no, this isn't a Coulton/"Glee" thing; the movie has a pretty specific through-line, so there isn't anything "shady" about two critics coming to the same basic set of conclusions about it. Still, might as well watch them and judge for yourself...
Monday, 28 January 2013
I maintain that I haven't been unfair to "The Amazing Spider-Man." It was a bad film with an infuriating production history, and I covered both aspects as such - nothing more, nothing less. I've also continuously maintained that if the production of ASM2 made any moves that I thought sounded good, I'd say so.
THIS, then, I will say makes me cautiously optimistic: THR reports that Paul Giamatti is being sought for "The Rhino." That's more like it - maybe.
Understand - I don't know that this signals anything having been corrected in the myriad flaws that are just built into the DNA of this rebooted franchise: Garfield's miscasting, Webb is simply not good at directing action, the "new" backstory (even assuming they just junk the non-starter missing-parents stuff) doesn't work, etc. There's not much to indicate that any of that is going to get ironed out.
BUT! ...I love The Rhino. I love everything about The Rhino, from the simplicity of his name and costume (yes I know it's technically supposed to be some kind of high-tech body-armor skin-graft but it LOOKS like a costume) to the basis of his existance: It's a superhero story, visual dynamism is a premium, so why have just a muscleman when it can be a muscleman dressed as a rhinocerous? And Giamatti is a great actor who's often at his most enjoyable when he goes waaaaay over-the-top in villain roles; so he could be a lot of fun here.
The one caveat to this, of course, is the same as the one attached to Jamie Foxx as the sequel's other heavy, Electro - interesting casting or not, the main thing that makes both of these guys "awesome" in the comics are their look and gimmick - both of which will be very difficult to put onscreen, especially in a series that's thus-far trying very hard to distance itself from the campier aspects of it's source material. It's unlikely that Foxx will show up wearing Electro's iconic star-mask, and likewise one assumes Giamatti will probably not be throwing Andrew Garfield around in horn-hooded gray pajamas (in fact, given that Giamatti is most-definitely not a "bruiser" to begin with, I imagine he'll probably be wearing some kind of vaugely Rhino-esque armor or be a human/rhino mutation of some kind.)
THIS, then, I will say makes me cautiously optimistic: THR reports that Paul Giamatti is being sought for "The Rhino." That's more like it - maybe.
Understand - I don't know that this signals anything having been corrected in the myriad flaws that are just built into the DNA of this rebooted franchise: Garfield's miscasting, Webb is simply not good at directing action, the "new" backstory (even assuming they just junk the non-starter missing-parents stuff) doesn't work, etc. There's not much to indicate that any of that is going to get ironed out.
BUT! ...I love The Rhino. I love everything about The Rhino, from the simplicity of his name and costume (yes I know it's technically supposed to be some kind of high-tech body-armor skin-graft but it LOOKS like a costume) to the basis of his existance: It's a superhero story, visual dynamism is a premium, so why have just a muscleman when it can be a muscleman dressed as a rhinocerous? And Giamatti is a great actor who's often at his most enjoyable when he goes waaaaay over-the-top in villain roles; so he could be a lot of fun here.
The one caveat to this, of course, is the same as the one attached to Jamie Foxx as the sequel's other heavy, Electro - interesting casting or not, the main thing that makes both of these guys "awesome" in the comics are their look and gimmick - both of which will be very difficult to put onscreen, especially in a series that's thus-far trying very hard to distance itself from the campier aspects of it's source material. It's unlikely that Foxx will show up wearing Electro's iconic star-mask, and likewise one assumes Giamatti will probably not be throwing Andrew Garfield around in horn-hooded gray pajamas (in fact, given that Giamatti is most-definitely not a "bruiser" to begin with, I imagine he'll probably be wearing some kind of vaugely Rhino-esque armor or be a human/rhino mutation of some kind.)
Sunday, 27 January 2013
hat-tip: RWWBlog
Just in case you were expecting to feel good things about the state of humanity today, here are some delightful Christian radio-hosts with their thoughts on 21st century feminism:
Two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers. You know where these guys line up. And please bear in mind - there are millions of people who line up right next to them... and they're all allowed to vote. Pleasant nightmares.
Just in case you were expecting to feel good things about the state of humanity today, here are some delightful Christian radio-hosts with their thoughts on 21st century feminism:
Two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers. You know where these guys line up. And please bear in mind - there are millions of people who line up right next to them... and they're all allowed to vote. Pleasant nightmares.
Friday, 25 January 2013
If you're the guy who thought "In Time" was too blunt about it's scifi-conceit-as-metaphor-for-classism angle, "Upside Down" is probably going to give you an anuerysm. See also: The guy who's angry about "Looper" being more interested in the plot/characters turns that could come from it's scenario than it was about explaining how it's time-travel worked.
I'm tempted to say that the film - a star-crossed-lovers story set on two conjoined planets aligned so as to effectively be one-another's floor and ceiling where the wealthy live on top and the working-class live below - looks like a Christopher Nolan reboot of an unwritten Dr. Seuss story... except the main characters appear capable of expressing recognizable human emotions of romantic desire. New trailer is below:
I'm tempted to say that the film - a star-crossed-lovers story set on two conjoined planets aligned so as to effectively be one-another's floor and ceiling where the wealthy live on top and the working-class live below - looks like a Christopher Nolan reboot of an unwritten Dr. Seuss story... except the main characters appear capable of expressing recognizable human emotions of romantic desire. New trailer is below:
"Post-modern" has officially become the new "not even trying."
Intermission talks "Our Uncertain Future"
Intermission talks "Our Uncertain Future"
Hey, remember that time when Disney bought "Star Wars" and announced a new Trilogy right off the bat and we all got kind of excited because maybe they'd get a really good, talented, maybe even "visionary" filmmaker attached who could revive the franchise and take it in new, exciting and interesting directions?
Well, so much for that idea...
Oh, well. Nice thought while it lasted, though. Hey, did you watch the new AoTGO yet? Cause you totally still can :)
Well, so much for that idea...
Oh, well. Nice thought while it lasted, though. Hey, did you watch the new AoTGO yet? Cause you totally still can :)
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Remember what you were doing today, because some day your daughter may ask you.
A little over an hour ago at an official press conference, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the U.S. Military's official ban on women serving in front-line combat roles has been lifted. The full rollout will be a three-year integration process, set to climax with the first (official) female combat troops appearing in 2016... which should make for some interesting juxtaposition, as it's still widely-expected that that same year will feature at least one major female contender for the Presidency.
Predictably, someone isn't happy.
A little over an hour ago at an official press conference, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the U.S. Military's official ban on women serving in front-line combat roles has been lifted. The full rollout will be a three-year integration process, set to climax with the first (official) female combat troops appearing in 2016... which should make for some interesting juxtaposition, as it's still widely-expected that that same year will feature at least one major female contender for the Presidency.
Predictably, someone isn't happy.
SOURCE: Latino Review
Latino Review (who are really, really good at smuggling this kind of shit out of Warner Bros lately) has what purports to be a confirmed lineup for the surging-through-development "Justice League" movie. Drumroll, please...
SUPERMAN, BATMAN, WONDER WOMAN, GREEN LANTERN and THE FLASH.
Random statistics: 1 less total membership than The Avengers but same basic male/female ratio, 2 natural-born metahumans, 1 "created" metahuman, 2 "normal" humans - one with "powers" and one without, 3 with prior movies, 4 with prior TV shows, zero live-action debuts zero (comic-canonical) minorities, zero magic-users, zero non-humanoids.
So... about the roster you would expect, really. No head-scratchers but no surprises, either.
What sticks out to me most is, given that this entire project has been willed into existance as a counter-measure to Disney's "Avengers" juggernaut, there doesn't immediately seem to be any attempt at hitting their rival in it's most vulnerable spot: Even the most enthusiastic fans of Marvel's innaugural team-up had to concede that the all-caucasian, one-woman outfit was decidedly un-21st Century in the diversity department; and yet here's the Justice League putting up the same basic vanilla sundae. Putting one more woman on the team, at least, would immediately generate several days worth of free "DC sees Marvel's heroine gamble, raises" publicity.
The problem with that, of course, is that WB is going with "everybody knows" characters here since they're doing the team-up first and solo movies after; and apart from Supergirl and Batgirl Wonder Woman is the only female DC Hero that anyone outside of fandom has heard of. With apologies to, say, Vixen, Black Canary or Zatanna; the headlines would've been "Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and WHO?"
That said, if you're in the position to make or take bets on this sort of thing, I'd say right now there's very good odds that "League's" Green Lantern will end up being African-American John Stewart instead of Hal Jordan. Aside from the obvious upside, it would be the easiest way to further minimize associations with the "Green Lantern" movie disaster and Stewart is probably the Lantern most familiar/remembered by the sought-after Millenial demographic; who grew up with him as THE Green Lantern of the Justice League cartoons. There's seriously no good reason for WB not to do this, other than to appease a minority of comic purists. (This wouldn't be like the "John Blake is Batman" thing, where you're junking the significant Bruce/Clark relationship from the books - there's no comparable Hal/Anybody "thing" to lose.)
Interestingly, Latino Review goes on to say that while this five is being set up as the primary group, there may or may not be smaller-scale appearances planned for The Martian Manhunter and Aquaman, which makes a certain amount of sense: The film's plot supposedly concerns an alien invasion of Earth, so there's plenty of room for J'onn J'onzz to turn up in a supporting (or surprise "holy crap this random guy we met is actually a Martian shape-shifter!") role; and Aquaman is technically the ruler of an underwater kingdom so they could go to meet/consult with him (maybe Wonder Woman already knows him? Just a guess) without him actually having to be part of the team... like, if they needed to borrow a bunch of sharks or something.
The film is still without a director or a 100% locked-in screenplay, and I doubt we'll be seeing anything more concrete taking shape until we all find out how "Man of Steel" performs.
Latino Review (who are really, really good at smuggling this kind of shit out of Warner Bros lately) has what purports to be a confirmed lineup for the surging-through-development "Justice League" movie. Drumroll, please...
SUPERMAN, BATMAN, WONDER WOMAN, GREEN LANTERN and THE FLASH.
Random statistics: 1 less total membership than The Avengers but same basic male/female ratio, 2 natural-born metahumans, 1 "created" metahuman, 2 "normal" humans - one with "powers" and one without, 3 with prior movies, 4 with prior TV shows, zero live-action debuts zero (comic-canonical) minorities, zero magic-users, zero non-humanoids.
So... about the roster you would expect, really. No head-scratchers but no surprises, either.
What sticks out to me most is, given that this entire project has been willed into existance as a counter-measure to Disney's "Avengers" juggernaut, there doesn't immediately seem to be any attempt at hitting their rival in it's most vulnerable spot: Even the most enthusiastic fans of Marvel's innaugural team-up had to concede that the all-caucasian, one-woman outfit was decidedly un-21st Century in the diversity department; and yet here's the Justice League putting up the same basic vanilla sundae. Putting one more woman on the team, at least, would immediately generate several days worth of free "DC sees Marvel's heroine gamble, raises" publicity.
The problem with that, of course, is that WB is going with "everybody knows" characters here since they're doing the team-up first and solo movies after; and apart from Supergirl and Batgirl Wonder Woman is the only female DC Hero that anyone outside of fandom has heard of. With apologies to, say, Vixen, Black Canary or Zatanna; the headlines would've been "Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and WHO?"
That said, if you're in the position to make or take bets on this sort of thing, I'd say right now there's very good odds that "League's" Green Lantern will end up being African-American John Stewart instead of Hal Jordan. Aside from the obvious upside, it would be the easiest way to further minimize associations with the "Green Lantern" movie disaster and Stewart is probably the Lantern most familiar/remembered by the sought-after Millenial demographic; who grew up with him as THE Green Lantern of the Justice League cartoons. There's seriously no good reason for WB not to do this, other than to appease a minority of comic purists. (This wouldn't be like the "John Blake is Batman" thing, where you're junking the significant Bruce/Clark relationship from the books - there's no comparable Hal/Anybody "thing" to lose.)
Interestingly, Latino Review goes on to say that while this five is being set up as the primary group, there may or may not be smaller-scale appearances planned for The Martian Manhunter and Aquaman, which makes a certain amount of sense: The film's plot supposedly concerns an alien invasion of Earth, so there's plenty of room for J'onn J'onzz to turn up in a supporting (or surprise "holy crap this random guy we met is actually a Martian shape-shifter!") role; and Aquaman is technically the ruler of an underwater kingdom so they could go to meet/consult with him (maybe Wonder Woman already knows him? Just a guess) without him actually having to be part of the team... like, if they needed to borrow a bunch of sharks or something.
The film is still without a director or a 100% locked-in screenplay, and I doubt we'll be seeing anything more concrete taking shape until we all find out how "Man of Steel" performs.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
Head's up, the latest all-new "Adventures of The Game OverThinker" is now up and running on Blip and The Other Blog:
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
One of the big thrills of my year thus far was A.) getting to meet and hang out with a bunch of the crew from TGWTG's side of the interwebs at MAGFest and B.) having everyone turn out to be super, super cool people. This is a weird business, and it's quietly exhilirating to be able to chill out, "vent" and talk-shop with people who otherwise occupy that nebulous space where you're simultaneously fans and colleagues of one-another.
I bring this up as a segue into clarifying that, despite "knowing" (and finally not just in the digital sense) a bunch of the principals involved here - no, I had no idea this was coming either...
Anyway, pretty much THE big news in this "industry" a few months back was that Doug Walker (whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting personally as yet) went and gave his Nostalgia Critic series - the nominal "backbone" of TGWTG - a send-off, filing a final episode for the show and sending the character to his final reward as the meta-plot of the site's annual teamup movie. This was kind of a big deal, since these things rarely "go out" while still exceedingly popular. In it's place, Walker and his team have been trying out some new material ("Demo Reel," most notably) which I've actually found pretty interesting but was met with... "mixed" reactions from fans, to be charitable.
Well, about an hour ago, THIS went up on their site...
I'll admit it: As a fan of the series, I'm definitely glad to see it coming back in some form... but I'd be A LOT less so if it didn't feel like Walker was in a good place about it coming back, which is the sense I get from this. This is some of the better acting/staging he's offered up, period, and what that says to me he's being sincere about going this route because he wants to - not just because people having been begging him to do it.
I've been through the burnout/stagnation rollercoaster in this business myself, to say nothing of the change-averse fandom ride that can come with it. And while I can thank terrific editors for pulling me out of such funks on a few occasions I also understand how rough making these kind of career-direction decisions can be in scenarios where you're effectively your own boss. It's hard to make a big change to your own output, but it's even harder to say that maybe you didn't change 100% for the better. This is one of the classier versions of the "okay, maybe I spoke too soon..." walkbacks I've seen; and I'm now really looking forward to seeing where he goes with this - especially under the more open "directives."
Hell, I'm so (cautiously, because again I know approximately nothing of the behind-the-scenes business at hand here) happy that I'm not even that put-out about having to scrap "Timothy Green" from the Big Picture to-do list...
I bring this up as a segue into clarifying that, despite "knowing" (and finally not just in the digital sense) a bunch of the principals involved here - no, I had no idea this was coming either...
Anyway, pretty much THE big news in this "industry" a few months back was that Doug Walker (whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting personally as yet) went and gave his Nostalgia Critic series - the nominal "backbone" of TGWTG - a send-off, filing a final episode for the show and sending the character to his final reward as the meta-plot of the site's annual teamup movie. This was kind of a big deal, since these things rarely "go out" while still exceedingly popular. In it's place, Walker and his team have been trying out some new material ("Demo Reel," most notably) which I've actually found pretty interesting but was met with... "mixed" reactions from fans, to be charitable.
Well, about an hour ago, THIS went up on their site...
I'll admit it: As a fan of the series, I'm definitely glad to see it coming back in some form... but I'd be A LOT less so if it didn't feel like Walker was in a good place about it coming back, which is the sense I get from this. This is some of the better acting/staging he's offered up, period, and what that says to me he's being sincere about going this route because he wants to - not just because people having been begging him to do it.
I've been through the burnout/stagnation rollercoaster in this business myself, to say nothing of the change-averse fandom ride that can come with it. And while I can thank terrific editors for pulling me out of such funks on a few occasions I also understand how rough making these kind of career-direction decisions can be in scenarios where you're effectively your own boss. It's hard to make a big change to your own output, but it's even harder to say that maybe you didn't change 100% for the better. This is one of the classier versions of the "okay, maybe I spoke too soon..." walkbacks I've seen; and I'm now really looking forward to seeing where he goes with this - especially under the more open "directives."
Hell, I'm so (cautiously, because again I know approximately nothing of the behind-the-scenes business at hand here) happy that I'm not even that put-out about having to scrap "Timothy Green" from the Big Picture to-do list...
For some reason we're getting two "Die Hard In The White House" movies this year, innevitably to be differentiated as "the one with the black president" and "the one with the white president." "Olympus Has Fallen," whose debut trailer showed up today, is the white president installment with Aaron Eckhart as POTUS, Gerard Butler as the lone Secret Service agent left in the danger zone and North(?) Korean Terrorists (seriously?) as the bad guys. Antoine Fuqua directs.
The "black president" version is "White House Down," which comes later this year courtesy Roland Emmerich with Channing Tatum as the Agent and Jamie Foxx as President Faux-Bama. That one is supposed to be more action/comedy flavored, with Foxx's character getting in on the heroics.
The "black president" version is "White House Down," which comes later this year courtesy Roland Emmerich with Channing Tatum as the Agent and Jamie Foxx as President Faux-Bama. That one is supposed to be more action/comedy flavored, with Foxx's character getting in on the heroics.
Exactly 40 years ago on this day, The United States made one of it's most landmark affirmations of being a nation of laws built not on superstition but rather on reason, reality and science.
At the end of the day, there are two kinds of people: Thinkers and Believers. Today is the anniversary of a day when the Thinkers won out. The fight goes on.
At the end of the day, there are two kinds of people: Thinkers and Believers. Today is the anniversary of a day when the Thinkers won out. The fight goes on.
Friday, 18 January 2013
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
I'd like to spend all day engaging people about this, but the fact is I have a shit-ton of deadline-driven work to do that's only going to get done if I got media-dark for a few hours. So this will have to be all from me about the big Obama gun laws speech today.
I imagine the number-one thing anyone wants to hear from me is how I feel about the President calling for "more research into violent video-games" as part of his big set of plans/proposals. Honestly? I hated hearing it. It cuts me to the bone when otherwise intelligent, reasonable people I happen to support have to jump and join that particular political dance; especially when I strongly suspect that they're better than that. I would prefer that the President had said "some have called for more attention paid to a link between violent games or movies and gun deaths, but the fact is that research has already been done a hundred times over and the link quite simply does not exist and continuing to call for it distracts from the real issue; which is guns and the obscene power of the Gun Lobby."
I'd have liked to see that, and maybe someday I will, but it wasn't going to be today.
The fact is, enough of my fellow Americans are paranoid enough (either through their own deficiencies or because they lack the necessary clarity and intellectual confidence to not be swayed by the propaganda of the NRA and their ilk) to give real traction to the meme of Obama/democrats "coming to take all the guns!!!;" one that only gets stronger if said propagandists can claim that they and their issue is being "singled out." That they and their issue should be singled out is beside the point - "singling out" sounds bad.
Thus was Joe Biden obliged to invite representatives of the movie and game industry (Why not books? Oh, right - older/out-of-touch people aren't scared/confused by books) to his various summitts - even though he's smart enough to know that the "link" doesn't exist - in order to affect the image that guns and gun-rights weren't "alone" in being called to the principal's office. And thus is Obama obliged to namecheck some illusory need for violent games "research" even though he's also smart enough to know better and saavy enough to know that even if he did buy into (for example) the "desensitization" fallacy, actually making any moves that even smelled of censorship would lose he and his party their crucial support among GenX/Y voters.
But here's the rub: "Calling for more research," in Washington-speak, translates to "we pretty-much garauntee nothing will come of this." It is, quite simply, a smoke-screen - a way for the President and his allies to appear to take the "broader solution" nonsense seriously while they get about the real business of breaking the back of the Gun Lobby in order to make U.S. gun laws slightly more sane.
Would I prefer that this hadn't been part of the speech, even as I recognize it as little more than rhetorical sleight of hand? Of course I would. I also wish he didn't have slip into maudlin reassurances about "Our Creator" at the end, or that he didn't need to feign four years worth of "evolution" on his support for gay marriage. I welcome the day, soon to come, when we look back on today's notions of "violent" movies and games causing real violence with the same "this was actually a THING??" horror and sadness with which we react to Calvin Candie's phrenology speech in "Django Unchained."
But that's not realistically going to happen today, and progressives, young people and especially gamers among them need to recognize that before they think about dismissing and turning their backs on an administration that - where and when it actually counts - has been (and is likely to continue to be) largely on their side. The perfect mustn't be the enemy of the good.
I imagine the number-one thing anyone wants to hear from me is how I feel about the President calling for "more research into violent video-games" as part of his big set of plans/proposals. Honestly? I hated hearing it. It cuts me to the bone when otherwise intelligent, reasonable people I happen to support have to jump and join that particular political dance; especially when I strongly suspect that they're better than that. I would prefer that the President had said "some have called for more attention paid to a link between violent games or movies and gun deaths, but the fact is that research has already been done a hundred times over and the link quite simply does not exist and continuing to call for it distracts from the real issue; which is guns and the obscene power of the Gun Lobby."
I'd have liked to see that, and maybe someday I will, but it wasn't going to be today.
The fact is, enough of my fellow Americans are paranoid enough (either through their own deficiencies or because they lack the necessary clarity and intellectual confidence to not be swayed by the propaganda of the NRA and their ilk) to give real traction to the meme of Obama/democrats "coming to take all the guns!!!;" one that only gets stronger if said propagandists can claim that they and their issue is being "singled out." That they and their issue should be singled out is beside the point - "singling out" sounds bad.
Thus was Joe Biden obliged to invite representatives of the movie and game industry (Why not books? Oh, right - older/out-of-touch people aren't scared/confused by books) to his various summitts - even though he's smart enough to know that the "link" doesn't exist - in order to affect the image that guns and gun-rights weren't "alone" in being called to the principal's office. And thus is Obama obliged to namecheck some illusory need for violent games "research" even though he's also smart enough to know better and saavy enough to know that even if he did buy into (for example) the "desensitization" fallacy, actually making any moves that even smelled of censorship would lose he and his party their crucial support among GenX/Y voters.
But here's the rub: "Calling for more research," in Washington-speak, translates to "we pretty-much garauntee nothing will come of this." It is, quite simply, a smoke-screen - a way for the President and his allies to appear to take the "broader solution" nonsense seriously while they get about the real business of breaking the back of the Gun Lobby in order to make U.S. gun laws slightly more sane.
Would I prefer that this hadn't been part of the speech, even as I recognize it as little more than rhetorical sleight of hand? Of course I would. I also wish he didn't have slip into maudlin reassurances about "Our Creator" at the end, or that he didn't need to feign four years worth of "evolution" on his support for gay marriage. I welcome the day, soon to come, when we look back on today's notions of "violent" movies and games causing real violence with the same "this was actually a THING??" horror and sadness with which we react to Calvin Candie's phrenology speech in "Django Unchained."
But that's not realistically going to happen today, and progressives, young people and especially gamers among them need to recognize that before they think about dismissing and turning their backs on an administration that - where and when it actually counts - has been (and is likely to continue to be) largely on their side. The perfect mustn't be the enemy of the good.
Monday, 14 January 2013
Lock n' load, Internet! Dust off all your best tired-ass "jokes" about speed-ramping, teal n' orange and "misogyny;" Disney/Lucasfilm have announced that Zack Snyder is doing a "Star Wars" movie.
...but it's NOT "Episode VII."
In case you were under the impression that Disney wasn't planning to milk the ever-loving shit out of the malnourished and neglected cow it recently liberated from Skywalker Ranch; the big announcement here is that they're going to be making "Star Wars" Universe movies apart from the already-confirmed New Trilogy, and that Snyder will be first out of the gate with an in-canon entry being described as "Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' but with Jedi."
Most important takeaway from this, as far as I'm concerned: Since Snyder's bankability had been more than a little bruised by the lukewarm reception for "Sucker Punch," this is a really strong indicator that people within the industry are very, very enthusiastic about how "Man of Steel" is coming together."
...but it's NOT "Episode VII."
In case you were under the impression that Disney wasn't planning to milk the ever-loving shit out of the malnourished and neglected cow it recently liberated from Skywalker Ranch; the big announcement here is that they're going to be making "Star Wars" Universe movies apart from the already-confirmed New Trilogy, and that Snyder will be first out of the gate with an in-canon entry being described as "Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' but with Jedi."
Most important takeaway from this, as far as I'm concerned: Since Snyder's bankability had been more than a little bruised by the lukewarm reception for "Sucker Punch," this is a really strong indicator that people within the industry are very, very enthusiastic about how "Man of Steel" is coming together."
Between Jodie Foster last night at the Globes and Quentin Tarantino a few days ago, 2013 is thus far a good year for movie legends finding highly-entertaining ways of saying "Stop asking about shit everyone already knows the answer to and no I'm not going to play along and give you your precious fucking soundbite/headline/etc anyway."
...aaaaand now I guess I have to be the asshole critic who can't resist wondering aloud where this charming, engaging, energetic version of Jodie Foster has BEEN given the forgettable to downright godawful movies she's been making for well over a decade? I mean, yeah, great moment; but the real "news" here is that she's come out as someone who hasn't totally checked-out, after all.
...aaaaand now I guess I have to be the asshole critic who can't resist wondering aloud where this charming, engaging, energetic version of Jodie Foster has BEEN given the forgettable to downright godawful movies she's been making for well over a decade? I mean, yeah, great moment; but the real "news" here is that she's come out as someone who hasn't totally checked-out, after all.
Friday, 11 January 2013
As a film journalist who also does time on the "intereview-but-really-just-promotion-for-the-movie-and-traffic-bumping-celebrity-cameo-for-you" dancefloor, I'm probably supposed to feel some sort of sympathy or kinship with Krishnan Guru-Murthy in this clip, but... no. Fuck no. It is fucking awesome watching Quentin rear up in (wholly justified) self-assurance and "Fuck you, you and this production only exist because of people like me, I'm the Film God doing you favor being here and that was the line!" (paraphrased, obviously) swagger when the "violence in movies" question comes up...
Obviously, you need to engage in discussions about things... up to a point. But much like climate change and evolution, that a direct causal link between violent media and real-world violence does not exist is fucking settled in the eyes of intelligent, reason-minded people (which, yes, excludes basically half the media) and people with a genuine understand/appreciation of film, art, culture etc. (which excludes the other half) and eventually you just has to say "Fuck it. The world is round, Intelligent Design/Creationism is horseshit, carbon emissions aren't good for us, 9-11 wasn't an inside job, the Holocaust actually happened, the President was born in the United States and violent movies and video games have never been and never will be responsible for a single solitary act of actual violence anywhere ever!," move the hell on and the leave the goddamn troglodytes to sniff their fingers and rot while the rest of us keep progressing forward.
Obviously, you need to engage in discussions about things... up to a point. But much like climate change and evolution, that a direct causal link between violent media and real-world violence does not exist is fucking settled in the eyes of intelligent, reason-minded people (which, yes, excludes basically half the media) and people with a genuine understand/appreciation of film, art, culture etc. (which excludes the other half) and eventually you just has to say "Fuck it. The world is round, Intelligent Design/Creationism is horseshit, carbon emissions aren't good for us, 9-11 wasn't an inside job, the Holocaust actually happened, the President was born in the United States and violent movies and video games have never been and never will be responsible for a single solitary act of actual violence anywhere ever!," move the hell on and the leave the goddamn troglodytes to sniff their fingers and rot while the rest of us keep progressing forward.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
My friends at ScrewAttack have a show called "Death Battle." If you haven't been watching, the basic idea is: "Who would win?" nerd-debates + actual in-depth research + crazy-good production values, topped off with an animated short visualizing the projected result. Very much worth checking out.
Today, they've finally taken up the "versus" question that's been topping these sorts of lists for the better part of two decades now: GOKU vs. SUPERMAN. Go. Watch. Now.
Today, they've finally taken up the "versus" question that's been topping these sorts of lists for the better part of two decades now: GOKU vs. SUPERMAN. Go. Watch. Now.
Just got done watching what turned out to be bullshit-packed run of nominations, now it's time to go to bed, blog more later.
For now... "Silver Linings Playbook," huh? Really? That's where the bar is now? Because we're all thrilled DeNiro decided to show up ambulatory and it turns out David O. Russell's taste in magical problem-solving imaginary girlfriends corresponds to that of lots of other industry people and movie critics?
Fine. Great. Whatever. I look forward to equally-deserving two-part episodes of "Modern Family" and "Parenthood" getting their nominations next year...
For now... "Silver Linings Playbook," huh? Really? That's where the bar is now? Because we're all thrilled DeNiro decided to show up ambulatory and it turns out David O. Russell's taste in magical problem-solving imaginary girlfriends corresponds to that of lots of other industry people and movie critics?
Fine. Great. Whatever. I look forward to equally-deserving two-part episodes of "Modern Family" and "Parenthood" getting their nominations next year...
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
So, yesterday I ran a Big Picture episode about "Amazing Spider-Man #700" and the subsequent "Superior Spider-Man" relaunch...
SPOILERS FOR HERE ON:
...in which I said that A.) I was digging at least the concept at play, i.e. that Peter Parker dies in ASM #700 with Doctor Octopus having taken over his body and intending to impersonate Spider-Man... but as a good guy because he'd also inherited Peter's memories/mind as well; and B.) That it was still not worth freaking out over since if it didn't work it'd stupid-easy for Marvel to just say "Hey, look! Peter's soul/consciousness/whatever isn't totally gone and is re-asserting itself!" to get him back into the "real" lead.
Well, turns out the FIRST ISSUE of "Superior" (out now) closes with the reveal that, suprise surprise, Peter Parker's "ghost" (does it really matter in what sense?) is "haunting" Ock-as-Spidey; curbing his darker impulses while also scheming to retake control of his body/mind/life. Instead of being the way they get "out" of the new status quo, this is the (temporary) status quo.
So, basically, this means that the whole "End of Amazing!"/"Launch of new series!" thing was a 90s-style "NEW #1!!!!" sales-stunt; and that ultimately "Superior" will wind up being a long-ish "That time I was a ghost and fought Doc Ock for control of my own body" miniseries of "Amazing," which will almost-certainly revert to it's original title/numbering on a "big" number (800?) and that whatever the title/numbeirng is at the time Peter will probably be "back" in time for the next movie.
...but you already knew that.
SPOILERS FOR HERE ON:
...in which I said that A.) I was digging at least the concept at play, i.e. that Peter Parker dies in ASM #700 with Doctor Octopus having taken over his body and intending to impersonate Spider-Man... but as a good guy because he'd also inherited Peter's memories/mind as well; and B.) That it was still not worth freaking out over since if it didn't work it'd stupid-easy for Marvel to just say "Hey, look! Peter's soul/consciousness/whatever isn't totally gone and is re-asserting itself!" to get him back into the "real" lead.
Well, turns out the FIRST ISSUE of "Superior" (out now) closes with the reveal that, suprise surprise, Peter Parker's "ghost" (does it really matter in what sense?) is "haunting" Ock-as-Spidey; curbing his darker impulses while also scheming to retake control of his body/mind/life. Instead of being the way they get "out" of the new status quo, this is the (temporary) status quo.
So, basically, this means that the whole "End of Amazing!"/"Launch of new series!" thing was a 90s-style "NEW #1!!!!" sales-stunt; and that ultimately "Superior" will wind up being a long-ish "That time I was a ghost and fought Doc Ock for control of my own body" miniseries of "Amazing," which will almost-certainly revert to it's original title/numbering on a "big" number (800?) and that whatever the title/numbeirng is at the time Peter will probably be "back" in time for the next movie.
...but you already knew that.
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Monday, 7 January 2013
FYI, video footage of the Game OverThinker/MovieBob Q&A is now up on Blip and The Other Blog.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Hat-tip to io9
There are, fundamentally, two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers.
When I say that, I expect it to get your attention. That's why it's presented in such blunt, quasi-absolutist terms. I know the first thing that jumps into anyone's head when they see the world belief presented as an opposing-force to thought is that the presenter (me) is "attacking" or otherwise denigrating religious belief, which is one of the all-time great attention-getters (just ask Ricky Gervais.)
Of course, those who bother to read past the slogan will typically discover that I didn't specifiy religious belief (or scientific thought, for that matter) because I'm talking about human behavior in a much more broad sense - it's wholly possible (and, in my mind, just as ill-advised) to apply religion-esque blind, uniformed fealty to any worldview. Case in point: The long-held, anti-science hysteria against Genetically Modified Organisms ("GMOs") particularly in agriculture. I've been on about this before.
One of the biggest anti-GMO activists - partially responsible from the mid-90s onward - for both spreading "Frankenfood" hysteria and coupling it (to cancerous effect) to the mainstream environmentalist movement was a fellow named Mark Lynas. Well, guess what? A few days ago, in a lecture to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas recanted and denounced more or less the entirety of the anti-GMO movement and his participation therein, effectively joining ranks with the Norm Borlaug wing of planet-management.
In the world of eco-science, this is pretty huge. But what I like more than the result is Lynas reasoning for it: In order to better argue his other great intellectual passion, climate change, he had to develop a greater understanding of science. In doing so, he realized that his stance on GMOs was simply not supported by real science, and that he'd been clinging to beliefs (his words) to justify it.
Confronted with hard scientific evidence that what he had assumed was, in fact, incorrect; Lynas' actions were that of a Thinker: He accepted the truth, and now looks to undo what damage he did by spreading a lie in the name of erroneous belief. He's now setting out to actively campaign for the EU and other organizations/governments to ease their crippling restrictions against GMO crops.
Money quotes, from the lecture:
"So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist."
"This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it."
"So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths."
"It is not enough to sit back and hope that technological innovation will solve our problems. We have to be much more activist and strategic than that. We have to ensure that technological innovation moves much more rapidly, and in the right direction for those who most need it."
"If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you."
"So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."
Wow.
"You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably." Remove the issue-specific "feeding the world sustainably" part and you've basically got a template for my entire day-to-day worldview.
Lynas, of course, has much more pennance to make than just a grand speech to atone for the harm he helped bring about, but this is a hell of a start and he sounds committed. I hope this speech goes viral (it's likely being passed around like Gangnam Style by the biotech community already) and gets out there. For good or ill, the environmentalist movement lives and dies by publicity. It's time it dropped this crap and got the side of science and (more importantly) reason and reality.
There are, fundamentally, two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers.
When I say that, I expect it to get your attention. That's why it's presented in such blunt, quasi-absolutist terms. I know the first thing that jumps into anyone's head when they see the world belief presented as an opposing-force to thought is that the presenter (me) is "attacking" or otherwise denigrating religious belief, which is one of the all-time great attention-getters (just ask Ricky Gervais.)
Of course, those who bother to read past the slogan will typically discover that I didn't specifiy religious belief (or scientific thought, for that matter) because I'm talking about human behavior in a much more broad sense - it's wholly possible (and, in my mind, just as ill-advised) to apply religion-esque blind, uniformed fealty to any worldview. Case in point: The long-held, anti-science hysteria against Genetically Modified Organisms ("GMOs") particularly in agriculture. I've been on about this before.
One of the biggest anti-GMO activists - partially responsible from the mid-90s onward - for both spreading "Frankenfood" hysteria and coupling it (to cancerous effect) to the mainstream environmentalist movement was a fellow named Mark Lynas. Well, guess what? A few days ago, in a lecture to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas recanted and denounced more or less the entirety of the anti-GMO movement and his participation therein, effectively joining ranks with the Norm Borlaug wing of planet-management.
In the world of eco-science, this is pretty huge. But what I like more than the result is Lynas reasoning for it: In order to better argue his other great intellectual passion, climate change, he had to develop a greater understanding of science. In doing so, he realized that his stance on GMOs was simply not supported by real science, and that he'd been clinging to beliefs (his words) to justify it.
Confronted with hard scientific evidence that what he had assumed was, in fact, incorrect; Lynas' actions were that of a Thinker: He accepted the truth, and now looks to undo what damage he did by spreading a lie in the name of erroneous belief. He's now setting out to actively campaign for the EU and other organizations/governments to ease their crippling restrictions against GMO crops.
Money quotes, from the lecture:
"So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist."
"This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it."
"So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths."
"It is not enough to sit back and hope that technological innovation will solve our problems. We have to be much more activist and strategic than that. We have to ensure that technological innovation moves much more rapidly, and in the right direction for those who most need it."
"If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you."
"So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."
Wow.
"You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably." Remove the issue-specific "feeding the world sustainably" part and you've basically got a template for my entire day-to-day worldview.
Lynas, of course, has much more pennance to make than just a grand speech to atone for the harm he helped bring about, but this is a hell of a start and he sounds committed. I hope this speech goes viral (it's likely being passed around like Gangnam Style by the biotech community already) and gets out there. For good or ill, the environmentalist movement lives and dies by publicity. It's time it dropped this crap and got the side of science and (more importantly) reason and reality.
Thursday, 3 January 2013
My good friend and fellow BOFCA member Dan Kimmel has written his first fiction novel, a scifi/comedy called "Shh! It's a Secret," due to be released this month. It's now available for pre-orders, if anyone would like to take a look...
Dan's a good guy, old-school scifi fan and more-than-generous helper to the newbie set in the Boston area movie-journalism game. Some of you might be familiar with his previous book, "Jar-Jar Binks Must Die."
Dan's a good guy, old-school scifi fan and more-than-generous helper to the newbie set in the Boston area movie-journalism game. Some of you might be familiar with his previous book, "Jar-Jar Binks Must Die."
UPDATED: Had originally linked to the first trailer, fixed.
The "Evil Dead" remake is probably going to be awesome, and we need to start accepting that:
The "Evil Dead" remake is probably going to be awesome, and we need to start accepting that:
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
(re-posted from The Other Blog, hat-tip: POLYGON.)
This is how it begins...
I "get" that grief is a powerful emotion that can override common sense and reason, even in the best of us. I understand that, therefore, we are expected to be deferential and sympathetic to even the most awkward, outlandish or uncomfortable expressions of grief: "Oh, it's alright. They're just upset. Let them vent." I get that... but there's a limit to everything. So, I have ZERO problem saying that the folks in Southington, Connecticut who've more-or-less decided to hold a mass-burning of "violent" video games (music and movies, too) as some kind of reaction to the tragedy in nearby Newtown are, whateve their intent, essentially painting themselves as a pack of ignorant, knuckle-dragging, reactionary cretins; and that they deserve to be called-out and shamed for what is - regardless of scale, circumstance or intent - a crime against art, culture and an affront to civilized modernity.
Southington SOS, which purports to be a charitable organization comprised of local business and community leaders set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre (which, just to reiterate, took place in a different community in CT) are the force behind this gesture. They put out a press release announcing it, which includes contact information for a local YMCA chairman who is apparently a spokesman for the group (I've contacted him for some clarification, awaiting response.)
Said press-release claims that it isn't trying to suggest that games are "to blame" for the shooting and that it's more interested in getting parents and their kids to "have the conversation;" though it goes to claim that "ample evidence" exists for violent media contributing to aggression, "desensitization" and the usual malarkey... without, of course, providing a source of said "ample evidence" (spoiler: that's because there isn't any.) They'll be rewarding "donations" with $25 dollar giftcards, which seems a little rotten to me since I'm more than certain the victimized town they're supposedly supporting could probably use that money... That the "returned" offending materials will be destroyed and "likely" incinerated was revealed by the Southington School Superintendent, Joe Erardi.
Like I said, these are the sorts of things that happen when people's emotions - especially grief and the impotent rage that comes with it - override common sense, and it only gets worse when it grips a community and becomes a kind of mass-pathology (see: Salem, 1692-1693). Often, the only "cure" for such circumstances is for non (or, at least, less) irrational people to hold up the mirror and point out the absurdity and wrongness of what said community is doing - sunlight, as ever, is the ultimate disinfectant. Which is why I think it's proper to publicize this event and respond (civily!) to Southington SOS; if only to let them know how much damage they're doing, image-wise, to themselves and their purported cause by engaging in such vile and wrongheaded behavior.
Note: If and when the representative I mentioned responds to my call, I will post any details/clarifications he wishes to make at my earliest ability.
This is how it begins...
I "get" that grief is a powerful emotion that can override common sense and reason, even in the best of us. I understand that, therefore, we are expected to be deferential and sympathetic to even the most awkward, outlandish or uncomfortable expressions of grief: "Oh, it's alright. They're just upset. Let them vent." I get that... but there's a limit to everything. So, I have ZERO problem saying that the folks in Southington, Connecticut who've more-or-less decided to hold a mass-burning of "violent" video games (music and movies, too) as some kind of reaction to the tragedy in nearby Newtown are, whateve their intent, essentially painting themselves as a pack of ignorant, knuckle-dragging, reactionary cretins; and that they deserve to be called-out and shamed for what is - regardless of scale, circumstance or intent - a crime against art, culture and an affront to civilized modernity.
Southington SOS, which purports to be a charitable organization comprised of local business and community leaders set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre (which, just to reiterate, took place in a different community in CT) are the force behind this gesture. They put out a press release announcing it, which includes contact information for a local YMCA chairman who is apparently a spokesman for the group (I've contacted him for some clarification, awaiting response.)
Said press-release claims that it isn't trying to suggest that games are "to blame" for the shooting and that it's more interested in getting parents and their kids to "have the conversation;" though it goes to claim that "ample evidence" exists for violent media contributing to aggression, "desensitization" and the usual malarkey... without, of course, providing a source of said "ample evidence" (spoiler: that's because there isn't any.) They'll be rewarding "donations" with $25 dollar giftcards, which seems a little rotten to me since I'm more than certain the victimized town they're supposedly supporting could probably use that money... That the "returned" offending materials will be destroyed and "likely" incinerated was revealed by the Southington School Superintendent, Joe Erardi.
Like I said, these are the sorts of things that happen when people's emotions - especially grief and the impotent rage that comes with it - override common sense, and it only gets worse when it grips a community and becomes a kind of mass-pathology (see: Salem, 1692-1693). Often, the only "cure" for such circumstances is for non (or, at least, less) irrational people to hold up the mirror and point out the absurdity and wrongness of what said community is doing - sunlight, as ever, is the ultimate disinfectant. Which is why I think it's proper to publicize this event and respond (civily!) to Southington SOS; if only to let them know how much damage they're doing, image-wise, to themselves and their purported cause by engaging in such vile and wrongheaded behavior.
Note: If and when the representative I mentioned responds to my call, I will post any details/clarifications he wishes to make at my earliest ability.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Hey look, you get a new episode even though it's New Year's Day and I just became lucid around 5:00 PM!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
