Hey. Well, I don't have much time to post, so, you know, enjoy the archives, and ponder this:
Jamie's pal from her days in frontier town Lawton, Oklahoma, is here. Rebecca lives in Nashville these days. Anyhoo, it'd be kind of weird and rude for me to sit here and blog while she's here.
So...
Ya'll rock on.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Superman Inspired Goodness?
It seems that JLA and Identity Crisis writer Brad Meltzer has started the ball rolling on a great, multi-pronged project.
He's involved with an organization called "Ordinary People Change the World", which invites people from all walks of life to engage in civic responsibility and help others.
Meltzer has started a group, or sub-group, called "The Siegel and Shuster Society" which is working to raise funds toward the preservation of the home Jerry Siegel lived in through his twenties, and where he was living when he developed the idea for Superman. Read more here.
I think its worth noting that Meltzer hasn't just focused on the preservation of the Siegel home, but has hitched the Siegel and Shuster Society to the greater effort of Ordinary People Change the World, encouraging folks to find other ways in which they can help their community.
Meltzer had teamed with a number of comic professionals to obtain items for bid whose proceeds will benefit the Siegel and Shuster Society, and begin restoration of the century-old home in Cleveland. The items are all, invariably, awesome. Which means I can't actually afford any of them, but you can also just donate, or purchase a shirt from the Society (which will also help out).
Keep in mind, they aren't trying to make a museum out of the house (yet). They're trying to get the house into better shape for the couple who actually lives in the house every day.
Figure out a way in which you can participate.
He's involved with an organization called "Ordinary People Change the World", which invites people from all walks of life to engage in civic responsibility and help others.
Meltzer has started a group, or sub-group, called "The Siegel and Shuster Society" which is working to raise funds toward the preservation of the home Jerry Siegel lived in through his twenties, and where he was living when he developed the idea for Superman. Read more here.
I think its worth noting that Meltzer hasn't just focused on the preservation of the Siegel home, but has hitched the Siegel and Shuster Society to the greater effort of Ordinary People Change the World, encouraging folks to find other ways in which they can help their community.
Meltzer had teamed with a number of comic professionals to obtain items for bid whose proceeds will benefit the Siegel and Shuster Society, and begin restoration of the century-old home in Cleveland. The items are all, invariably, awesome. Which means I can't actually afford any of them, but you can also just donate, or purchase a shirt from the Society (which will also help out).
Keep in mind, they aren't trying to make a museum out of the house (yet). They're trying to get the house into better shape for the couple who actually lives in the house every day.
Figure out a way in which you can participate.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Out of Africa
So yesterday I watched a movie I'd DVR'd over the weekend "Out of Africa".
It was a movie I was pretty sure I'd seen before, but realized I'd only seen a few bits, and running at 2 hours, 45 minutes, I had seen only a snippet.
The story is based on the book and, roughly, life of Karen Blixen (pen name Isak Denisen), and her years living on and running a farm in Kenya from the mid 1910's to 1931.
The cast is led by Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who were revered (for right or wrong) during the 1980's in a way that is no longer in practice for a mass audience, although internet noise may be giving me a false impression, what with how many sites insist I love Megan Fox of Transformers fame. And it's not hard to see how Streep gained the reputation she's still riding, even when she partakes in more whimsical movies like "Mamma Mia!" these days.
The pacing is glacial, but still engaging. Director Sydney Pollack (whose only other work I've seen is "Tootsie" and "Jeremiah Johnson"), doesn't quite insist on the dreamlike state of a Terrence Malick movie, but lets the wide open setting of the African foothills and the years in which the story occurs dictate the pacing of the story.
The story shouldn't have been the sort of thing I would normally get wrapped up in. In many ways, its a domestic melodrama that happens to stretch over years among aristocrats acting as lords of the manor, pushing back against the march of progress. And, were I thinking of a paper to write in film school, most certainly one could have a field day comparing and contrasting Scarlett from "Gone with the Wind" and Karen Blixen.
Streep's Blixen, accurate or not, is a powerful character, and is most likely the sort of role actresses are seeking when they complain that there are no good roles written for women. What's daunting in our post-PC era is guessing how the relationships actually worked with the colonists and the folks already living on the land which they carved up. But the messy relations of the colonists, and especially Blixen's relationship with Denys Hatton are easy enough to buy into without the usual eye-rolling moments of romantic plots.
While watching the movie it struck me how seldom I take time for movies that don't star superheroes, robots, aliens and/ or gorillas. Maybe a good part of that is my intolerance for the movie crowds that I recall putting up with at the multiplex in Gilbert, Arizona when we'd go see movies like "The Aviator" (which I really wanted to see), or even a flashier movie like "Chicago".
I also made a comment to Jamie, as the movie was wrapping, that they really don't make movies like "Out of Africa" anymore. Jamie disagreed, and in retrospect, I have to agree with her. I just don't go see a wide variety of movies anymore.
I sent Jamie with Nicole to go see "Atonement" without me, but I honestly don't know how it stacks up. Sometimes its better to let the "epics" stand some test of time rather than walking into a movie that is desperately trying to emulate greater movies, and just doesn't really pull it off.
I was burned out by the "Upstairs, Downstairs" type films, and movies about crossing over class lines in British society that, really... Until someone has something new to say about the caste system of early 20th Century Britain, don't call me, I'll call you, "Gosford Park".
Your mileage may vary for "There Will be Blood" (Steven), but at least the movie unapologetically set its own pacing and wasn't afraid to tell a multi-year story. Curious that movies that are so formal in so many other ways from a technical standpoint are most often the ones that bend the rules of hard pacing Hollywood so adores.
And I'm not one to usually buy into epic love stories. Because I get terribly impatient with people I actually know in romantic entanglements, I really don't want to see two people pine for each other for 2 hours on screen. And maybe Blixen's direct approach to the romance in her story won me over for that exact reason. It makes the arc of the whole thing feel that much less like Hollywood machinery.
Perhaps as the fall begins to roll out "serious" movies, I might quit being The Grinch and try something a bit out of my comfort zone.
Jason will be delighted to hear lions appear several times in the course of the movie.
It was a movie I was pretty sure I'd seen before, but realized I'd only seen a few bits, and running at 2 hours, 45 minutes, I had seen only a snippet.
The story is based on the book and, roughly, life of Karen Blixen (pen name Isak Denisen), and her years living on and running a farm in Kenya from the mid 1910's to 1931.
The cast is led by Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who were revered (for right or wrong) during the 1980's in a way that is no longer in practice for a mass audience, although internet noise may be giving me a false impression, what with how many sites insist I love Megan Fox of Transformers fame. And it's not hard to see how Streep gained the reputation she's still riding, even when she partakes in more whimsical movies like "Mamma Mia!" these days.
The pacing is glacial, but still engaging. Director Sydney Pollack (whose only other work I've seen is "Tootsie" and "Jeremiah Johnson"), doesn't quite insist on the dreamlike state of a Terrence Malick movie, but lets the wide open setting of the African foothills and the years in which the story occurs dictate the pacing of the story.
The story shouldn't have been the sort of thing I would normally get wrapped up in. In many ways, its a domestic melodrama that happens to stretch over years among aristocrats acting as lords of the manor, pushing back against the march of progress. And, were I thinking of a paper to write in film school, most certainly one could have a field day comparing and contrasting Scarlett from "Gone with the Wind" and Karen Blixen.
Streep's Blixen, accurate or not, is a powerful character, and is most likely the sort of role actresses are seeking when they complain that there are no good roles written for women. What's daunting in our post-PC era is guessing how the relationships actually worked with the colonists and the folks already living on the land which they carved up. But the messy relations of the colonists, and especially Blixen's relationship with Denys Hatton are easy enough to buy into without the usual eye-rolling moments of romantic plots.
While watching the movie it struck me how seldom I take time for movies that don't star superheroes, robots, aliens and/ or gorillas. Maybe a good part of that is my intolerance for the movie crowds that I recall putting up with at the multiplex in Gilbert, Arizona when we'd go see movies like "The Aviator" (which I really wanted to see), or even a flashier movie like "Chicago".
I also made a comment to Jamie, as the movie was wrapping, that they really don't make movies like "Out of Africa" anymore. Jamie disagreed, and in retrospect, I have to agree with her. I just don't go see a wide variety of movies anymore.
I sent Jamie with Nicole to go see "Atonement" without me, but I honestly don't know how it stacks up. Sometimes its better to let the "epics" stand some test of time rather than walking into a movie that is desperately trying to emulate greater movies, and just doesn't really pull it off.
I was burned out by the "Upstairs, Downstairs" type films, and movies about crossing over class lines in British society that, really... Until someone has something new to say about the caste system of early 20th Century Britain, don't call me, I'll call you, "Gosford Park".
Your mileage may vary for "There Will be Blood" (Steven), but at least the movie unapologetically set its own pacing and wasn't afraid to tell a multi-year story. Curious that movies that are so formal in so many other ways from a technical standpoint are most often the ones that bend the rules of hard pacing Hollywood so adores.
And I'm not one to usually buy into epic love stories. Because I get terribly impatient with people I actually know in romantic entanglements, I really don't want to see two people pine for each other for 2 hours on screen. And maybe Blixen's direct approach to the romance in her story won me over for that exact reason. It makes the arc of the whole thing feel that much less like Hollywood machinery.
Perhaps as the fall begins to roll out "serious" movies, I might quit being The Grinch and try something a bit out of my comfort zone.
Jason will be delighted to hear lions appear several times in the course of the movie.
Movie Trailers now 100% less Awesome
Movie trailer voiceover maestro Don LaFontaine has passed on.
An article here.
yeah, it's the "In a world..." guy.
I am sad to hear this news. Not only was LaFontaine only 68, but we'll now be denied the voice my generation associates with the movies.
Godspeed, sir. May your merging with the infinite be as exciting as your voiceovers.
An article here.
yeah, it's the "In a world..." guy.
I am sad to hear this news. Not only was LaFontaine only 68, but we'll now be denied the voice my generation associates with the movies.
Godspeed, sir. May your merging with the infinite be as exciting as your voiceovers.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Unpolitical Comic Fodder
A new post up about the value of a single vision within the DCU.
The REAL news is that Leaguer Simon has joined up at Comic Fodder. He's reviewing collections and trades, I think, which will fill a HUGE gap in the Comic Fodder galaxy of stars.
Here's his first post on Ellis and Cassaday's "Planetary".
The REAL news is that Leaguer Simon has joined up at Comic Fodder. He's reviewing collections and trades, I think, which will fill a HUGE gap in the Comic Fodder galaxy of stars.
Here's his first post on Ellis and Cassaday's "Planetary".
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Getting Political
Ahhhh... It's that time in a young country's life when so many things are due for a change. That country keeps hearing about "Change" and may even be discovering girls (on the ticket).
For folks newer to the site, here's some background:
The site was originally a bit more political. I was deeply dissatisfied with the Bush administration and the push to war in Iraq (do not equate this with a push into Afghanistan or other Al Qaeda related pushes of the day). The American press was rolling over for talking point dispatches, and more than I was bothered by Bush's strategies, I was deeply bothered by the way the press was happy to play along.
I should note, the force singly most responsible for the creation of League of Melbotis is a thought-provoking conservative in his own right. And while he and I could disagree, there was always an opportunity for me to see things from a new angle. I have no idea if he felt the same way, but that was something I could take away from it.
That's really all I ask out of political discussion. Rational discourse. Keep the emotion to a limited degree (I've been known to get pretty hot about certain issues, I confess), and trying not to deny logic in an argument.
I started LoM in the Boogeyman Era of politics, where the call of the day was "If you don't support X, you hate America", "If you don't buy into Y, you hate our troops", "If you don't agree to Z, you hate freedom", and, my favorite "You're trying to appease the terrorists!". No other time in the history of man has the phrase "appease" been bandied about so much.
For me, the end result of the Bush/ Cable News era, sadly, has been a sneering cynicism about politics in general. Cynicism = bad. If you find our system goofy, go live in Canada, right? Whatever.
Instead, it's been a 7 year lesson in watching the entire populace (who supposedly took high school civics) look the other direction as the law and basic decency have been put to the curb for expediency.
Worse, possibly, it's ingrained in me a cynicism about party loyalists of any stripe. If folks will believe anything That Guy says, why should I believe anything Our Guy says?
It's sort of left me with the impression that we are not so far away from our silver-back respecting primate cousins. There's a reason that against all logic, we spent 100,000 years erecting kings to live in palaces while we toiled on turnip farms and paid them taxes, believing God himself had selected Our Guy for the job. When push came to shove, if we backed Our Guy and adorned him in jewels and let him kick the crap out of us, maybe when the jerks from the other side of the island showed up to kill us and take our turnips, our belief that Our Guy was the REAL guy (and not THEIR jewel adorned guy, who was so obviously a jerk) God would help us smite our enemies.
And because winners tend to write history, sure, God was on our side.
Despite our proclamations of love for the system, I'm not convinced we're not all secret monarchists at heart, in search of a king (or queen). We choose our candidates by how they support the lifestyle we believe we (and everyone else) should be living. We don't look to candidates to change our ways with new and challenging ideas. Every four years is a chance to crown new royalty, and to feel some small victory when or if the victor is the one who confirms our preconceived notions.
If Our Guy wins, things will be better for everyone. He will protect our turnips. Or at least the way we think turnips should be raised and distributed. If the other guy wins, we'll all be turnipless.
The improvement in the situation is that we have an opportunity to choose which guy we're going to go with on this turnip situation very four harvests.
A bit of personal frustration I find in myself is that I absolutely have knee-jerk reactions, and despite the abundance of information available on candidates and their game plans for the future that I came to a decision so quickly regarding who was My Guy. I found myself rationalizing criticisms of My Guy, and backing shakier criticisms against All Those Other Guys. As it's become Our Guy vs. Their Guy (and Our Guy-1 vs. Their Guy-1), things are starting to get serious.
But I don't take any of the candidates all that seriously. You can't.
I often have no idea if My Guy's plans will work. It's just that My Guy's plans sound more like something I'd do than The Other Guy's plans. When I hear our two candidates talking about their energy plans, is it really that shocking that the solution they came up with matches the preconceived notions of their party faithful? Is the science behind what their saying a legitimate response? Why the @#$% are we asking politicians (of all people) how we should be moving forward with energy solutions? Why aren't we finding out what the facts and science are from someone who doesn't have a political stake in this stuff (such as Ms. Paris Hilton)?
We're looking to our Officially Anointed and Elected Sun Gods to pretend they know how to do everything from run international tariff laws to understanding the complex issues behind our natural resources. Luckily, they gladly fake authority and certainty on such topics, and we go right along with it, mostly because it fulfills the conclusions we've already come to.
I quit talking politics on the site because, honestly, it totally wears me out. I say "red", someone else chimes in to say "blue", someone else says "you don't understand colors, moron", and yet another person says "God only likes blue." And the truth is, we're all right and we're all wrong. We won't ever live in a state of utter hegemony in which we're all moving the same direction and the same solutions work for everyone. (You can try this, but then you're a big, spooky country where people tend to disappear when they disagree.)
The fact is, it's a single vote I'll cast in November. In a state that is massively, proudly Republican, it totally doesn't matter what I think (no matter who I vote for). The arcane and out-dated workings of the electoral college tell me that voting in National Politics is, in fact, pointless. And with the results of the 2000 Election, I'm kind of inclined to think the whole thing is so astonishingly flawed that its going to come down to the fact that we have a Republican-placed Supreme Court, anyway.
It doesn't mean I won't vote. It's just... you know, I'm not completely dumb nor overly illogical. And it sure as hell beats the alternative of not having any say. That's been our lot for the vast, vast majority of human history. And, I don't think too kindly of that particular right being infringed upon.
So I vote more for the ritual of the thing, and because I have hope that one day a vote will actually count for something (we do live in a Republic after all, not a true democracy. But things change.). And that my vote can be a reminder to The Other Guy, if My Guy does lose (and he probably will), that nobody walks into office on a 100% mandate. Anyone taking the Oval Office should remember that almost half the country didn't want to see them in office, and keep that in mind when they start making decisions.
But I'll be dipped if that's what I see actually happen. It's hard to not believe the monkeys howling your name and dropping all those red and blue balloons (all for you!) in those first 100 days. You get to be festooned in jewels and tell the whole country that despite the council's decisions regarding turnip planting, you're not agreeing to plant any turnips until they start growing them and distributing turnips in the way you see fit...
We choose our kings and queens in odd ways and maybe by asking the wrong questions. And certainly by expecting them to be all knowing and seeing with their army of advisors. I don't know what criteria we should be using to make our decisions, but too often we seem to make our decisions based on someone else's checklist. And maybe that's what needs to change a bit.
A quick PS: I am neither for or against Sarah Palin, Joe Biden or anyone else seeking office. I've given Palin a hard time the past few days here at LoM and Steanso's blog. This is not to suggest anything about Palin (other than that probably Photoshopped pics with accompanying taglines are amusing). Here's a hoax link.
I could care less about Sarah Palin or Joe Biden other than their official capacities, and more or less the same about McCain and Obama. If you are in some way related to any of these people and become offended by future links regarding stuff I find funny, then my apologies. Any hang up other readers have regarding the sun god worship of candidates is their own.
I assure you, all of this will get stupider before it gets better.
For folks newer to the site, here's some background:
The site was originally a bit more political. I was deeply dissatisfied with the Bush administration and the push to war in Iraq (do not equate this with a push into Afghanistan or other Al Qaeda related pushes of the day). The American press was rolling over for talking point dispatches, and more than I was bothered by Bush's strategies, I was deeply bothered by the way the press was happy to play along.
I should note, the force singly most responsible for the creation of League of Melbotis is a thought-provoking conservative in his own right. And while he and I could disagree, there was always an opportunity for me to see things from a new angle. I have no idea if he felt the same way, but that was something I could take away from it.
That's really all I ask out of political discussion. Rational discourse. Keep the emotion to a limited degree (I've been known to get pretty hot about certain issues, I confess), and trying not to deny logic in an argument.
I started LoM in the Boogeyman Era of politics, where the call of the day was "If you don't support X, you hate America", "If you don't buy into Y, you hate our troops", "If you don't agree to Z, you hate freedom", and, my favorite "You're trying to appease the terrorists!". No other time in the history of man has the phrase "appease" been bandied about so much.
For me, the end result of the Bush/ Cable News era, sadly, has been a sneering cynicism about politics in general. Cynicism = bad. If you find our system goofy, go live in Canada, right? Whatever.
Instead, it's been a 7 year lesson in watching the entire populace (who supposedly took high school civics) look the other direction as the law and basic decency have been put to the curb for expediency.
Worse, possibly, it's ingrained in me a cynicism about party loyalists of any stripe. If folks will believe anything That Guy says, why should I believe anything Our Guy says?
It's sort of left me with the impression that we are not so far away from our silver-back respecting primate cousins. There's a reason that against all logic, we spent 100,000 years erecting kings to live in palaces while we toiled on turnip farms and paid them taxes, believing God himself had selected Our Guy for the job. When push came to shove, if we backed Our Guy and adorned him in jewels and let him kick the crap out of us, maybe when the jerks from the other side of the island showed up to kill us and take our turnips, our belief that Our Guy was the REAL guy (and not THEIR jewel adorned guy, who was so obviously a jerk) God would help us smite our enemies.
And because winners tend to write history, sure, God was on our side.
Despite our proclamations of love for the system, I'm not convinced we're not all secret monarchists at heart, in search of a king (or queen). We choose our candidates by how they support the lifestyle we believe we (and everyone else) should be living. We don't look to candidates to change our ways with new and challenging ideas. Every four years is a chance to crown new royalty, and to feel some small victory when or if the victor is the one who confirms our preconceived notions.
If Our Guy wins, things will be better for everyone. He will protect our turnips. Or at least the way we think turnips should be raised and distributed. If the other guy wins, we'll all be turnipless.
The improvement in the situation is that we have an opportunity to choose which guy we're going to go with on this turnip situation very four harvests.
A bit of personal frustration I find in myself is that I absolutely have knee-jerk reactions, and despite the abundance of information available on candidates and their game plans for the future that I came to a decision so quickly regarding who was My Guy. I found myself rationalizing criticisms of My Guy, and backing shakier criticisms against All Those Other Guys. As it's become Our Guy vs. Their Guy (and Our Guy-1 vs. Their Guy-1), things are starting to get serious.
But I don't take any of the candidates all that seriously. You can't.
I often have no idea if My Guy's plans will work. It's just that My Guy's plans sound more like something I'd do than The Other Guy's plans. When I hear our two candidates talking about their energy plans, is it really that shocking that the solution they came up with matches the preconceived notions of their party faithful? Is the science behind what their saying a legitimate response? Why the @#$% are we asking politicians (of all people) how we should be moving forward with energy solutions? Why aren't we finding out what the facts and science are from someone who doesn't have a political stake in this stuff (such as Ms. Paris Hilton)?
We're looking to our Officially Anointed and Elected Sun Gods to pretend they know how to do everything from run international tariff laws to understanding the complex issues behind our natural resources. Luckily, they gladly fake authority and certainty on such topics, and we go right along with it, mostly because it fulfills the conclusions we've already come to.
I quit talking politics on the site because, honestly, it totally wears me out. I say "red", someone else chimes in to say "blue", someone else says "you don't understand colors, moron", and yet another person says "God only likes blue." And the truth is, we're all right and we're all wrong. We won't ever live in a state of utter hegemony in which we're all moving the same direction and the same solutions work for everyone. (You can try this, but then you're a big, spooky country where people tend to disappear when they disagree.)
The fact is, it's a single vote I'll cast in November. In a state that is massively, proudly Republican, it totally doesn't matter what I think (no matter who I vote for). The arcane and out-dated workings of the electoral college tell me that voting in National Politics is, in fact, pointless. And with the results of the 2000 Election, I'm kind of inclined to think the whole thing is so astonishingly flawed that its going to come down to the fact that we have a Republican-placed Supreme Court, anyway.
It doesn't mean I won't vote. It's just... you know, I'm not completely dumb nor overly illogical. And it sure as hell beats the alternative of not having any say. That's been our lot for the vast, vast majority of human history. And, I don't think too kindly of that particular right being infringed upon.
So I vote more for the ritual of the thing, and because I have hope that one day a vote will actually count for something (we do live in a Republic after all, not a true democracy. But things change.). And that my vote can be a reminder to The Other Guy, if My Guy does lose (and he probably will), that nobody walks into office on a 100% mandate. Anyone taking the Oval Office should remember that almost half the country didn't want to see them in office, and keep that in mind when they start making decisions.
But I'll be dipped if that's what I see actually happen. It's hard to not believe the monkeys howling your name and dropping all those red and blue balloons (all for you!) in those first 100 days. You get to be festooned in jewels and tell the whole country that despite the council's decisions regarding turnip planting, you're not agreeing to plant any turnips until they start growing them and distributing turnips in the way you see fit...
We choose our kings and queens in odd ways and maybe by asking the wrong questions. And certainly by expecting them to be all knowing and seeing with their army of advisors. I don't know what criteria we should be using to make our decisions, but too often we seem to make our decisions based on someone else's checklist. And maybe that's what needs to change a bit.
A quick PS: I am neither for or against Sarah Palin, Joe Biden or anyone else seeking office. I've given Palin a hard time the past few days here at LoM and Steanso's blog. This is not to suggest anything about Palin (other than that probably Photoshopped pics with accompanying taglines are amusing). Here's a hoax link.
I could care less about Sarah Palin or Joe Biden other than their official capacities, and more or less the same about McCain and Obama. If you are in some way related to any of these people and become offended by future links regarding stuff I find funny, then my apologies. Any hang up other readers have regarding the sun god worship of candidates is their own.
I assure you, all of this will get stupider before it gets better.
UT Wins (not a huge surprise)
I don't like the word "fun". People use it to the point that it's almost meaningless. Not everything is equal shades of "fun". Such as going to the comic shop is, indeed, "fun", but it's still really looking for stuff to read that you hope will be even more "fun". Going out to grab a bite with pals is, indeed, "fun". But so is a quiet dinner with Jamie.
If the eskimos have 200,000 words for snow, why are we stuck with one word for "fun"? There should be a scale.
Anyway, all of this is to say that on the fun-scale, I have to rate the UT game very, very high. Yeah, our seats were incredibly high up. We literally walked up ten-flights worth of ramps to get to section 116. But our view was actually really nice, and we could see the Jumbotron and side-mounted scoreboards just fine.
The crowd was great, UT played really well (I have no worries about McCoy's readiness this season. The boy is looking top-notch.), the band was in top form, and we even enjoyed a breeze in our very high seats.
The crew I went to the game with was comprised of myself, my folks and David. David hadn't ever been to UT game (or college game, I think), and its been well over a decade since I've been to a UT game.
The additions to UT stadium since I last went are pretty awesome. Sure, they could use an escalator to the 10th floor, but it's an amazing facility. And football live is genuinely great to watch, especially with a hyped-up, hometown crowd.
For the record, this was UT playing it's annual "bring in the smaller school so we can pummel them and whip our fans into a frenzy" game. UT defeated Florida Atlantic 52-10. Florida Atlantic had no running game to speak of, but did find the weak spots in our secondary in their passing game. Hopefully that can be corrected by the time we play Arkansas.
Man, I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
Hook 'Em.
If the eskimos have 200,000 words for snow, why are we stuck with one word for "fun"? There should be a scale.
Anyway, all of this is to say that on the fun-scale, I have to rate the UT game very, very high. Yeah, our seats were incredibly high up. We literally walked up ten-flights worth of ramps to get to section 116. But our view was actually really nice, and we could see the Jumbotron and side-mounted scoreboards just fine.
The crowd was great, UT played really well (I have no worries about McCoy's readiness this season. The boy is looking top-notch.), the band was in top form, and we even enjoyed a breeze in our very high seats.
The crew I went to the game with was comprised of myself, my folks and David. David hadn't ever been to UT game (or college game, I think), and its been well over a decade since I've been to a UT game.
The additions to UT stadium since I last went are pretty awesome. Sure, they could use an escalator to the 10th floor, but it's an amazing facility. And football live is genuinely great to watch, especially with a hyped-up, hometown crowd.
For the record, this was UT playing it's annual "bring in the smaller school so we can pummel them and whip our fans into a frenzy" game. UT defeated Florida Atlantic 52-10. Florida Atlantic had no running game to speak of, but did find the weak spots in our secondary in their passing game. Hopefully that can be corrected by the time we play Arkansas.
Man, I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
Hook 'Em.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
From the Cabela's Catalog
Simon will be confused by this post as these sorts of hats are, as I understand it, common headwear in Canada.
This item retails at Cabela's for $250, and in no way will make you look completely insane.
In case you're wondering: Yeah, that's a real, dead coyote. You can tell, because the only color they offer? COYOTE.
From the reviews:
"I have purchased a number of fur hats in my day but this is by far the warmest and most comfortable. Not only does it keep the back of my head warm but you can wrap the legs around your face to block the wind. The only reason this hat did not receive 5 stars is due to the fact that I was attacked by a bird thinking it was wounded prey while I was out for a walk. A rare but unfortunate occurrence when wearing an animal pelt on your head. Also great in the rain. Didn't smell at all after it was wet and it makes a great present. I'm getting one for my wife."
That lady is going to feel so @#$%ing lucky.
I just like how their model could be The League with a beard. It's like seeing a parallel Earth where The League has finally snapped.
Special thanks to Denby for the link
Papa Johns Fulfills Dream of Cowboys Fans Everywhere
I'm going all middle school on this one, but...
Skip to about 26 seconds in:
I like how someone taught the kid to really lean into it.
Skip to about 26 seconds in:
I like how someone taught the kid to really lean into it.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Agenda Advertising
Have you seen the Harry and Louise ads?
They're running now, and are sort of interesting. Watch the subtext of the ads, because while they're talking "affordable healthcare", they don't really define what they mean by "affordable healthcare", but they DO ask that that "everyone" be brought to the table. They also throw up several organizational logos, to suggest some sort of official capacity, I guess.
The website is even MORE vague. Which, as we all know in 2008, is usually a sign that something is up.
But the organizations who've thrown in with the ads at least SEEM invested in affordable healthcare. A quick perusal of the sites doesn't give much more than the typical "we are committed to quality, affordable healthcare, blah... blah... blah..."
I'm honestly not sure what that means.
Given the history of Harry and Louise in a series of ads that were a part of the defeat of the Clinton's attempt at universal health care circa 1993, could it be the same agencies are nervous about what the Dems are going to try to do if they win the election regarding healthcare?
I honestly have no idea at all where this will go... but its going to be interesting to watch to see how the campaign unfolds. What I will find deeply disappointing will be if it's the ol' bait-n-switch with Harry and Louise, and the big solution they're pitching is "things are great! why change the system?"
Agenda advertising is really hitting the airwaves from all kinds of NGO's. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you have an agenda you think can gain traction from getting your message in the mix (energy, healthcare, etc...), then why not?
I have my opinions on all this healthcare stuff, but that's for another day.
A completely different kind of agenda ad
Remember Nick and Norm?
Oh, where to start...?
I have this vision of a room full of middle-aged white guys who are so very sick of hearing their kids coming back from college and arguing with them over politics, etc... And wish these kids would just shut the hell up and listen to their old man. What sort of catharsis must these guys have felt when this ad ran, and the young man just caves to the unshakable argument of "It's a FACT."
So, why did the ad campaign fail? (The ads were, btw, apparently a horrible failure.)
A) Obviously Norm was a horrible jack-ass to Nick. And therefore the viewer. You don't sell anything, including an idea, by acting like a pedantic jerk. Even in the context of late 2001.
B) The ads never bothered to actually provide viewers with facts validating their claim. That would have been handy and not increased my cynicism regarding their claims. F-A-C-T. Fact.
C) In a round-about way, the Nick and Norm ads made a really good argument for legalizing drugs. If its legal, at least you can guess you're not buying your goofballs from terrorists and everybody wins. No more money to terrorists, no more money enforcing unworkable laws and the funding from the war on drugs can go to the war or terror. FACT. And Nick can still go buy his dope without the guilt that his goofballs are putting bullets in a rifle somewhere. FACT.
I can't tell you how appalling I found this ad campaign.
You can probably draw some parallel to the success of the ad campaign to how well folks in a free society like being talked to like a punk 13 year old kid getting disciplined by weekend-dad.
Sadly, the "listen to your father" approach, then backing it with half-truths and non-truths (we'll call them "lies") was a hallmark of the government of the era. I'll let you ponder the certainty of WMD's for a moment...
Honestly, I want a little of whatever these theantidrug.com ad guys were smoking if they thought this was going to convince the stoners of the world to put down their bongs for freedom.
They're running now, and are sort of interesting. Watch the subtext of the ads, because while they're talking "affordable healthcare", they don't really define what they mean by "affordable healthcare", but they DO ask that that "everyone" be brought to the table. They also throw up several organizational logos, to suggest some sort of official capacity, I guess.
The website is even MORE vague. Which, as we all know in 2008, is usually a sign that something is up.
But the organizations who've thrown in with the ads at least SEEM invested in affordable healthcare. A quick perusal of the sites doesn't give much more than the typical "we are committed to quality, affordable healthcare, blah... blah... blah..."
I'm honestly not sure what that means.
Given the history of Harry and Louise in a series of ads that were a part of the defeat of the Clinton's attempt at universal health care circa 1993, could it be the same agencies are nervous about what the Dems are going to try to do if they win the election regarding healthcare?
I honestly have no idea at all where this will go... but its going to be interesting to watch to see how the campaign unfolds. What I will find deeply disappointing will be if it's the ol' bait-n-switch with Harry and Louise, and the big solution they're pitching is "things are great! why change the system?"
Agenda advertising is really hitting the airwaves from all kinds of NGO's. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you have an agenda you think can gain traction from getting your message in the mix (energy, healthcare, etc...), then why not?
I have my opinions on all this healthcare stuff, but that's for another day.
A completely different kind of agenda ad
Remember Nick and Norm?
Oh, where to start...?
I have this vision of a room full of middle-aged white guys who are so very sick of hearing their kids coming back from college and arguing with them over politics, etc... And wish these kids would just shut the hell up and listen to their old man. What sort of catharsis must these guys have felt when this ad ran, and the young man just caves to the unshakable argument of "It's a FACT."
So, why did the ad campaign fail? (The ads were, btw, apparently a horrible failure.)
A) Obviously Norm was a horrible jack-ass to Nick. And therefore the viewer. You don't sell anything, including an idea, by acting like a pedantic jerk. Even in the context of late 2001.
B) The ads never bothered to actually provide viewers with facts validating their claim. That would have been handy and not increased my cynicism regarding their claims. F-A-C-T. Fact.
C) In a round-about way, the Nick and Norm ads made a really good argument for legalizing drugs. If its legal, at least you can guess you're not buying your goofballs from terrorists and everybody wins. No more money to terrorists, no more money enforcing unworkable laws and the funding from the war on drugs can go to the war or terror. FACT. And Nick can still go buy his dope without the guilt that his goofballs are putting bullets in a rifle somewhere. FACT.
I can't tell you how appalling I found this ad campaign.
You can probably draw some parallel to the success of the ad campaign to how well folks in a free society like being talked to like a punk 13 year old kid getting disciplined by weekend-dad.
Sadly, the "listen to your father" approach, then backing it with half-truths and non-truths (we'll call them "lies") was a hallmark of the government of the era. I'll let you ponder the certainty of WMD's for a moment...
Honestly, I want a little of whatever these theantidrug.com ad guys were smoking if they thought this was going to convince the stoners of the world to put down their bongs for freedom.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The League Revisits: Pump Up the Volume (and DITMTLOD)
In 1990 the Steans Clan packed up our stuff and moved from Austin to Houston. The Admiral had transferred to what turned out to be a pretty good job. Like a lot of high schoolers, I was less than thrilled to change schools. I'd already put in the leg work with three years of middle school and a year of high school with the people I'd expected to endure until I escaped to college. Now I'd have to start all over again.
What would be odd, as per my living situation, was that we were leaving Jason behind in Austin. It was sort of like deciding the family dog was too old and wouldn't like the new arrangement, so you leave it with the neighbors. He was to finish out his Senior year rather than slog through a new school just in time to graduate.
Shortly after we arrived in Houston, the newest Christian Slater flick "Pump up the Volume" made its way to the Loew's theater a few miles from the house, right by the blimp hanger. It piqued my interest for two reasons (a) I was a big fan of "Heathers", and (b) it featured Pirate Radio.
Jason had spent some time in prior years trying to figure out how to set up a pirate radio broadcast out of his bedroom. Eventually, he abandoned the idea, I think due to legal concerns (not wanting to go to jail).
At the time, I loved the movie. It had teenagers talking about teen-agery type stuff. It had a pirate radio station. Christian Slater stuck it to The Man (ie: the crusty principal), and mostly, circa 1990 Samantha Mathis.
Oh, Samantha Mathis, your art-school girl chic made my heart pitter-patter
"Pump up the Volume" may or may not have been the original name for the movie. But it's a terrible title and suggests a late 80's break dancing movie. I have suspicions this was some MC Hammer-inspired tweaking when someone from marketing realized that they were marketing a movie to teens that didn't feature music that it was, at the time, perceived that teens listened to.
The soundtrack features Concrete Blonde, Leonard Cohen (I think), the Pixies and others of the late 80's, early 90's, pre-Nirvana music scene, and starts by establishing Slater's character's cred with his record collection. All on cassette. Because I think in 1990, I knew one person with an actual CD player.
The movie, really, hinges on technology and the Newsweek-covered hot button parental issues of the era. Today's teens would see a neolithic world before cell phones, internet lines, and when teenagers with their own computers were a pretty darn rare commodity. Only one character has a computer in their room during the course of the movie (and he dies!).
Re-made today, no doubt the idea would basically be a well-run website with illegally distributed MP3's, a chat room, some e-mail, and podcasts of Mr. HHH. At the time, the idea of just anybody taking to the airwaves was considered extremely difficult and illegal. (I should pause here to give a mad shout out to the 1993-1994 residents of Jester West, 12th floor. Patrick and Jeff put together a small radio broadcaster from scrap parts and their TV antenna. Jester briefly enjoyed the rockin' tunes of Jester Pirate Radio. Until, that is, we wanted to watch TV again. And, yeah, they let me on the air once or twice. And I was awesome.)
The hot button issues of the day were teen pregnancy and teen suicide. The suicide angle kind of also explains the entirety of "Heathers", and the tune from Heathers: Big Fun's "Teenage Suicide (Don't Do It)". Anyhoo, the switch to the real drama of the movie occurs when some kid kills himself because Slater didn't tell him not to. The witch-hunting overreaction by parents as part of the sequence is still actually pretty darn accurate.
As a 33 year old watching this movie, one winds up feeling less like Christian Slater is speaking for you (or anyone). It comes across more as a lot of teen angsting, talking about how the whole world is screwed up and needs change, but there aren't a lot of specifics regarding what needs changing. Slater eventually winds up spouting this really crazy diatribe about how the earth and trees need healing... and uncensored pirate radio, I guess.
None of it really makes a lot of sense, unless you consider Slater's character was just moved from NYC to what was a stand in for Paradise Valley, Arizona circa 1990. In which case, the dissatisfaction is all too rational.
In order to provide the audience with an actual antagonist that isn't just Slater V. Society-at-Large, there's a cockamamie scheme cooked up in which the Principal is magically expelling teenagers with lower SAT scores so she can keep up some sort of public funding for the school. It's a little convoluted, and really tangential to whatever is supposed to be going on with Slater's pirate radio show. And suggests that this is a school in which no parents are involved, and nobody fears a lawsuit.
Probably the two weirdest moments in the movie belong to Samantha Mathis, whose character suddenly goes topless in one scene (something I cheered during my first viewing as I believed the movie to be PG-13). And, as a plot point, we learn she's failing high school math. Which... is unintentionally hilarious.
Failing math = Not terribly attractive
The movie is oddly ham-handed in other ways.
-Hip-hop is used as a sign that the kids are getting too rebellious for the likes of the ever-crusty faculty.
-Slater's character drops a half-dozen clues that would immediately identify him as HHH. Mr. Magoo could unravel the mystery.
-And there's a lot of insinuations that (a) this is the least happy bunch of privileged kids EVER, and (b) something is very, very wrong at Harding High, but they manage to make it through the 102 minute runtime without ever saying WHAT is wrong.
In many ways, I'm left peppering the movie with the same "What?" that I usually reserve for movies like "D War Dragon Wars".
The ending is absolutely ludicrous, with Slater and Mathis hauled off in a paddywagon, sure to go to jail for some vague moral victory. I'd worry more about her future, but with that "F" in Math, I'm not sure that Mathis's character couldn't use the focused environment of prison in which to get her GED.
And, of course, a million kids supposedly take to the airwaves with their own pirate radio shows... The end
The Internet has, of course, taught us what teenagers and adults will do with a public forum. If this blog is any indication, it hasn't healed the rocks and trees, and its mostly given nutjobs like myself a bull pulpit from which we can espouse our half-baked sasquatch theories.
Still, it's got Samantha Mathis.
This look of loving concern at our hero's exploits is the opposite of what I was used to from the ladies of KOHS. Change this more to a look of disapproval.
A brief DITMLOD: Samantha Mathis as "Nora Diniro"
I'm not ashamed to admit that in middle and high school, I had my eye on the stripey sock girls. Give me a girl in an over-sized black sweater and clunky black shoes, and any young lady automatically got a second look (this predates all the Marilyn Manson co-option of the art-school girl stuff, which... doesn't work so much for me).
The look showed up in a few movies. Sort of sported by Winona Ryder in "Heathers". Absolutely seen by the female lead in cult classic "Three O'Clock High". But I still think Mathis does it best.
Despite 13 long years of loyalty, Jamie seems to get a little jealous whenever this previous fascination is brought up. I think Jason initially revealed my old achilles heal to Jamie, and every once in a while it becomes a point of contention that I did not fancy Jamie before I had, in fact, met Jamie.
Whatever. Jamie loves 1988 Greg Louganis.
Anyhoo, yes. As a teenager I thought Samantha Mathis was the bee's knees. She was cute, did the stripey sock thing very well, was occasionally topless, and, to a kid who'd just moved and went weeks in a new school without talking to anyone... the idea that such a girl was hiding under a rock somewhere at KOHS was deeply appealing.
That is not to say that KOHS was devoid of awesome ladies (you know who you are). But, you know, we were sadly lacking in Samantha Mathisii.
I should of just learned that the girls who smoked behind the school at lunch were more fun...
Anyway.
I salute thee, Samantha Mathis as "Nora Diniro". You left an indelible impression upon my youthful psyche.
What would be odd, as per my living situation, was that we were leaving Jason behind in Austin. It was sort of like deciding the family dog was too old and wouldn't like the new arrangement, so you leave it with the neighbors. He was to finish out his Senior year rather than slog through a new school just in time to graduate.
Shortly after we arrived in Houston, the newest Christian Slater flick "Pump up the Volume" made its way to the Loew's theater a few miles from the house, right by the blimp hanger. It piqued my interest for two reasons (a) I was a big fan of "Heathers", and (b) it featured Pirate Radio.
Jason had spent some time in prior years trying to figure out how to set up a pirate radio broadcast out of his bedroom. Eventually, he abandoned the idea, I think due to legal concerns (not wanting to go to jail).
At the time, I loved the movie. It had teenagers talking about teen-agery type stuff. It had a pirate radio station. Christian Slater stuck it to The Man (ie: the crusty principal), and mostly, circa 1990 Samantha Mathis.
Oh, Samantha Mathis, your art-school girl chic made my heart pitter-patter
"Pump up the Volume" may or may not have been the original name for the movie. But it's a terrible title and suggests a late 80's break dancing movie. I have suspicions this was some MC Hammer-inspired tweaking when someone from marketing realized that they were marketing a movie to teens that didn't feature music that it was, at the time, perceived that teens listened to.
The soundtrack features Concrete Blonde, Leonard Cohen (I think), the Pixies and others of the late 80's, early 90's, pre-Nirvana music scene, and starts by establishing Slater's character's cred with his record collection. All on cassette. Because I think in 1990, I knew one person with an actual CD player.
The movie, really, hinges on technology and the Newsweek-covered hot button parental issues of the era. Today's teens would see a neolithic world before cell phones, internet lines, and when teenagers with their own computers were a pretty darn rare commodity. Only one character has a computer in their room during the course of the movie (and he dies!).
Re-made today, no doubt the idea would basically be a well-run website with illegally distributed MP3's, a chat room, some e-mail, and podcasts of Mr. HHH. At the time, the idea of just anybody taking to the airwaves was considered extremely difficult and illegal. (I should pause here to give a mad shout out to the 1993-1994 residents of Jester West, 12th floor. Patrick and Jeff put together a small radio broadcaster from scrap parts and their TV antenna. Jester briefly enjoyed the rockin' tunes of Jester Pirate Radio. Until, that is, we wanted to watch TV again. And, yeah, they let me on the air once or twice. And I was awesome.)
The hot button issues of the day were teen pregnancy and teen suicide. The suicide angle kind of also explains the entirety of "Heathers", and the tune from Heathers: Big Fun's "Teenage Suicide (Don't Do It)". Anyhoo, the switch to the real drama of the movie occurs when some kid kills himself because Slater didn't tell him not to. The witch-hunting overreaction by parents as part of the sequence is still actually pretty darn accurate.
As a 33 year old watching this movie, one winds up feeling less like Christian Slater is speaking for you (or anyone). It comes across more as a lot of teen angsting, talking about how the whole world is screwed up and needs change, but there aren't a lot of specifics regarding what needs changing. Slater eventually winds up spouting this really crazy diatribe about how the earth and trees need healing... and uncensored pirate radio, I guess.
None of it really makes a lot of sense, unless you consider Slater's character was just moved from NYC to what was a stand in for Paradise Valley, Arizona circa 1990. In which case, the dissatisfaction is all too rational.
In order to provide the audience with an actual antagonist that isn't just Slater V. Society-at-Large, there's a cockamamie scheme cooked up in which the Principal is magically expelling teenagers with lower SAT scores so she can keep up some sort of public funding for the school. It's a little convoluted, and really tangential to whatever is supposed to be going on with Slater's pirate radio show. And suggests that this is a school in which no parents are involved, and nobody fears a lawsuit.
Probably the two weirdest moments in the movie belong to Samantha Mathis, whose character suddenly goes topless in one scene (something I cheered during my first viewing as I believed the movie to be PG-13). And, as a plot point, we learn she's failing high school math. Which... is unintentionally hilarious.
Failing math = Not terribly attractive
The movie is oddly ham-handed in other ways.
-Hip-hop is used as a sign that the kids are getting too rebellious for the likes of the ever-crusty faculty.
-Slater's character drops a half-dozen clues that would immediately identify him as HHH. Mr. Magoo could unravel the mystery.
-And there's a lot of insinuations that (a) this is the least happy bunch of privileged kids EVER, and (b) something is very, very wrong at Harding High, but they manage to make it through the 102 minute runtime without ever saying WHAT is wrong.
In many ways, I'm left peppering the movie with the same "What?" that I usually reserve for movies like "D War Dragon Wars".
The ending is absolutely ludicrous, with Slater and Mathis hauled off in a paddywagon, sure to go to jail for some vague moral victory. I'd worry more about her future, but with that "F" in Math, I'm not sure that Mathis's character couldn't use the focused environment of prison in which to get her GED.
And, of course, a million kids supposedly take to the airwaves with their own pirate radio shows... The end
The Internet has, of course, taught us what teenagers and adults will do with a public forum. If this blog is any indication, it hasn't healed the rocks and trees, and its mostly given nutjobs like myself a bull pulpit from which we can espouse our half-baked sasquatch theories.
Still, it's got Samantha Mathis.
This look of loving concern at our hero's exploits is the opposite of what I was used to from the ladies of KOHS. Change this more to a look of disapproval.
A brief DITMLOD: Samantha Mathis as "Nora Diniro"
I'm not ashamed to admit that in middle and high school, I had my eye on the stripey sock girls. Give me a girl in an over-sized black sweater and clunky black shoes, and any young lady automatically got a second look (this predates all the Marilyn Manson co-option of the art-school girl stuff, which... doesn't work so much for me).
The look showed up in a few movies. Sort of sported by Winona Ryder in "Heathers". Absolutely seen by the female lead in cult classic "Three O'Clock High". But I still think Mathis does it best.
Despite 13 long years of loyalty, Jamie seems to get a little jealous whenever this previous fascination is brought up. I think Jason initially revealed my old achilles heal to Jamie, and every once in a while it becomes a point of contention that I did not fancy Jamie before I had, in fact, met Jamie.
Whatever. Jamie loves 1988 Greg Louganis.
Anyhoo, yes. As a teenager I thought Samantha Mathis was the bee's knees. She was cute, did the stripey sock thing very well, was occasionally topless, and, to a kid who'd just moved and went weeks in a new school without talking to anyone... the idea that such a girl was hiding under a rock somewhere at KOHS was deeply appealing.
That is not to say that KOHS was devoid of awesome ladies (you know who you are). But, you know, we were sadly lacking in Samantha Mathisii.
I should of just learned that the girls who smoked behind the school at lunch were more fun...
Anyway.
I salute thee, Samantha Mathis as "Nora Diniro". You left an indelible impression upon my youthful psyche.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Superman Genesis not all "Gee-Whiz"?
I appreciate the folks who sent me the article on the Siegel family which ran today.
To summarize, its an article about how its recently come to light that Superman creator Jerry Siegel's father died during a robbery at his shop prior to the creation of Superman. Armchair psychology suggests that perhaps this event was the catalyst for the creation of The Man of Steel.
Here's a link to that article.
I have no idea what Siegel and Shuster were thinking during the years when they were working on their cartoon ideas (of which there are many which survive). Most of what I know about the actual origins of Superman and Siegel and Shuster comes from the Gerard Jones book "Men of Tomorrow", which I've referenced here once or twice.
It seems that novelist AND comic writer Brad Meltzer is releasing a novel in which the events of Siegel's father's death play a central role. And as Meltzer tends to sell a heck of a lot of novels, USA today and others are picking up on the theme in his latest novel "The Book of Lies" (due next month).
I do think that making the equation of "untimely death of father + desire to see justice = birth of Superman" is a pretty gross oversimplification. But its also exactly the sort of story that the general populace would rather hear than the long held (and oft derided opinion) that Siegel and Shuster were high school losers who needed some form of escapism from their nerd-status, and so fantasized about an alter ego which would make the ladies swoon.
It's been the latter interpretation that's made the rounds in columns and lists of "dumbest superheroes" (Googling "Superman lame" brings up 1.3 million sites) that has dogged Superman in the post Dark Knight Returns era. The character was seen as a weak man's fantasy stand-in, and that somehow made character, creators and fans of the character seem dopey. How this applies to Superman, but not to any other character... I have no idea, but that's been the general consensus.
Superman deals with yet another citizen who let their tags expire
The somewhat abstract armageddon of Superman's origin hasn't held up as well as the gripping visceral and personal tragedy of Batman's origins, and for twenty years it's been fairly regularly that Superman takes a pounding for his lack of murder in his origin (always an odd one, to me. Especially with billions of dead Kryptonians, etc...). So it'll be interesting to see how or if the true tragedy of the character's creator and champion will carry any weight going forward.
Writers with a psych class or two under their belt may not be so quick to dismiss the character as a nerdy kid's fantasy for landing girls, but will now read into the character all sorts of new stuff with the information at hand. (insert tiny, unenthusiastic "hooray..." here)
All of that has always been a gross oversimplification of Superman's origin. He was the product of two kids (young men by the time Superman was finally published in its more-or-less current form) who did what most people do when creating something new: they begged, borrowed and stole from other popular science-fiction and fantasy of the day of which they'd been fans for years. Doc Savage, Amazing Stories Magazine, strong men such as Charles Atlas, and everything in between.
They were fanboys before the term was coined, trying to break into a medium that was not an atypical aspiration at the time, just as young people now all want to major in film.
What's forgotten is that Siegel also produced characters like The Spectre, who make Batman's exploits look like child's play. And, by the way, Dr. Occult, whom I once saw cited as "the first costumed hero". Siegel was also responsible for humor strips, and worked a lot of comedy into Superman from the first issue. And, he preceeded Superman with the recently revived tough-guy, Slam Bradley (derivative of Dick Tracy, etc...).
That all said:
I'm not sure Siegel created Superman out of tragedy. I'm not dismissing the idea, but I can't possibly know one way or another, and I'm not sure if its fair to believe that's the case just because it seems somewhat romantic and/ or works with our understand of psychology gleaned from seeing Dr. Phil.
I do know that Siegel never saw Superman as an avenging character from the first issue. Rather, Superman was there to stop harm from occurring, whereas Batman was the detective on the trail of clues, bringing murderers and thieves to justice after the mess was already made (but you'd have to ask Bill Finger and Bob Kane about all that).
Whatever anger might have been there was turned into a more hopeful wish fulfillment, possibly. That rather than asking someone like Batman to pick up the pieces afterward, the Man of Steel had been there to save the day.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Both kids and adults should know that heroes aren't just people who show up after the fact. Sometimes they're the guys who step in first to make sure the bad stuff either doesn't happen, or never gets too bad. Maybe Siegel's real life experience taught him that what people really want in the face of tragedy is for something to save the day. And that's something all superheroes do when they're at their best. And that's kind of the point...
To summarize, its an article about how its recently come to light that Superman creator Jerry Siegel's father died during a robbery at his shop prior to the creation of Superman. Armchair psychology suggests that perhaps this event was the catalyst for the creation of The Man of Steel.
Here's a link to that article.
I have no idea what Siegel and Shuster were thinking during the years when they were working on their cartoon ideas (of which there are many which survive). Most of what I know about the actual origins of Superman and Siegel and Shuster comes from the Gerard Jones book "Men of Tomorrow", which I've referenced here once or twice.
It seems that novelist AND comic writer Brad Meltzer is releasing a novel in which the events of Siegel's father's death play a central role. And as Meltzer tends to sell a heck of a lot of novels, USA today and others are picking up on the theme in his latest novel "The Book of Lies" (due next month).
I do think that making the equation of "untimely death of father + desire to see justice = birth of Superman" is a pretty gross oversimplification. But its also exactly the sort of story that the general populace would rather hear than the long held (and oft derided opinion) that Siegel and Shuster were high school losers who needed some form of escapism from their nerd-status, and so fantasized about an alter ego which would make the ladies swoon.
It's been the latter interpretation that's made the rounds in columns and lists of "dumbest superheroes" (Googling "Superman lame" brings up 1.3 million sites) that has dogged Superman in the post Dark Knight Returns era. The character was seen as a weak man's fantasy stand-in, and that somehow made character, creators and fans of the character seem dopey. How this applies to Superman, but not to any other character... I have no idea, but that's been the general consensus.
Superman deals with yet another citizen who let their tags expire
The somewhat abstract armageddon of Superman's origin hasn't held up as well as the gripping visceral and personal tragedy of Batman's origins, and for twenty years it's been fairly regularly that Superman takes a pounding for his lack of murder in his origin (always an odd one, to me. Especially with billions of dead Kryptonians, etc...). So it'll be interesting to see how or if the true tragedy of the character's creator and champion will carry any weight going forward.
Writers with a psych class or two under their belt may not be so quick to dismiss the character as a nerdy kid's fantasy for landing girls, but will now read into the character all sorts of new stuff with the information at hand. (insert tiny, unenthusiastic "hooray..." here)
All of that has always been a gross oversimplification of Superman's origin. He was the product of two kids (young men by the time Superman was finally published in its more-or-less current form) who did what most people do when creating something new: they begged, borrowed and stole from other popular science-fiction and fantasy of the day of which they'd been fans for years. Doc Savage, Amazing Stories Magazine, strong men such as Charles Atlas, and everything in between.
They were fanboys before the term was coined, trying to break into a medium that was not an atypical aspiration at the time, just as young people now all want to major in film.
What's forgotten is that Siegel also produced characters like The Spectre, who make Batman's exploits look like child's play. And, by the way, Dr. Occult, whom I once saw cited as "the first costumed hero". Siegel was also responsible for humor strips, and worked a lot of comedy into Superman from the first issue. And, he preceeded Superman with the recently revived tough-guy, Slam Bradley (derivative of Dick Tracy, etc...).
That all said:
I'm not sure Siegel created Superman out of tragedy. I'm not dismissing the idea, but I can't possibly know one way or another, and I'm not sure if its fair to believe that's the case just because it seems somewhat romantic and/ or works with our understand of psychology gleaned from seeing Dr. Phil.
I do know that Siegel never saw Superman as an avenging character from the first issue. Rather, Superman was there to stop harm from occurring, whereas Batman was the detective on the trail of clues, bringing murderers and thieves to justice after the mess was already made (but you'd have to ask Bill Finger and Bob Kane about all that).
Whatever anger might have been there was turned into a more hopeful wish fulfillment, possibly. That rather than asking someone like Batman to pick up the pieces afterward, the Man of Steel had been there to save the day.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Both kids and adults should know that heroes aren't just people who show up after the fact. Sometimes they're the guys who step in first to make sure the bad stuff either doesn't happen, or never gets too bad. Maybe Siegel's real life experience taught him that what people really want in the face of tragedy is for something to save the day. And that's something all superheroes do when they're at their best. And that's kind of the point...
Monday, August 25, 2008
Video Playlist
I don't really have anything to write about this evening, which usually means I wind up writing some overly long post that's pretty specific.
Not tonight, I don't think.
Editor's Update! I felt bad about not posting. So here's my video playlist
To get your day started the right way:
Dan Deacon - Crystal Cat (Alamo attendees will recognize the song)
Because I'm the guy who is buying the Dresden Dolls albums...
Dresden Dolls - Coin Operated Boy
over-produced, 80's-referencing music is a good idea
LCD Soundsystem - All My Friends
I'm supposed to find the bass tab for this song
Radiohead - Karma Police
Your morning needs more 90's
My Bloody Valentine - To Here Knows When
Not tonight, I don't think.
Editor's Update! I felt bad about not posting. So here's my video playlist
To get your day started the right way:
Dan Deacon - Crystal Cat (Alamo attendees will recognize the song)
Because I'm the guy who is buying the Dresden Dolls albums...
Dresden Dolls - Coin Operated Boy
over-produced, 80's-referencing music is a good idea
LCD Soundsystem - All My Friends
I'm supposed to find the bass tab for this song
Radiohead - Karma Police
Your morning needs more 90's
My Bloody Valentine - To Here Knows When
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Jamie Doing Pretty Well
Hey, ya'll...
Jamie was in the hospital for a procedure on Friday, as I mentioned. She'd not been feeling real well for a week or so before that.
But, it looks like the procedure did the trick (knock on wood). Jamie's back to her usual hard-drinkin', ass-whoopin' self, and is seemingly running on all cylinders again.
Thanks for the e-mails and whatnot over the weekend. It means a lot to us.
Plus, an extra special thanks to Jamie's folks for their role as support staff.
I can say that after 4 years of us doing this mostly on our own in Arizona, having family around for support, and family & friends offering up any help they can, and Nicole calling, literally, minutes after the procedure to check in... well, its just a lot easier for everyone concerned. So, again... thanks to all.
Jamie was in the hospital for a procedure on Friday, as I mentioned. She'd not been feeling real well for a week or so before that.
But, it looks like the procedure did the trick (knock on wood). Jamie's back to her usual hard-drinkin', ass-whoopin' self, and is seemingly running on all cylinders again.
Thanks for the e-mails and whatnot over the weekend. It means a lot to us.
Plus, an extra special thanks to Jamie's folks for their role as support staff.
I can say that after 4 years of us doing this mostly on our own in Arizona, having family around for support, and family & friends offering up any help they can, and Nicole calling, literally, minutes after the procedure to check in... well, its just a lot easier for everyone concerned. So, again... thanks to all.
NBC's Coverage of the Olympics
Firstly, congrats to the US Women's basketball and 4x400 relay. Both won gold in their respective concluding matches.
Sanya Richards' final leg on that relay was one for the ages.
Also, Rogers and Dallhauser for that beach volleyball win the other night. I was concerned during that second set, but they went crazy in the third.
I usually run pretty critical here, but I want to take a moment for a tip of the hat to NBC/ Universal for their coverage of the Olympics. Especially in the last week.
I may not always love their commentators, but NBC has fully taken advantage of the 13 hour delay to really deliver on condensed coverage, especially of Track & Field. I want to see who wins high jump and long jump, but I don't want to watch all fifteen rounds. Highlights will work. So they've done a great job of taking, say, the last few rounds of high jump and inserting them into the middle of the 5000m race, etc... then cutting back to the 5000m for the conclusion.
Now, NBC needs to apply that "cutting down" tactic to Diving. Gymnastics, which is usually what makes me want to claw my eyes out by the second night (team, all-around, individual...? Its the same people doing the same crap three times..!), was cut into useful, bite-sized chunks. I never just walked away from the games due to too much gymnastics. But diving...
One huge programming suggestion for London?
Fact: Diving is boring.
It's repetitive, and occurs in, like, 1 second. Slowing it down doesn't make it better. And NBC showed a lot of it, took up hours of primetime broadcast, but showed nothing in the way of:
Javelin, discus, hammer-throw, and a lot of other sports.
Fact: Showing every round of diving does not make it more exciting.
Anyway...
Costas has administered his usual fair but enthusiastic hand to his role as the US host to the Olympics.
Add in multiple channels covering various sports, mostly cut for time and highlights, and its made for, honestly, TOO MUCH engaging TV. I've done nothing these last few weeks but watch sports. It's insanity.
Leaguers, thanks to my self-limiting exposure, I have watched everything from Synchronized Swimming to Rhythmic Gymnastics without a 100% dedication to snark. And let me tell you, Synchronized Swimming is one of the craziest things you're bound to see in this life or any other. My mind is blown.
NBC also managed to land uninterrupted coverage (no commercials) of a lot of the Gold Medal finals in sports like Beach Volleyball... so I tip my hat to NBC.
Way to go Costas and Co.
But...
With the buzz of excitement over the success of US athletes, it seems that we sometimes forget about anyone but the winners. Sure, we salute Usain Bolt when he wins his medals and breaks world records (and that's a lot of what the Olympics are about, after all), but NBC missed some of the other stories.
For example, this runner from Somalia, who came in dead last but received a standing ovation.
Surely this runner was not alone. I watched the opening ceremonies. There were dozens of countries with just a handful of athletes, few of whom had a chance of winning a medal, but who had somehow made it to Beijing. And, in no condescending way... that's a victory
Or athletes whose culture wasn't necessarily conducive to competing, but won their heat, anyway such asthe female sprinter from Bahrain, who ran in a hijab? (That lady is my new hero...)
Or that China has arrested multiple US Citizens for protesting for Human Rights (if only for ten days...)
Unpleasant though it might be, China's human rights record is far from good. And, yeah, Costas and NBC might have stood a chance of getting bounced out of Beijing, or even thrown in jail, for covering any protests... But isn't that sort of the point when you have a chance to cover this stuff? Wouldn't Costas in jail for mentioning the protests themselves give America a little bit of an idea as to how our favorite trade partner is running their ship?
But the focus is on winning. Not just winning a medal, but receiving a GOLD medal. Silver and Bronze medalists were still being asked if they felt disappointed. The victory inherent in just being able to participate is given lip service, but is very clearly not how interviewers and ESPECIALLY color commentators actually feel. They can't help but talk about how an athlete who makes a mistake is simply letting everyone down.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating victory, but, seriously, get a grip. Being the second or third best sprinter, pole vaulter, what-have-you in THE WORLD is no mean feat. Sometimes you can just say "Hey! Bronze medal! You've gotta like that!" And if they want to express their disappointment, goody.
If the Olympics are really about all the nations coming together in the spirit of friendly competition, then it seems like NBC could do a bit more to promote that international flair. And that story is not limited to winners. Or Americans. Or putting a polish on the very real world occurring all around the games. By ignoring the world, in many ways, its reducing the impact of what it means for athletes to come together in the most idealized version of the Olympic spirit.
The fact is, there's so, so much happening at the Olympics, and so many narrative arcs, that I don't know if NBC/ Universal touches on 1% of the narratives really going on. You follow the Decathalon, so you miss women's soccer. And you focus on a "sure thing" like Lolo Jones, and wind up with one of the most heartbreaking moments of the games. You focus on the amazing Phelps, but you wind up missing out on the story of the thousands of other athletes... That's the way it goes.
Ah, well. We'll see how we fair with the games in London. More Olympics reporting from League of Melbotis in 2012.
Sanya Richards' final leg on that relay was one for the ages.
Also, Rogers and Dallhauser for that beach volleyball win the other night. I was concerned during that second set, but they went crazy in the third.
I usually run pretty critical here, but I want to take a moment for a tip of the hat to NBC/ Universal for their coverage of the Olympics. Especially in the last week.
I may not always love their commentators, but NBC has fully taken advantage of the 13 hour delay to really deliver on condensed coverage, especially of Track & Field. I want to see who wins high jump and long jump, but I don't want to watch all fifteen rounds. Highlights will work. So they've done a great job of taking, say, the last few rounds of high jump and inserting them into the middle of the 5000m race, etc... then cutting back to the 5000m for the conclusion.
Now, NBC needs to apply that "cutting down" tactic to Diving. Gymnastics, which is usually what makes me want to claw my eyes out by the second night (team, all-around, individual...? Its the same people doing the same crap three times..!), was cut into useful, bite-sized chunks. I never just walked away from the games due to too much gymnastics. But diving...
One huge programming suggestion for London?
Fact: Diving is boring.
It's repetitive, and occurs in, like, 1 second. Slowing it down doesn't make it better. And NBC showed a lot of it, took up hours of primetime broadcast, but showed nothing in the way of:
Javelin, discus, hammer-throw, and a lot of other sports.
Fact: Showing every round of diving does not make it more exciting.
Anyway...
Costas has administered his usual fair but enthusiastic hand to his role as the US host to the Olympics.
Add in multiple channels covering various sports, mostly cut for time and highlights, and its made for, honestly, TOO MUCH engaging TV. I've done nothing these last few weeks but watch sports. It's insanity.
Leaguers, thanks to my self-limiting exposure, I have watched everything from Synchronized Swimming to Rhythmic Gymnastics without a 100% dedication to snark. And let me tell you, Synchronized Swimming is one of the craziest things you're bound to see in this life or any other. My mind is blown.
NBC also managed to land uninterrupted coverage (no commercials) of a lot of the Gold Medal finals in sports like Beach Volleyball... so I tip my hat to NBC.
Way to go Costas and Co.
But...
With the buzz of excitement over the success of US athletes, it seems that we sometimes forget about anyone but the winners. Sure, we salute Usain Bolt when he wins his medals and breaks world records (and that's a lot of what the Olympics are about, after all), but NBC missed some of the other stories.
For example, this runner from Somalia, who came in dead last but received a standing ovation.
Surely this runner was not alone. I watched the opening ceremonies. There were dozens of countries with just a handful of athletes, few of whom had a chance of winning a medal, but who had somehow made it to Beijing. And, in no condescending way... that's a victory
Or athletes whose culture wasn't necessarily conducive to competing, but won their heat, anyway such asthe female sprinter from Bahrain, who ran in a hijab? (That lady is my new hero...)
Or that China has arrested multiple US Citizens for protesting for Human Rights (if only for ten days...)
Unpleasant though it might be, China's human rights record is far from good. And, yeah, Costas and NBC might have stood a chance of getting bounced out of Beijing, or even thrown in jail, for covering any protests... But isn't that sort of the point when you have a chance to cover this stuff? Wouldn't Costas in jail for mentioning the protests themselves give America a little bit of an idea as to how our favorite trade partner is running their ship?
But the focus is on winning. Not just winning a medal, but receiving a GOLD medal. Silver and Bronze medalists were still being asked if they felt disappointed. The victory inherent in just being able to participate is given lip service, but is very clearly not how interviewers and ESPECIALLY color commentators actually feel. They can't help but talk about how an athlete who makes a mistake is simply letting everyone down.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating victory, but, seriously, get a grip. Being the second or third best sprinter, pole vaulter, what-have-you in THE WORLD is no mean feat. Sometimes you can just say "Hey! Bronze medal! You've gotta like that!" And if they want to express their disappointment, goody.
If the Olympics are really about all the nations coming together in the spirit of friendly competition, then it seems like NBC could do a bit more to promote that international flair. And that story is not limited to winners. Or Americans. Or putting a polish on the very real world occurring all around the games. By ignoring the world, in many ways, its reducing the impact of what it means for athletes to come together in the most idealized version of the Olympic spirit.
The fact is, there's so, so much happening at the Olympics, and so many narrative arcs, that I don't know if NBC/ Universal touches on 1% of the narratives really going on. You follow the Decathalon, so you miss women's soccer. And you focus on a "sure thing" like Lolo Jones, and wind up with one of the most heartbreaking moments of the games. You focus on the amazing Phelps, but you wind up missing out on the story of the thousands of other athletes... That's the way it goes.
Ah, well. We'll see how we fair with the games in London. More Olympics reporting from League of Melbotis in 2012.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Warner Bros. to Re-Jigger Superman Movies?
Apparently with Jamie in the hospital and whatnot, I missed a story that spread on friday.
And I have to give mad props to Randy. He sent me an article on this topic, and I poo-poo'd the whole thing, believing that this was yet another rumor come to the surface. But, Leaguers, this looks pretty solid, as far as these things go. So give it up for Randy, who often sends stuff my way, and I all too often shrug it off.
So, it appears WB is probably scrapping any "continuity" established by "Superman Returns" and moving forward with an all-new Superman movie next year.
Here's the Wall Street Journal article.
It'll help if you read the whole thing to get some context. It's short, and well be here when you get back.
Here are the paragraphs that have comic nerds all up in a lather:
I think its necessary here to take a step back and point out a few things:
-the writing was on the wall for Singer's ousting pretty much after opening night when I noted the cinema I went to had reduced the number of screens from 2 to 1 for "Superman Returns"
-WB has been publicly soliciting Superman scripts for what seems like 2 or 3 months. And privately before that. That's not Hollywood speak for "Singer's our guy!"
-reporters seem to take misinterpreting comics and comic movie information as a point of pride. I'd be pretty suspicious of anything said at all in this article.
-for example, I sincerely doubt WB intends for Superman to become evil, but I imagine they have plans for darker bad guys for the Man of Steel (ie: Doomsday)
-Mr. Robinov's beliefs regarding what he thinks will work as it stands today could change with the wind tomorrow. This capriciousness is the hallmark of the studio exec.
-I think what Robinov might have meant, rather than suggesting DC's heroes will be eeee-vil, is that we've made that 1986 change in comic movies. The studios, like the comic companies, are shedding the idea that comics are kid's stuff. They now know how dark they can go and still sell toys.
Basically, I follow enough information regarding super heroes and movies, and film development in general (thanks, RTF degree! Seriously, we studied this @#$%.) that I know an article like this means almost next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Everything could change tomorrow. As I often say, "don't believe a word of it until you read the reports that they're actually rolling film."
If every report I read in the run up to Superman Returns were true, there would be four different Superman movies, two of which would star Ashton Kutcher, floating around. You learn to take this with a grain of salt.
So long, Superman Returns
"Superman Returns" didn't take off with fans. Mostly because it wasn't an action movie (Superman punches nobody), and because of the introduction of the out-of-continuity love child of Lois and Superman.
Comic fans have been up in arms about the kid since the movie came out, declaring Superman a "deadbeat dad", which sounds great in a comment section, but is entirely inaccurate if you actually watch the movie. The movie is, after all, all about Superman's legacy from father to son, and moving on beyond the world you embraced to embrace the future ahead of you through your child (no, seriously).
I loved the way they displayed Superman's powers, and believed the movie was absolutely gorgeous and rich, the way a Superman movie should be. The whole thing looked and felt like a fairy tale, in a way movies have forgotten how to look since the 1980's. And Brandon Routh was as perfect a guy in the role as I could have hoped for.
But I also don't know where they could go with Jason Lane. Many folks online were of the "they should kill him off" camp, which... seriously? Kill a child (even a fictional child)? That's kind of messed up. Not to mention woefully uncreative.
Maybe it was just a good end-capper on the Reeves movies, which always deserved better than Superman 3 and (certainly) 4.
I'm comfortable with a re-boot of the movie franchise at this point. But only under the right circumstances. It's promising that they're interested in taking their cues from "Dark Knight", so at least we don't need to worry about McG casting Ashton Kutcher as Superman and having him enegage in extreme sports or some such...
But I'd also point out, the "common wisdom" that marvel did the right thing by re-booting "The Hulk"? Ang Lee's 2003 "Hulk" grossed $132 million domestic. Ed Norton's 2008 "Incredible Hulk" grossed $134 million domestic. Add in 5 years of inflation, and a "re-boot" doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as success.
So we're going to have to wait and see what shakes out.
My Advice to WB
Re-do the origin.
Your gut is telling you "hey, that Death of Superman thing sold like CRAZY in 1992! People love that stuff!" Yes, Superman dying is "dark". But...
Don't do it.
A) They've announced, like, four different takes on "Death of Superman", and released it as an animated movie at least once. Everyone knows he doesn't die (really), so its sort of anti-climatic. You aren't going to do the "Reign of the Supermen", which was sort of the point of Death of Superman... so don't do it.
B) Also, "Death of Superman" was supposed to have impact because Superman was established in the DCU for years before he croaked. If that's part of your "all new Superman", you're essentially putting a guy out there, and then he gets killed. Which, you know, doesn't look real good. Its a lot different from the guy who always wins finally losing, which was also the point.
C) "The Death of Superman" was a narrative mess, and isn't much fun to read as a collection. It involves the 1990's sprawling cast of super-characters, Lex's brain living in a 20-something Lex Luthor cloned body, an interdimensional protoplassmic Supergirl, a giant frog Lois uses for transportation, Green Lanterns, and at least one incident of grave robbing.
D) I think when even the mighty Bruce Timm tried to do it, the movie wasn't that great.
Use modern technology. Don't feel beholden to the Donner movies, and re-tell the origin so the kids have an all-new Superman for their generation.
Also:
1) Part of the magic of Superman is that he carves out who he is. There is no pre-destination, prophesies or "chosen ones" in Superman. That fundamentally goes against the grain of Superman as a character. He's about CHOICE to be heroic. Pre-destination stories are about people bumbling into greatness and resisting their heroic calling. Which is great, but its not Superman. Part of the magic was not that Jor-El specifically shot a rocket at Jonathan and Martha Kent, knowing exactly how they'd raise a child... It was that Jor-El has to take a leap of faith and hope for the best. And the luck of the draw that ordinary, salt-of-the-earth folks would be able to instill in Superman the right moral compass. Once you add to that, you're taking away from the story.
2) Krypton has to be gone. That's the point. No evil armies of Krypton.
3) I only want Lex if he has access to huge robots, a power suit, or a wide array of lasers. That said, gimme Lex.
4) You know who is really scary? Far scarier than thoughtless, inarticulate Doomsday? Brainiac.
5) You're going to want to give Superman his evil, opposite number with an evil Kryptonian. We've all seen Zod. Save it for a sequel or something.
6) Superman has a supporting cast. They've been well defined over 70 years. Use them.
2008 is the new 1986
I do think Robinov's comments give a glimpse of what's going on and point to a comment I made when I saw Dark Knight the first time. (oh, hell... I can't find when or where I said it. It might have been in conversation with Steven and Lauren).
But I believe the success of Dark Knight in 2008 is going to be seen in much the same way as "Dark Knight Returns" was seen in the mid-80's, as well as "Watchmen". Non-comic readers will not ever know the cultural shift in comics that occurred thanks, in part, to those two works. Like some classic albums (maybe "Revolver", I dunno...) nothing was ever really the same after that within comics as those albums fundamentally changed pop music. In fact, it was that transition of DKR and Watchmen that I think led directly to comics' shift from kid's entertainment to an older audience for tights-wearing vigilantes.
With DKR and Watchmen, superheroes were, to some extent, seen for the fascists Wertham had always accused them of being. The image that had begun to chip away in the 70's of heroes with hands on fists saving the day with a wink was stomped into the dirt. In many ways, I grew up in a comics world where I had to go back to try and even find the kinds of comics my parents and guidance counselor assumed I was reading (I did make the mistake of handing my dad "The Killing Joke" summer of '89). To some extent, Marvel's "Civil War" event could have gone a lot further toward exploring Wertham's assertions, but instead chose to be a story about how Iron Man is a jerk and Cap makes sentimental decisions.
As rich as I think the Spidey movies have been, and as impressed as I was with Iron Man, Dark Knight was a different kind of movie. And what studios need to realize, that the comic companies took entirely too long to realize (and it almost destroyed the industry in the process) is that Dark Knight is lightning in a bottle. With his proclamation, its as if (but not quite) Robinov were to declare he's going to slate two gangster pictures a year on the assumption that they'll be as good as "Godfather I & II".
The fallout of Watchmen wasn't that every comic became an introspection of the super-soul and the industry itself matured over night. It was that comic writers felt that they should create flawed, tortured characters who occasionally had sex. The comics were being produced by often lesser writers, who saw the sturm und drang of Dark Knight Returns, but missed what it was that made the series work, all while being entirely true to the Batman's roots.
By the mid-90's I wasn't really reading superhero comics because many of the titles had devolved into a glossy, messy warground in which superheroes, in order to be "darker, grittier, more extreme" were becoming increasingly more lethal and a lot more likely to pull the trigger.
And that's part of the problem with declaring that you're going to make your superheroes themselves "darker". At some point, you're missing the fundamental core of the characters that make them the good guys and separates them from the bad guys, and now you're just talking two guys in tights beating the holy hell out of each other (which is part of why I flinched any time I heard mention of the proposed "Superman vs. Batman" movie. What's the point?).
Maybe this is a natural curve that the movies will have to go through.
A note regarding what happened with super-hero comics...
It's dishonest to try to pretend that all comics move in one colossal shift, as if its a coordinated affair. There are always lots of missteps. But a movement in any direction tends to leave a lot of splinters around that tenaciously hang on. Characters and concepts I have no use for (ex: Marvel's Cable) survive and prosper.
DC's limited series "Kingdom Come" was like a wake-up call to the DCU. Slowly but surely, much of the DCU gave up on "extreme" in favor of "iconic". "Kingdom Come" seemed to boil the heroes down to their essence and ask aloud what Superman, Batman and the rest of the JLA were doing about the state of the industry. And they answered loudly.
According to Valerie at Occasional Superheroine, who once worked as an Assistant Editor at DC, Didio was still learning the lessons of the 90's, and moved in exactly the wrong direction for a spell, when she attended a retreat sometime around 2003, I'd guess. (I like Val's blog, but I think she overestimates the change this particular retreat had on DC, as they were in the post "Kingdom Come" shift away from ridiculous 90's characters like the Dr. Fate spin-off, Fate.)
I don't know how that would work with comic movies, or if any of this would come to pass. But I do know that there's some history here, and movie audiences and movie creators probably aren't all that different from those of comics.
And I have to give mad props to Randy. He sent me an article on this topic, and I poo-poo'd the whole thing, believing that this was yet another rumor come to the surface. But, Leaguers, this looks pretty solid, as far as these things go. So give it up for Randy, who often sends stuff my way, and I all too often shrug it off.
So, it appears WB is probably scrapping any "continuity" established by "Superman Returns" and moving forward with an all-new Superman movie next year.
Here's the Wall Street Journal article.
It'll help if you read the whole thing to get some context. It's short, and well be here when you get back.
Here are the paragraphs that have comic nerds all up in a lather:
Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.
The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.
I think its necessary here to take a step back and point out a few things:
-the writing was on the wall for Singer's ousting pretty much after opening night when I noted the cinema I went to had reduced the number of screens from 2 to 1 for "Superman Returns"
-WB has been publicly soliciting Superman scripts for what seems like 2 or 3 months. And privately before that. That's not Hollywood speak for "Singer's our guy!"
-reporters seem to take misinterpreting comics and comic movie information as a point of pride. I'd be pretty suspicious of anything said at all in this article.
-for example, I sincerely doubt WB intends for Superman to become evil, but I imagine they have plans for darker bad guys for the Man of Steel (ie: Doomsday)
-Mr. Robinov's beliefs regarding what he thinks will work as it stands today could change with the wind tomorrow. This capriciousness is the hallmark of the studio exec.
-I think what Robinov might have meant, rather than suggesting DC's heroes will be eeee-vil, is that we've made that 1986 change in comic movies. The studios, like the comic companies, are shedding the idea that comics are kid's stuff. They now know how dark they can go and still sell toys.
Basically, I follow enough information regarding super heroes and movies, and film development in general (thanks, RTF degree! Seriously, we studied this @#$%.) that I know an article like this means almost next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Everything could change tomorrow. As I often say, "don't believe a word of it until you read the reports that they're actually rolling film."
If every report I read in the run up to Superman Returns were true, there would be four different Superman movies, two of which would star Ashton Kutcher, floating around. You learn to take this with a grain of salt.
So long, Superman Returns
"Superman Returns" didn't take off with fans. Mostly because it wasn't an action movie (Superman punches nobody), and because of the introduction of the out-of-continuity love child of Lois and Superman.
Comic fans have been up in arms about the kid since the movie came out, declaring Superman a "deadbeat dad", which sounds great in a comment section, but is entirely inaccurate if you actually watch the movie. The movie is, after all, all about Superman's legacy from father to son, and moving on beyond the world you embraced to embrace the future ahead of you through your child (no, seriously).
I loved the way they displayed Superman's powers, and believed the movie was absolutely gorgeous and rich, the way a Superman movie should be. The whole thing looked and felt like a fairy tale, in a way movies have forgotten how to look since the 1980's. And Brandon Routh was as perfect a guy in the role as I could have hoped for.
But I also don't know where they could go with Jason Lane. Many folks online were of the "they should kill him off" camp, which... seriously? Kill a child (even a fictional child)? That's kind of messed up. Not to mention woefully uncreative.
Maybe it was just a good end-capper on the Reeves movies, which always deserved better than Superman 3 and (certainly) 4.
I'm comfortable with a re-boot of the movie franchise at this point. But only under the right circumstances. It's promising that they're interested in taking their cues from "Dark Knight", so at least we don't need to worry about McG casting Ashton Kutcher as Superman and having him enegage in extreme sports or some such...
But I'd also point out, the "common wisdom" that marvel did the right thing by re-booting "The Hulk"? Ang Lee's 2003 "Hulk" grossed $132 million domestic. Ed Norton's 2008 "Incredible Hulk" grossed $134 million domestic. Add in 5 years of inflation, and a "re-boot" doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as success.
So we're going to have to wait and see what shakes out.
My Advice to WB
Re-do the origin.
Your gut is telling you "hey, that Death of Superman thing sold like CRAZY in 1992! People love that stuff!" Yes, Superman dying is "dark". But...
Don't do it.
A) They've announced, like, four different takes on "Death of Superman", and released it as an animated movie at least once. Everyone knows he doesn't die (really), so its sort of anti-climatic. You aren't going to do the "Reign of the Supermen", which was sort of the point of Death of Superman... so don't do it.
B) Also, "Death of Superman" was supposed to have impact because Superman was established in the DCU for years before he croaked. If that's part of your "all new Superman", you're essentially putting a guy out there, and then he gets killed. Which, you know, doesn't look real good. Its a lot different from the guy who always wins finally losing, which was also the point.
C) "The Death of Superman" was a narrative mess, and isn't much fun to read as a collection. It involves the 1990's sprawling cast of super-characters, Lex's brain living in a 20-something Lex Luthor cloned body, an interdimensional protoplassmic Supergirl, a giant frog Lois uses for transportation, Green Lanterns, and at least one incident of grave robbing.
D) I think when even the mighty Bruce Timm tried to do it, the movie wasn't that great.
Use modern technology. Don't feel beholden to the Donner movies, and re-tell the origin so the kids have an all-new Superman for their generation.
Also:
1) Part of the magic of Superman is that he carves out who he is. There is no pre-destination, prophesies or "chosen ones" in Superman. That fundamentally goes against the grain of Superman as a character. He's about CHOICE to be heroic. Pre-destination stories are about people bumbling into greatness and resisting their heroic calling. Which is great, but its not Superman. Part of the magic was not that Jor-El specifically shot a rocket at Jonathan and Martha Kent, knowing exactly how they'd raise a child... It was that Jor-El has to take a leap of faith and hope for the best. And the luck of the draw that ordinary, salt-of-the-earth folks would be able to instill in Superman the right moral compass. Once you add to that, you're taking away from the story.
2) Krypton has to be gone. That's the point. No evil armies of Krypton.
3) I only want Lex if he has access to huge robots, a power suit, or a wide array of lasers. That said, gimme Lex.
4) You know who is really scary? Far scarier than thoughtless, inarticulate Doomsday? Brainiac.
5) You're going to want to give Superman his evil, opposite number with an evil Kryptonian. We've all seen Zod. Save it for a sequel or something.
6) Superman has a supporting cast. They've been well defined over 70 years. Use them.
2008 is the new 1986
I do think Robinov's comments give a glimpse of what's going on and point to a comment I made when I saw Dark Knight the first time. (oh, hell... I can't find when or where I said it. It might have been in conversation with Steven and Lauren).
But I believe the success of Dark Knight in 2008 is going to be seen in much the same way as "Dark Knight Returns" was seen in the mid-80's, as well as "Watchmen". Non-comic readers will not ever know the cultural shift in comics that occurred thanks, in part, to those two works. Like some classic albums (maybe "Revolver", I dunno...) nothing was ever really the same after that within comics as those albums fundamentally changed pop music. In fact, it was that transition of DKR and Watchmen that I think led directly to comics' shift from kid's entertainment to an older audience for tights-wearing vigilantes.
With DKR and Watchmen, superheroes were, to some extent, seen for the fascists Wertham had always accused them of being. The image that had begun to chip away in the 70's of heroes with hands on fists saving the day with a wink was stomped into the dirt. In many ways, I grew up in a comics world where I had to go back to try and even find the kinds of comics my parents and guidance counselor assumed I was reading (I did make the mistake of handing my dad "The Killing Joke" summer of '89). To some extent, Marvel's "Civil War" event could have gone a lot further toward exploring Wertham's assertions, but instead chose to be a story about how Iron Man is a jerk and Cap makes sentimental decisions.
As rich as I think the Spidey movies have been, and as impressed as I was with Iron Man, Dark Knight was a different kind of movie. And what studios need to realize, that the comic companies took entirely too long to realize (and it almost destroyed the industry in the process) is that Dark Knight is lightning in a bottle. With his proclamation, its as if (but not quite) Robinov were to declare he's going to slate two gangster pictures a year on the assumption that they'll be as good as "Godfather I & II".
The fallout of Watchmen wasn't that every comic became an introspection of the super-soul and the industry itself matured over night. It was that comic writers felt that they should create flawed, tortured characters who occasionally had sex. The comics were being produced by often lesser writers, who saw the sturm und drang of Dark Knight Returns, but missed what it was that made the series work, all while being entirely true to the Batman's roots.
By the mid-90's I wasn't really reading superhero comics because many of the titles had devolved into a glossy, messy warground in which superheroes, in order to be "darker, grittier, more extreme" were becoming increasingly more lethal and a lot more likely to pull the trigger.
And that's part of the problem with declaring that you're going to make your superheroes themselves "darker". At some point, you're missing the fundamental core of the characters that make them the good guys and separates them from the bad guys, and now you're just talking two guys in tights beating the holy hell out of each other (which is part of why I flinched any time I heard mention of the proposed "Superman vs. Batman" movie. What's the point?).
Maybe this is a natural curve that the movies will have to go through.
A note regarding what happened with super-hero comics...
It's dishonest to try to pretend that all comics move in one colossal shift, as if its a coordinated affair. There are always lots of missteps. But a movement in any direction tends to leave a lot of splinters around that tenaciously hang on. Characters and concepts I have no use for (ex: Marvel's Cable) survive and prosper.
DC's limited series "Kingdom Come" was like a wake-up call to the DCU. Slowly but surely, much of the DCU gave up on "extreme" in favor of "iconic". "Kingdom Come" seemed to boil the heroes down to their essence and ask aloud what Superman, Batman and the rest of the JLA were doing about the state of the industry. And they answered loudly.
According to Valerie at Occasional Superheroine, who once worked as an Assistant Editor at DC, Didio was still learning the lessons of the 90's, and moved in exactly the wrong direction for a spell, when she attended a retreat sometime around 2003, I'd guess. (I like Val's blog, but I think she overestimates the change this particular retreat had on DC, as they were in the post "Kingdom Come" shift away from ridiculous 90's characters like the Dr. Fate spin-off, Fate.)
I don't know how that would work with comic movies, or if any of this would come to pass. But I do know that there's some history here, and movie audiences and movie creators probably aren't all that different from those of comics.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Jamie home
Jamie is home and resting. She's all hopped up on medically prescribed goofballs, so I honestly can't tell you exactly how she's doing, but I think she's okay.
It's been a long week for me, so I can't begin to guess what its been like for her.
Hopefully we'll be back soon to your usual programming and the same exciting League and Troubles you've come to know and love.
It's been a long week for me, so I can't begin to guess what its been like for her.
Hopefully we'll be back soon to your usual programming and the same exciting League and Troubles you've come to know and love.
A Tapeheads Homage?
I don't know how many of you have ever seen the 80's era flick "Tapeheads" starring a very young John Cusack and Tim Robbins, but it was sort of one of those "defining movies of my youth".
It's about a video director and his somewhat sleezy producer pal who love a 60's soul duo "The Swanky Modes" (based on the very real and very awesome Sam & Dave... and, coincidentally, actually starring Sam Moore of Sam & Dave).
I have pitched the name "Swanky Modes" to Jason as a band name a few times, and have always been turned down.
Tapeheads is a very low-key comedy. They don't really make them like this any more, which is a shame. It's the sort of movie that seamlessly involves the band Menudo as a major plotpoint without blinking.
Anyhow, the band "Yacht" has cut a video, which is, shot-for-shot, a scene from "Tapeheads".
Let's get into trouble, baby..!
YACHT - Summer Song from Jona Bechtolt on Vimeo.
Found at Beaucoupkevin(dot)com
Honestly, from his post, I'm not sure Kevin was aware of the reference.
The original:
Jason and I used to use the term "Baby Doll" as a reference to both the sort of Euro-Pop of the time, and to describe a certain low-budget style of video making that was prevalent back in the 80's when MTV still showed videos.
Song Example: Well, clearly, anything by A-Ha.
Video Example: I still love this song, but the video for Seal's Crazy was totally "Baby Doll".
Interestingly, despite a credit to the band "Cube Squared", Devo seems to be responsible for "baby Doll", so whether they meant it as a joke or with all sincerity is anyone's guess. In all honesty, I run hot and cold with Devo, and "Baby Doll" is a pretty good example of why.
It is too bad "Yacht" didn't adapt Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles ad from Tapeheads.
It's about a video director and his somewhat sleezy producer pal who love a 60's soul duo "The Swanky Modes" (based on the very real and very awesome Sam & Dave... and, coincidentally, actually starring Sam Moore of Sam & Dave).
I have pitched the name "Swanky Modes" to Jason as a band name a few times, and have always been turned down.
Tapeheads is a very low-key comedy. They don't really make them like this any more, which is a shame. It's the sort of movie that seamlessly involves the band Menudo as a major plotpoint without blinking.
Anyhow, the band "Yacht" has cut a video, which is, shot-for-shot, a scene from "Tapeheads".
Let's get into trouble, baby..!
YACHT - Summer Song from Jona Bechtolt on Vimeo.
Found at Beaucoupkevin(dot)com
Honestly, from his post, I'm not sure Kevin was aware of the reference.
The original:
Jason and I used to use the term "Baby Doll" as a reference to both the sort of Euro-Pop of the time, and to describe a certain low-budget style of video making that was prevalent back in the 80's when MTV still showed videos.
Song Example: Well, clearly, anything by A-Ha.
Video Example: I still love this song, but the video for Seal's Crazy was totally "Baby Doll".
Interestingly, despite a credit to the band "Cube Squared", Devo seems to be responsible for "baby Doll", so whether they meant it as a joke or with all sincerity is anyone's guess. In all honesty, I run hot and cold with Devo, and "Baby Doll" is a pretty good example of why.
It is too bad "Yacht" didn't adapt Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles ad from Tapeheads.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Comic Fodder Post and More
The Silence of the Low-Selling Title: in which I talk about how DC does nothing to keep their comics alive when they begin to fail. And, heck, how they don't even really try with new series.
Need for a Policy Change at SDCC: in which I discuss the need for a new policy on sexual harassment at Comic Con International
And this isn't mine, but it's going to wind up in League Links, or Comic Links. The Con Anti-Harassment Project
Need for a Policy Change at SDCC: in which I discuss the need for a new policy on sexual harassment at Comic Con International
And this isn't mine, but it's going to wind up in League Links, or Comic Links. The Con Anti-Harassment Project
Jamie having out-patient procedure tomorrow
So I don't think I'm going to post. Here's her site if you want to send her well wishes.
If this is what greets her in the OR, she has my permission to run.
If this is what greets her in the OR, she has my permission to run.
Happy Birthday, Admiral!
Here's to another year of being totally awesome
A B-25 flying through a wall of flame is almost as awesome as The Admiral
A B-25 flying through a wall of flame is almost as awesome as The Admiral
Sasquatch story: The jig is up
Well, the dream of a Sasquatch Scam is dead.
I honestly have no idea what these two guys from Georgia were thinking, or why anyone in their right mind went along with them on their "bigfoot in a freezer" story. I don't think I need to outline all the problems with their gameplan, if the goal was to make money off the discovery. My guess is that this was the introduction of the power of mass media to these two guys.
And, honestly, I'm disappointed that they didn't stick to their guns on their cockamamie story and just ride it out.
I will also say that the two hoaxers are handling things well... by disappearing!
They have managed to follow at least two parts of the three-fold path of the coward:
1) Deny everything
2) Make counter-allegations
3) Run like hell
And for that, I kind of respect them.
I honestly have no idea what these two guys from Georgia were thinking, or why anyone in their right mind went along with them on their "bigfoot in a freezer" story. I don't think I need to outline all the problems with their gameplan, if the goal was to make money off the discovery. My guess is that this was the introduction of the power of mass media to these two guys.
And, honestly, I'm disappointed that they didn't stick to their guns on their cockamamie story and just ride it out.
I will also say that the two hoaxers are handling things well... by disappearing!
They have managed to follow at least two parts of the three-fold path of the coward:
1) Deny everything
2) Make counter-allegations
3) Run like hell
And for that, I kind of respect them.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
May-Treanor and Walsh Win 2nd Gold (and Bolt is amazing)
The League salutes Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh for winning their second Gold at the 2008 Olympics!
That's, I think, 108 straight victories for the duo. They've never disappointed, and we at The League of Melbotis have to tip our hat.
Here's the AP article.
Keep in mind, this time they did it in the driving rain against a team that had the home crowd advantage.
(I'd have a better picture here, but the news services are a little slow with a proper, victorious image)
And, by the way, Usain "Lightning" Bolt, set a world record while winning the 200m last night. The man is unreal. I saw in the comments that Reed-o is also a fan of the man. If you've been watching track, I don't see how you couldn't like the guy.
Here.
Shazam! Bolt wins the 200m!
That's, I think, 108 straight victories for the duo. They've never disappointed, and we at The League of Melbotis have to tip our hat.
Here's the AP article.
Keep in mind, this time they did it in the driving rain against a team that had the home crowd advantage.
(I'd have a better picture here, but the news services are a little slow with a proper, victorious image)
And, by the way, Usain "Lightning" Bolt, set a world record while winning the 200m last night. The man is unreal. I saw in the comments that Reed-o is also a fan of the man. If you've been watching track, I don't see how you couldn't like the guy.
Here.
Shazam! Bolt wins the 200m!
The League in Film School
This clip from Clone High is pretty much exactly like my experience presenting my work in film school.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Some random bits
It's not too late to submit questions to the Melbotis Mailbag either by e-mail or the comments section of this post.
Stolen from Randy's website: someone terribly suspicious of the symbol of God's promise
http://view.break.com/549954 - Watch more free videos
STOP REFRACTION NOW (in another 20 years, it will be too late). Time to ask yourself: What could possibly make this happen?
Music is always better when you can relate:
Thanks to JAL for forwarding the video
I've also been watching some Olympics, and some thoughts:
-Usain Bolt and the rest of the Jamaican sprint team are insane. Somehow (and I'm not sayin' how) Jamaicans have managed to harness the "Speed Force". Wally West, look out.
-That said: US sweeps men's hurdles!
-And I think I have a tiny crush on Sanya Richards, Texas runner who is now a Bronze Medalist
-The reason they are canceling softball in the Olympics: The US women literally cannot be beat. They have outscored the competition 50+ - 1. YOU CANNOT BEAT CAT OSTERMAN.
-May-Treanor and Walsh up for a Gold tomorrow in beach Volleyball. Be there. This may be the grand finale to a couple of amazing careers (both have hinted at retiring to start families).
-I actually salute NBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics. They've managed to cut the footage down to the parts you're going to want to see when they aren't showing anything live. It makes stuff like Men's gymnastics, in which I have only a passing interest, a lot more watchable.
League Approved Olympic Training:
Anyway, I had to work tonight, so hopefully you Leaguers will forgive me if the post is a bit short.
Stolen from Randy's website: someone terribly suspicious of the symbol of God's promise
http://view.break.com/549954 - Watch more free videos
STOP REFRACTION NOW (in another 20 years, it will be too late). Time to ask yourself: What could possibly make this happen?
Music is always better when you can relate:
Thanks to JAL for forwarding the video
I've also been watching some Olympics, and some thoughts:
-Usain Bolt and the rest of the Jamaican sprint team are insane. Somehow (and I'm not sayin' how) Jamaicans have managed to harness the "Speed Force". Wally West, look out.
-That said: US sweeps men's hurdles!
-And I think I have a tiny crush on Sanya Richards, Texas runner who is now a Bronze Medalist
-The reason they are canceling softball in the Olympics: The US women literally cannot be beat. They have outscored the competition 50+ - 1. YOU CANNOT BEAT CAT OSTERMAN.
-May-Treanor and Walsh up for a Gold tomorrow in beach Volleyball. Be there. This may be the grand finale to a couple of amazing careers (both have hinted at retiring to start families).
-I actually salute NBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics. They've managed to cut the footage down to the parts you're going to want to see when they aren't showing anything live. It makes stuff like Men's gymnastics, in which I have only a passing interest, a lot more watchable.
League Approved Olympic Training:
Anyway, I had to work tonight, so hopefully you Leaguers will forgive me if the post is a bit short.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Football - Bring Your Oxygen Tank
So, I accidentally bought season tickets to UT home games this year.
I know. I know. I'm unemployed.
The language on the website said something about "sign up now to get a chance at season tickets". What I didn't realize was that this didn't mean, "sign up now to get an opportunity later", it meant "we've got a really weird queue for tickets, and while you'll probably get tickets, you might not".
I assumed I was entering into some draft that I could walk away from when I came to my senses and realize I had no money. Rather, I gave a shadowy UT office a sack of money they would return if they ran out of slots.
The section I'm sitting in does not yet exist in this photo. I'll be in that empty blue space in the pic.
So, yeah, I think I literally have top-row tickets in the end zone for this season's football games. The way it works, every year I get season tickets, the better my seats will get. Always in cue behind: rich folk who give UT much larger sacks of money, members of the UT Foundation, longtime members of the Texas-Exes (of which I am a member, but I'm not done with my payments), friends and family of anyone with influence at UT, etc...
So, in, like, 2088, I might actually have decent seats.
Don't @#$% up, bro
Despite what I am anticipating to be excruciating heat at the first games, I'm thinking this will be fun. Especially as I will be at an elevation higher than any other structure in town, and be able to see birds and bats flying lower than where I'm sitting.
I will also be, I think, under the Jumbotron, so I will need to wear some sort of lead-shielding in order to make sure I am not irradiated.
Other than that, I'm pretty excited. I am not expecting a BCS bowl this year out of UT, but I am thinking we could be in the top 15 or so if Colt keeps his head on right and Chiles gets some playing time. We have three strong running back contenders (one of them is named "Fozzy". That's his name. And that is awesome.).
Wokka wokka!
And Major Applewhite is back in a backs-coach position. How sweet is that?
I think UT fans have a sort of unspoken belief that Major Applewhite is destined to be a headcoach at UT one day. If you're Major, you ride that belief for all its worth.
Anyway, I don't know what the schedule is yet for when or if Jamie is coming to games. So don't start with me on asking for spare tickets. But I'll keep you posted if I have a loose ticket.
GO HORNS!!!
I can dream of a return to glory at this point in the season. Don't ruin it for me.
Stray Thought of the Day: The Olympics and Der UberMensch
So Michael Phelps got me thinking...
One of the things we take for granted is that every Olympics, swimmers bust records, runners bust records, weightlifters lift more weight than anyone had ever lifted before. I don't mean we take the Olympians for granted, but we do assume that in a few races, somebody is going to break a record and swim faster, run faster, etc... than we've ever seen.
Which makes the League ponder...
Is there a point at which we won't be able to continue to beat records? Is there ever going to be a maximum recorded speed for humans to swim? To run? To lift weight? To jump? To throw a javelin?
I assume that in 40 years, the training, diet, equipment, etc... that athletes use will improve to such a degree that what we feel is state of the art today will look to them as the women in petticoats playing golf at the 1900 Olympics looks to us now (gymnastics and track & field wouldn't be added until 1928).
No doubt, these women were considered strumpets for their revealing athletic wear. And rightfully so.
So I wonder if, year after year (and four years after four years), as time marches on... what sort of humans will we be building? Will we see a Michael Phelps in the year 3000 that moves through the water faster than a motor boat? Or will we find some invisible wall and find ourselves competing for 1/1000ths of a second, never pushing beyond some as-yet-unseen boundary?
No doubt the future of gene manipulation (through state-mandated breeding programs, or through some mad science), we haven't yet begun to see how fast, strong, and unbelievable the human body will be by the time The League is an old man.
But, jump-forward to, say, the year 5000? What does it mean for sport when records are no longer breakable? Is that even a conceivable idea? Or is our desire, as humans, to continue to build and grow, advance and see progress so ingrained in us as a species that we will see swimmers who cut through the water like fish? Will they be recognizably human to our eyes from 2008?
Phelps in 3008?
One of the things we take for granted is that every Olympics, swimmers bust records, runners bust records, weightlifters lift more weight than anyone had ever lifted before. I don't mean we take the Olympians for granted, but we do assume that in a few races, somebody is going to break a record and swim faster, run faster, etc... than we've ever seen.
Which makes the League ponder...
Is there a point at which we won't be able to continue to beat records? Is there ever going to be a maximum recorded speed for humans to swim? To run? To lift weight? To jump? To throw a javelin?
I assume that in 40 years, the training, diet, equipment, etc... that athletes use will improve to such a degree that what we feel is state of the art today will look to them as the women in petticoats playing golf at the 1900 Olympics looks to us now (gymnastics and track & field wouldn't be added until 1928).
No doubt, these women were considered strumpets for their revealing athletic wear. And rightfully so.
So I wonder if, year after year (and four years after four years), as time marches on... what sort of humans will we be building? Will we see a Michael Phelps in the year 3000 that moves through the water faster than a motor boat? Or will we find some invisible wall and find ourselves competing for 1/1000ths of a second, never pushing beyond some as-yet-unseen boundary?
No doubt the future of gene manipulation (through state-mandated breeding programs, or through some mad science), we haven't yet begun to see how fast, strong, and unbelievable the human body will be by the time The League is an old man.
But, jump-forward to, say, the year 5000? What does it mean for sport when records are no longer breakable? Is that even a conceivable idea? Or is our desire, as humans, to continue to build and grow, advance and see progress so ingrained in us as a species that we will see swimmers who cut through the water like fish? Will they be recognizably human to our eyes from 2008?
Phelps in 3008?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Sasquatch Corpse Saga Continues!
...now I just wonder exactly how far this is going to go!
Here's an article from Yahoo!
These dudes are sticking to their guns in the face of mounting evidence, logic and common sense. And you have to respect that. The technique is what I would call "The Jason Alternate Reality Technique", where you insist your cockamamie story is true way past the point of reason, and refuse to let the story go 20 years later (you are not secretly 5th grade math teacher, Mr. Glowka, in a clever disguise).
CNN covered the story. Unfortunately, in doing so, there was a technical gaffe that led to the following:
When things go wrong at the CNN master control.
Bigfoot press conference - covered by Fox
Bigfoot press conference (spoof)
Classic Bigfoot
Here's an article from Yahoo!
These dudes are sticking to their guns in the face of mounting evidence, logic and common sense. And you have to respect that. The technique is what I would call "The Jason Alternate Reality Technique", where you insist your cockamamie story is true way past the point of reason, and refuse to let the story go 20 years later (you are not secretly 5th grade math teacher, Mr. Glowka, in a clever disguise).
CNN covered the story. Unfortunately, in doing so, there was a technical gaffe that led to the following:
When things go wrong at the CNN master control.
Bigfoot press conference - covered by Fox
Bigfoot press conference (spoof)
Classic Bigfoot
Pineapple Express
Saturday I headed out to Alamo South to see the latest film in the Apatow/ Rogan/ Ferrell... comedy phalanx that has pretty much redefined comedy rather abruptly since 40 Year Old Virgin (speaking of... I think Steve Carrell would do well to hook up with these guys again rather than enter into another big-budget flick with luke-warm critical and audience reception).
Pineapple Express won't appeal to my parents, and I really wouldn't find it something I'd want my kids to see if they were under 16. But it does hit that sweet marketing spot of 18-34 year olds pretty well.
I did find the movie funny. I found the reviews that harped on the shocking violence and action to have overstated their case. The balance was similar to films such as "Beverly Hills Cop", so I don't think action/ comedy of this nature is exactly a new idea.
For full disclosure, here is my "six degrees of separation" relationship to director David Gordon Green. Green lived on my floor in Jester my first year of college, and I think, at most, I would say hi to him in the hallway. I knew him mostly because he lived with another David, musician David Wingo, so they were in the room with two Davids. David Green fled UT to go to a film conservatory in North Carolina sophomore year, which I thought was just crazy at the time. And he'd send David Wingo copies of his student work, which we'd all watch at parties and whatnot.
What struck me as interesting was that (a) I was never enamored with Green's sense of humor in his college films (I was alone in this opinion). And (b) how Pineapple Express displayed some of that sense of humor, but actually really made it work. The same sense of uncontrolled chaos and oddly placed priorities is as present in his films I recall watching in college as Pineapple Express.
Speaking of, seeing what happened to his work between his college material and his first feature, George Washington, was mind-blowing. There's nothing like seeing someone else's work, who should be your peer, to let you know "this person has a skill I do not, and never could, have."
Pineapple Express is a pretty darn far cry from George Washington, so it'll be interesting to see what direction green takes his career from here.
Also, I need to look up Wingo. It's been years since I've talked to that guy. Tjeff will know where he is... Little help, tjeff?
(tjeff who floats through the comments section occasionally is, by the way, another musician whose work I'd recommend. Here's his site.)
I also happened to watch part of "Knocked Up" last night, the Seth Rogan sleeper hit from last summer. And while I enjoyed Rogan in "Pineapple Express", Rogan is going to need to learn to play a character other than Seth Rogan at some point. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some point, the audience is going to find all of his roles so indistinguishable, its going to have a negative effect. Doofus twenty-something with a disarming laughing is only going to work so long.
And, surprisingly, James Franco's perpetually stoned character "Saul" doesn't come off as grating, but actually pretty likable, which I wasn't expecting. Franco is a pretty direct contrast to Rogan's insistence on playing himself, as he throws himself into the character pretty fully, and is unrecognizable as Harry Osborn of the Spidey movies.
As per plot, PE is a surprisingly tight crime script, with a certain narrowly defined cast of colorful characters (Danny McBride of "Foot Fist Way" is a particular highlight). Too often comedies decide plot is secondary, but Pineapple Express has natural arcs for literally every character, and works as well, from a narrative standpoint, as any recent crime movie I've seen. It just happens to feature two guys who could be your neighbors in the last apartment complex you lived in.
I'll be honest, I don't think you'll lose much seeing the movie on the small screen. So you can probably wait to see it in the comfort of your La-Z-Boy. And while I'm not sure how long the Apatow comedy collective (oh, Freaks and Geeks! What wonders thou hast wrought!) can keep up this pace, but they're managing to make movies that seem a heck of a lot smarter than, say, "Hollywood Chihuahua".
Pineapple Express won't appeal to my parents, and I really wouldn't find it something I'd want my kids to see if they were under 16. But it does hit that sweet marketing spot of 18-34 year olds pretty well.
I did find the movie funny. I found the reviews that harped on the shocking violence and action to have overstated their case. The balance was similar to films such as "Beverly Hills Cop", so I don't think action/ comedy of this nature is exactly a new idea.
For full disclosure, here is my "six degrees of separation" relationship to director David Gordon Green. Green lived on my floor in Jester my first year of college, and I think, at most, I would say hi to him in the hallway. I knew him mostly because he lived with another David, musician David Wingo, so they were in the room with two Davids. David Green fled UT to go to a film conservatory in North Carolina sophomore year, which I thought was just crazy at the time. And he'd send David Wingo copies of his student work, which we'd all watch at parties and whatnot.
What struck me as interesting was that (a) I was never enamored with Green's sense of humor in his college films (I was alone in this opinion). And (b) how Pineapple Express displayed some of that sense of humor, but actually really made it work. The same sense of uncontrolled chaos and oddly placed priorities is as present in his films I recall watching in college as Pineapple Express.
Speaking of, seeing what happened to his work between his college material and his first feature, George Washington, was mind-blowing. There's nothing like seeing someone else's work, who should be your peer, to let you know "this person has a skill I do not, and never could, have."
Pineapple Express is a pretty darn far cry from George Washington, so it'll be interesting to see what direction green takes his career from here.
Also, I need to look up Wingo. It's been years since I've talked to that guy. Tjeff will know where he is... Little help, tjeff?
(tjeff who floats through the comments section occasionally is, by the way, another musician whose work I'd recommend. Here's his site.)
I also happened to watch part of "Knocked Up" last night, the Seth Rogan sleeper hit from last summer. And while I enjoyed Rogan in "Pineapple Express", Rogan is going to need to learn to play a character other than Seth Rogan at some point. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some point, the audience is going to find all of his roles so indistinguishable, its going to have a negative effect. Doofus twenty-something with a disarming laughing is only going to work so long.
And, surprisingly, James Franco's perpetually stoned character "Saul" doesn't come off as grating, but actually pretty likable, which I wasn't expecting. Franco is a pretty direct contrast to Rogan's insistence on playing himself, as he throws himself into the character pretty fully, and is unrecognizable as Harry Osborn of the Spidey movies.
As per plot, PE is a surprisingly tight crime script, with a certain narrowly defined cast of colorful characters (Danny McBride of "Foot Fist Way" is a particular highlight). Too often comedies decide plot is secondary, but Pineapple Express has natural arcs for literally every character, and works as well, from a narrative standpoint, as any recent crime movie I've seen. It just happens to feature two guys who could be your neighbors in the last apartment complex you lived in.
I'll be honest, I don't think you'll lose much seeing the movie on the small screen. So you can probably wait to see it in the comfort of your La-Z-Boy. And while I'm not sure how long the Apatow comedy collective (oh, Freaks and Geeks! What wonders thou hast wrought!) can keep up this pace, but they're managing to make movies that seem a heck of a lot smarter than, say, "Hollywood Chihuahua".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)