When I first saw The Avengers a few weeks ago I walked out of the theater having enjoyed myself, but by the end I was tired and, horrible as it is to say, bored. The end is pretty much non-stop action, how could anyone get bored? My theory was that the final fight was too damned long. Today I put that to the test and I was right.
See, the movie's built up on exciting moments. They start out, relatively, small, after that opening sequence. The opening is a teaser, though, and announces right off what kind of movie this is. Then the film slows down. We meet our main heroes, minus the one were were already introduced to, in short vignettes so we understand who they are and what they want. From there the action slowly gets bigger, with nice breathers in between so the audience can relax and laugh which should help to clean the mental palette for the next action set piece. Joss Wheadon, who wrote and directed this movie, understands that the brain needs the break, that's why all his actiony/horrory TV shows used comedy to help break up the tension, if only for a second, to make room in the brain for more excitement. The action also get longer as the movie goes on, but it's short enough that it didn't wear me out.
Until that last fight.
**Here's where I get a little spoilery, in case you haven't seen the movie yet and still care.**
I had my watch with me and turned on the stopwatch to time the fight. I started when the first aliens came through the portal, that seemed a fair place. The specifics aren't really important because I was engaged. I was on the streets with Captain America, flying through the city with Ironman, and smashing armored fish/lizard things with the Hulk. And then, suddenly, I wasn't.
I looked down at my watch. Fifteen minutes had passed. Cap was just about to rush in to rescue people who had been cornered in a bank, or whatever, by aliens. Here's where this fight scene became agonizing. The punching, shooting, zapping, and punching became boring. Yeah, that Hulk scene with Loki made me laugh, but that was way past the point where I wanted something else.
I just thought of the end of Return of the Jedi, where it bounces between the three fights: one on Endor, one around the Death Star, and one in the Emperor's throne room. It's long, but all the fights have such different tones and tickle different parts of my brain that it doesn't get boring. It also cuts from the exciting World War II style space battle to the point on Endor where it look like the Rebels have lost and seem to be surrendering then cuts to Luke and Vadar fighting. Did you see the break my brain got there? During those few minutes on Endor! That sort of pacing kept my mind shifting gears kept my brain active and attentive.
The closest thing to a break during that last fight in The Avengers is when Fury is talking to those shadowy faces. The problem is that it comes to late. Just a few minutes after Fury's conversation that professor doctor guy who was in the Thor movie wakes up and that's where I hit stop on my watch because I correctly remembered that there was no other alien fighting after that. Twenty-six minutes and one second of fight. Ten minutes too much for my brain, apparently.
The movie's still a lot of fun, but the final fight is so relentless.
And I can't even say how I might fix it. My gut reaction is shorter, make it shorter because there are no good subplots to cut away to. At that point the helicarrier is safe and they'd already killed the best character to come out of these linked movies, so I don't want to go there. The best New Yorkers are for is short reaction shots to the horror around them and that's the only way they're useful to the movie.
Maybe the next one will leave me feeling energized in the end rather than bored. I'm rooting for you Mr. Wheadon. We all are.
Showing posts with label over analyzing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label over analyzing. Show all posts
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
SMASH
Over the last two day's I've watched the six episodes of SMASH out there, as of two-thirty PM PDT.
For those who don't know, SMASH is, theoretically, about the development of a new Broadway show based on the life of Marilyn Monroe. Like most TV shows that are procedurals, though, it's really about the characters and their lives. And that's where it falls flat, for me. Right now I only really like two characters. The first is Eileen Rand, played by the deliciously scene chewing Anjelica Huston, the producer of the play trying to pull together the backers and money to put on a workshop of the play. The other is Derek Wills, played by Jack Davenport (which is fun because I've been slowly working my way through the original version of Coupling where he plays Steve), the plays director.
The problem with these two characters is that they are so buried in the world of Broadway that they don't provide a way into that world. They know the tricks and rules so they don't explain anything to the audience. Maybe that's part of why I like them so much. They know. They're inside. That's the world I want to know.
There are two characters that are new to the Broadway world: Karen Cartwright, played by Katharine McPhee, and Ellis Tancharoen, played by Jaime Cepero. Ellis is the assistant to Tom Levitt, played by Christian Borle, a co-writer of the play and Karen the the wide-eyed mid-west girl come to the big city to be a star. These are characters designed to lead an audience into the weird world of plays. I don't like them, though.
Karen is too naive. She's constantly shocked at, well, everything. (Except for one time where the director wanted her to sleep with him and she didn't. That was a great moment.) She's exhausting.
Ellis was who I hoped would be the audience surrogate. He's the assistant to one of the writers. He has a front row seat to the creation of the songs and book. He can ask all the questions about how the songs are written and help the audience see how plays are created. Unfortunately, it looks like he's going to is a villain, and he never asks questions about the creative process.
The fact that I don't really like any of the characters isn't my real problem with the show, though. I want to delve into the behind the scenes creation of a play. I like to see how the sausage is made. I want the boring dirty details that go creation.
It seem to me that SMASH moves too fast. The songs are too finished. Where's the revision? Where's the evolution the the music? The alteration of the lyrics? The dances are perfected. Where's the choreographer practicing by himself in front of the mirror finding the perfect step, turn, turn, step, kick, step? Where's the frustration at teaching the chorus the step? Yes, I like seeing the dance numbers and hearing the songs, but when they come out complete it makes everything seem too easy. I don't just want to hear about Julia Houston, played by Debra Messing, having trouble writing the book and lyrics. I want to see her agonizing over finding the perfect lyric, the perfect line. (There was a moment in the third episode when Julia was trying to figure out how to write "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," but it was only a taste of the agonizingly beautiful frustration of creation I want to see.)
And then there are the musical numbers. They are so polished. So finished. I don't just mean the choreography. I mean that the songs are very finely produced. Example: In the first episode Karen sings the song "Beautiful" while she auditions for the part of Marilyn. It starts out with her singing with only a piano accompanying her. Then in come stings and whatnot. Yeah, the lighting changes, suggesting that this is a bit of a fantasy sequence, but why can't it just be a simple audition? Oh, yeah, the people in charge of the show want to be like Glee and make a shit ton of money selling covers, and originals. Still, when they're rehearsing and the only instrument is a piano and then I hear drums and strings and horns I get pulled out of the show and wonder where the orchestra is sitting? At least in Glee they always magically have an orchestra with them.
I plan to keep watching this show, even though it bothers me. I don't hate it like I do Glee. This show was built for a person like me. I love theater, including musical theater. I love TV shows that go behind the scenes. So I'll keep watching.
For those who don't know, SMASH is, theoretically, about the development of a new Broadway show based on the life of Marilyn Monroe. Like most TV shows that are procedurals, though, it's really about the characters and their lives. And that's where it falls flat, for me. Right now I only really like two characters. The first is Eileen Rand, played by the deliciously scene chewing Anjelica Huston, the producer of the play trying to pull together the backers and money to put on a workshop of the play. The other is Derek Wills, played by Jack Davenport (which is fun because I've been slowly working my way through the original version of Coupling where he plays Steve), the plays director.
The problem with these two characters is that they are so buried in the world of Broadway that they don't provide a way into that world. They know the tricks and rules so they don't explain anything to the audience. Maybe that's part of why I like them so much. They know. They're inside. That's the world I want to know.
There are two characters that are new to the Broadway world: Karen Cartwright, played by Katharine McPhee, and Ellis Tancharoen, played by Jaime Cepero. Ellis is the assistant to Tom Levitt, played by Christian Borle, a co-writer of the play and Karen the the wide-eyed mid-west girl come to the big city to be a star. These are characters designed to lead an audience into the weird world of plays. I don't like them, though.
Karen is too naive. She's constantly shocked at, well, everything. (Except for one time where the director wanted her to sleep with him and she didn't. That was a great moment.) She's exhausting.
Ellis was who I hoped would be the audience surrogate. He's the assistant to one of the writers. He has a front row seat to the creation of the songs and book. He can ask all the questions about how the songs are written and help the audience see how plays are created. Unfortunately, it looks like he's going to is a villain, and he never asks questions about the creative process.
The fact that I don't really like any of the characters isn't my real problem with the show, though. I want to delve into the behind the scenes creation of a play. I like to see how the sausage is made. I want the boring dirty details that go creation.
It seem to me that SMASH moves too fast. The songs are too finished. Where's the revision? Where's the evolution the the music? The alteration of the lyrics? The dances are perfected. Where's the choreographer practicing by himself in front of the mirror finding the perfect step, turn, turn, step, kick, step? Where's the frustration at teaching the chorus the step? Yes, I like seeing the dance numbers and hearing the songs, but when they come out complete it makes everything seem too easy. I don't just want to hear about Julia Houston, played by Debra Messing, having trouble writing the book and lyrics. I want to see her agonizing over finding the perfect lyric, the perfect line. (There was a moment in the third episode when Julia was trying to figure out how to write "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," but it was only a taste of the agonizingly beautiful frustration of creation I want to see.)
And then there are the musical numbers. They are so polished. So finished. I don't just mean the choreography. I mean that the songs are very finely produced. Example: In the first episode Karen sings the song "Beautiful" while she auditions for the part of Marilyn. It starts out with her singing with only a piano accompanying her. Then in come stings and whatnot. Yeah, the lighting changes, suggesting that this is a bit of a fantasy sequence, but why can't it just be a simple audition? Oh, yeah, the people in charge of the show want to be like Glee and make a shit ton of money selling covers, and originals. Still, when they're rehearsing and the only instrument is a piano and then I hear drums and strings and horns I get pulled out of the show and wonder where the orchestra is sitting? At least in Glee they always magically have an orchestra with them.
I plan to keep watching this show, even though it bothers me. I don't hate it like I do Glee. This show was built for a person like me. I love theater, including musical theater. I love TV shows that go behind the scenes. So I'll keep watching.
Useless Labels:
music,
musicals,
over analyzing,
TV
Saturday, May 07, 2011
A Bit More About Glee
There's one more thing I wanted to mention about Glee that I forgot, and that's the role of music on the show.
One of the earliest complaints I remember reading about the music is that they didn't use original songs. DUH! Show choirs and glee clubs rarely, if ever, do original music. They take existing music and spin it into their own bit of incredible (or mediocrity). And now that Glee has done original songs I need to know how much people enjoyed them? Personally, with the exception of "Trouty Mouth," which was hilarious, and "My Headband," which was also just a joke, the songs didn't impress me.
The show tends to stick to arrangements of songs we've already heard. Sometimes that's disappointing, the Rocky Horror episode sticks out in my mind, but sometimes it's amazing, like when they did "She's Not There." And, of course, a lot of the mash-ups are great, I posted a link to my favorite, so far, in that other post which is the mash-up of "Don't Stand So Close to Me" and "Young Girl."
Now if Glee were really about a glee club training for shows, we would probably only hear a couple dozen songs rehearsed to death. Fortunately, this is TV and the songs are there to represent how music can underscore our emotions. It's probably safe to assume that nearly everyone has heard a song at just the right time that it seemed to be written about them. Here's a post with several songs that hit me that way and I know I've written about more songs, just don't want to look them up. They're the songs that you used to rewind on the cassette or lifting the arm of the record player for. Today we can just press the reverse button and listen over and over.
My favorite example of using a song to reflect the emotions of a character is "Landslide" from a few episodes ago. Watch Santana's face as she sings all the hurt and confusion and love and a little bit of anger. These are the moments that really make Glee worth watching and this is exactly how music should be used in a show about singing high school students.
One of the earliest complaints I remember reading about the music is that they didn't use original songs. DUH! Show choirs and glee clubs rarely, if ever, do original music. They take existing music and spin it into their own bit of incredible (or mediocrity). And now that Glee has done original songs I need to know how much people enjoyed them? Personally, with the exception of "Trouty Mouth," which was hilarious, and "My Headband," which was also just a joke, the songs didn't impress me.
The show tends to stick to arrangements of songs we've already heard. Sometimes that's disappointing, the Rocky Horror episode sticks out in my mind, but sometimes it's amazing, like when they did "She's Not There." And, of course, a lot of the mash-ups are great, I posted a link to my favorite, so far, in that other post which is the mash-up of "Don't Stand So Close to Me" and "Young Girl."
Now if Glee were really about a glee club training for shows, we would probably only hear a couple dozen songs rehearsed to death. Fortunately, this is TV and the songs are there to represent how music can underscore our emotions. It's probably safe to assume that nearly everyone has heard a song at just the right time that it seemed to be written about them. Here's a post with several songs that hit me that way and I know I've written about more songs, just don't want to look them up. They're the songs that you used to rewind on the cassette or lifting the arm of the record player for. Today we can just press the reverse button and listen over and over.
My favorite example of using a song to reflect the emotions of a character is "Landslide" from a few episodes ago. Watch Santana's face as she sings all the hurt and confusion and love and a little bit of anger. These are the moments that really make Glee worth watching and this is exactly how music should be used in a show about singing high school students.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
A Bit About Glee
I don't really like the show Glee, but I watch it.
During the first half of the first season, I was a champion of the show. (Not of the blog, so much, but when asked about it in real life. For a while it was my favorite show on TV.) It was about this group of kids trying to find a place to fit and even the place where they best fit wasn't comfortable for them. It was about the formation of a team coming together to work toward a difficult goal. And surrounding this theme were interesting characters, backstabbing, a cute and earnest OCD teacher, a psycho with a fake pregnancy, The Pink Dagger, and the always utterly fantastic Jane Lynch. Oh and lots of great songs. (These span the whole of the first season. Dammit.)
When the second half of the first season came around, something seemed to change. The music was still great, but the characters weren't right. They all seemed so much more over the top. And while that worked for Sue Sylvester, it didn't work so when for Artie or Tina or Brittany or Will. Stories also became about the topic of the week, not the characters. I kept watching, though, because of the songs. It's like horrible train wreck, death and destruction, gorgeous sunset, train wreck, death, amazing painting, train wreck.
After moving, I didn't watch much TV until my brother pointed me to the D&D episode of Community. That's when I went back to my unhealthy hate/love relationship with Glee. It still has all the same problems (although I've been pretty impressed with the Santana arc in the past few episodes), but I can ignore them more. Now I just watch it episode to episode and don't expect anything to really carry over from one episode to the next. I just enjoy what's there. It's become a lot easier to watch.
And that's why I keep watching, even though I'm pretty sure I hate most of the show.
During the first half of the first season, I was a champion of the show. (Not of the blog, so much, but when asked about it in real life. For a while it was my favorite show on TV.) It was about this group of kids trying to find a place to fit and even the place where they best fit wasn't comfortable for them. It was about the formation of a team coming together to work toward a difficult goal. And surrounding this theme were interesting characters, backstabbing, a cute and earnest OCD teacher, a psycho with a fake pregnancy, The Pink Dagger, and the always utterly fantastic Jane Lynch. Oh and lots of great songs. (These span the whole of the first season. Dammit.)
When the second half of the first season came around, something seemed to change. The music was still great, but the characters weren't right. They all seemed so much more over the top. And while that worked for Sue Sylvester, it didn't work so when for Artie or Tina or Brittany or Will. Stories also became about the topic of the week, not the characters. I kept watching, though, because of the songs. It's like horrible train wreck, death and destruction, gorgeous sunset, train wreck, death, amazing painting, train wreck.
After moving, I didn't watch much TV until my brother pointed me to the D&D episode of Community. That's when I went back to my unhealthy hate/love relationship with Glee. It still has all the same problems (although I've been pretty impressed with the Santana arc in the past few episodes), but I can ignore them more. Now I just watch it episode to episode and don't expect anything to really carry over from one episode to the next. I just enjoy what's there. It's become a lot easier to watch.
And that's why I keep watching, even though I'm pretty sure I hate most of the show.
Useless Labels:
music,
over analyzing,
TV
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Je pense, donc je suis? Vraiment?
A while ago, I read a piece of a story (yeah, it was fan fiction and it has a lot of parts, but they feel too short to be called chapters) where a character, who has isolated herself because she's been teased a bullied for years, loses something that is important to her. After she spends the day searching for it, ditching all her classes, which makes her more depressed and anxious, she climbs several flights of stairs into a room where she knows she can be alone. She enters the room, walks over to a window, pushes the window open, steps up, and steps out. She falls, of course. She survives because she's the kind of character who isn't really allowed to accomplish what she sets out to do. (Also, she's not a main character. She's used to push the main character into a new situation and build that character more.)
That's where that part of the story ends. With her on the ground.
The story didn't bother me. In fact, I found it very honest. What bothered me was a lot of the discussion that came after it was posted.
The character was hated by nearly everyone who has been reading the story as it's been serialized. She was passive. She let things happen to her. She didn't take stands or push back. Her response was to run away and hide if she could. If she couldn't hide, she took what was thrown at her then moved on knowing it, or something similar, was going to happen to her again.
So, when she tried to kill herself, many of the people wrote comments saying good riddance. They didn't like her. They didn't want her around. They thought she took time away from the main characters.
One person tried to defend the character I've been writing about. This person wrote very passionately about people being bullied and how it destroys self-esteem and what it's like to live in constant fear.
Of course the defense was brushed aside. She would have been a better character if she'd stood up for herself. Bullies back off when confronted. She was a drag on the story. She didn't do anything to help the plot. And so on.
The defender continued to try to write about what led the character to step out the window. The defender wrote that this character just got tired of being noticed and wanted to end it and went the only way she could.
To that, one of the other people who hated the character wrote that if she hadn't wanted to be noticed that she wouldn't have tried to kill herself in such a spectacular and public way and that if she hadn't wanted to be noticed, she should have stood up for herself so she'd be left alone.
The defender quit trying to defend here. There was no point in the defender continuing on. The others didn't want to understand. So the conversation stopped online, but not in my head.
(For the record, I am not the one who was defending the character. All of this was written between the time I moved from North Bay to Cowtown and I started getting online regularly. It took a long time for me to catch up on the reading that I wanted to do. I can't say I would have gotten involved. I'm not so good at being part of a "community," even if it is a virtual one.)
What bothered me was the person saying that she tried to kill herself in a spectacular and public way and the implication that there's a way for a person to kill him/herself that wouldn't be spectacular or public.
In this world where (nearly) everyone believes that their life is precious, one taking his/her own life will always seem spectacular, once it's discovered. People are always shocked, whether it's someone quietly hanging him/herself in the garage or if he/she puts a pistol to his/her head in a crowded mall and pulls a trigger. One is reacted to more strongly than the other, but it all comes down to the average person asking why a person would kill him/herself. Because they can't fathom that someone wouldn't want to live. And once the death is discovered, even the quiet, private one, it becomes spectacular and public.
So, how do you explain to the average person that someone may not value his/her life like most people do? Can the average person understand the feelings of self-hatred, or worthlessness, or simple exhaustion others may have? Or will it just bounce off them because they simply believe that humans are simply animals and the first thing all animals try to do is survive?
Are humans simply animals? Do we simply want to survive as a species, if not as an individual? Are those who don't want to survive then wrong? Is it part of "je pense, donc je suis"?
That's where that part of the story ends. With her on the ground.
The story didn't bother me. In fact, I found it very honest. What bothered me was a lot of the discussion that came after it was posted.
The character was hated by nearly everyone who has been reading the story as it's been serialized. She was passive. She let things happen to her. She didn't take stands or push back. Her response was to run away and hide if she could. If she couldn't hide, she took what was thrown at her then moved on knowing it, or something similar, was going to happen to her again.
So, when she tried to kill herself, many of the people wrote comments saying good riddance. They didn't like her. They didn't want her around. They thought she took time away from the main characters.
One person tried to defend the character I've been writing about. This person wrote very passionately about people being bullied and how it destroys self-esteem and what it's like to live in constant fear.
Of course the defense was brushed aside. She would have been a better character if she'd stood up for herself. Bullies back off when confronted. She was a drag on the story. She didn't do anything to help the plot. And so on.
The defender continued to try to write about what led the character to step out the window. The defender wrote that this character just got tired of being noticed and wanted to end it and went the only way she could.
To that, one of the other people who hated the character wrote that if she hadn't wanted to be noticed that she wouldn't have tried to kill herself in such a spectacular and public way and that if she hadn't wanted to be noticed, she should have stood up for herself so she'd be left alone.
The defender quit trying to defend here. There was no point in the defender continuing on. The others didn't want to understand. So the conversation stopped online, but not in my head.
(For the record, I am not the one who was defending the character. All of this was written between the time I moved from North Bay to Cowtown and I started getting online regularly. It took a long time for me to catch up on the reading that I wanted to do. I can't say I would have gotten involved. I'm not so good at being part of a "community," even if it is a virtual one.)
What bothered me was the person saying that she tried to kill herself in a spectacular and public way and the implication that there's a way for a person to kill him/herself that wouldn't be spectacular or public.
In this world where (nearly) everyone believes that their life is precious, one taking his/her own life will always seem spectacular, once it's discovered. People are always shocked, whether it's someone quietly hanging him/herself in the garage or if he/she puts a pistol to his/her head in a crowded mall and pulls a trigger. One is reacted to more strongly than the other, but it all comes down to the average person asking why a person would kill him/herself. Because they can't fathom that someone wouldn't want to live. And once the death is discovered, even the quiet, private one, it becomes spectacular and public.
So, how do you explain to the average person that someone may not value his/her life like most people do? Can the average person understand the feelings of self-hatred, or worthlessness, or simple exhaustion others may have? Or will it just bounce off them because they simply believe that humans are simply animals and the first thing all animals try to do is survive?
Are humans simply animals? Do we simply want to survive as a species, if not as an individual? Are those who don't want to survive then wrong? Is it part of "je pense, donc je suis"?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Interpretations, in the End
The first time I ever learned that there were people out there who didn't like the ending to My Fair Lady, I was in college. I was admiring a picture of Audrey Hepburn (I'm pretty sure it was from Breakfast at Tiffany's, but memory fades.) my friend had up on the wall of his bedroom and mentioned it to him.
"I love Audrey Hepburn," he said, "except at the end of My Fair Lady."
I didn't ask why. Although I wondered.
Years later, talking with another friend and her husband My Fair Lady was brought up (probably by me, but I can't be sure about that) and she mentioned how she preferred the end to Pygmalion. I asked about the difference since I hadn't read the play, and she said the difference was that in Pygmalion Eliza doesn't go back to Higgins.
I don't remember discussing it any more, but I do remember thinking that if Eliza didn't show up at the end of the movie then My Fair Lady would have to end either after Higgins sings (or "sings" when talking about Rex Harrison) "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" or after Mrs. Higgins says, "Bravo, Eliza." Both seem logical endings, with the former being much more sad.
I wondered, though, if something was wrong with me that I've never felt disturbed by the end of the movie/play. I can see why my friends would prefer Eliza not to show up in the study at the end: she's freed herself from a controlling, self-centered, arrogant, asshat of a man and taken her fate into her own hands. (If it had ended this way for my whole life, I would probably agree with them.) Most people who like the end probably like it because they think Eliza and Higgins are in love and now -- sigh -- they can be together, forever, and get married.
Me? Well, the more I've thought about it since that first time the more I realize that I like the end of the movie/play because Eliza has taken hold of her life and, frankly, I think she's chosen the best life for herself that she could find in early 1900s London.
She doesn't return to Higgins because she's in love with him. Yes, she cares for him a great deal, she probably loves him, but she is not in love with him, as seen here:
She cares about him, probably does love him, but Eliza Doolittle is not in love with Henry Higgins. I've always thought that she looked at him as the older brother she never had or the father she wished she had (although the father position is probably better filled by Pickering).
And Higgins isn't in love with Eliza. "I've Grown Accustom to Her Face" is a song about fondness. About how he likes that she's around. He sings, "I've grown accustomed to the tune that / She whistles night and noon." because it's part of the background of his life making what he thought was a nice life even better and more comfortable. "I've grown accustomed to the trace," he sings, "Of something in the air; / Accustomed to her face." She's made his life better in a smaller, simpler, and, perhaps, stronger ways than he made her life better.
Then why, if it's not love, does she come back to him, right?
Academics and economics.
When she first comes to Higgins she wants to be a girl in a flower shop. She wants to earn a better living for herself. She wants to move out of her social class and into a class that she sees as better. Eliza never expects to live with Higgins, though. She thinks she'd do it like her friend who took French lessons. She'd come to Higgins's house once or twice a week, clear up her accent, get a job in a shop, and move on with her life.
By moving into Higgins's house and working with him on a Daily basis, Eliza is pushed into the world of academia. As she speaks her vowels and practices her "h" sounds and says those tongue twisters she also overhears Higgins and Pickering discussing dialects and the human condition. It's easy to imagine that sometimes she might have even join in the discussions, once she starts to speak-up.
After the ball, knowing that the grand experiment is over, what's she to do?
Can she go on and work in someone's flower shop and be happy?
Can she really marry Freddy?
I don't think she can do either one.
Marrying Freddy's out because he's self-centered and an idiot. If there's any conversation to be had between the two of them, it'll be about him. (His song is about how he feels to be near her, which is sort of flattering, but I'd have more respect for him if he sang about how it felt to be with her.) It's like he thinks she's a trinket that he can put in a case and admire because it makes him feel good to know he has something so nice. There's only status in him, no vigor or life, no real thought. By the end of My Fair Lady Eliza learns how to think and isn't likely to marry just for money.
Working in a flower shop could be more likely, but where's the challenge to Eliza. She's been working and learning for months. Not only does her way of speaking change, but her view of the world (and the world's view of her). Before, she knew how to read and write, but that was all. After, she knows how to analyze what she sees and reads and use it to her advantage. The ball was where the audience sees her using the things she had been taught to her advantage: adapting as the situation changes, and letting the people think of her what they want. Working in a flower shop isn't a place where she could stretch her mind.
She couldn't marry an idiot (if she had, I would hate the movie/play with a passion). She wouldn't be happy simply selling flowers. What other choices did a woman, with no money, have in the early 1900s?
Eliza had another choice. Was it the perfect choice? No, but I think it was better than the alternatives.
Perhaps what really gets to the people who don't like the ending is that the last thing Eliza tells Higgins before showing up in his study at the very end is that she can do bloody well without him, but she, in the end, decides she does need him. I can understand how that could stick in their craws, but I still think that, for the time she lived in, she made the best choice.
"I love Audrey Hepburn," he said, "except at the end of My Fair Lady."
I didn't ask why. Although I wondered.
Years later, talking with another friend and her husband My Fair Lady was brought up (probably by me, but I can't be sure about that) and she mentioned how she preferred the end to Pygmalion. I asked about the difference since I hadn't read the play, and she said the difference was that in Pygmalion Eliza doesn't go back to Higgins.
I don't remember discussing it any more, but I do remember thinking that if Eliza didn't show up at the end of the movie then My Fair Lady would have to end either after Higgins sings (or "sings" when talking about Rex Harrison) "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" or after Mrs. Higgins says, "Bravo, Eliza." Both seem logical endings, with the former being much more sad.
I wondered, though, if something was wrong with me that I've never felt disturbed by the end of the movie/play. I can see why my friends would prefer Eliza not to show up in the study at the end: she's freed herself from a controlling, self-centered, arrogant, asshat of a man and taken her fate into her own hands. (If it had ended this way for my whole life, I would probably agree with them.) Most people who like the end probably like it because they think Eliza and Higgins are in love and now -- sigh -- they can be together, forever, and get married.
Me? Well, the more I've thought about it since that first time the more I realize that I like the end of the movie/play because Eliza has taken hold of her life and, frankly, I think she's chosen the best life for herself that she could find in early 1900s London.
She doesn't return to Higgins because she's in love with him. Yes, she cares for him a great deal, she probably loves him, but she is not in love with him, as seen here:
Higgins: In short, you want me to be as infatuated about you as he is, is that it?The important bit again: "Not to want you to make love to me and not forgetting the difference between us, but more friendly like."
Eliza: No, I don't. That's not the sort of feeling I want from you. I want a little kindness. I know I'm a common, ignorant girl, and you're a book-learned gentleman, but I'm not dirt under your feet.
What I done-- what I did was not for the taxis and the dresses, but because we were pleasant together and I come to-- came to care for you. Not to want you to make love to me and not forgetting the difference between us, but more friendly like.
She cares about him, probably does love him, but Eliza Doolittle is not in love with Henry Higgins. I've always thought that she looked at him as the older brother she never had or the father she wished she had (although the father position is probably better filled by Pickering).
And Higgins isn't in love with Eliza. "I've Grown Accustom to Her Face" is a song about fondness. About how he likes that she's around. He sings, "I've grown accustomed to the tune that / She whistles night and noon." because it's part of the background of his life making what he thought was a nice life even better and more comfortable. "I've grown accustomed to the trace," he sings, "Of something in the air; / Accustomed to her face." She's made his life better in a smaller, simpler, and, perhaps, stronger ways than he made her life better.
Then why, if it's not love, does she come back to him, right?
Academics and economics.
When she first comes to Higgins she wants to be a girl in a flower shop. She wants to earn a better living for herself. She wants to move out of her social class and into a class that she sees as better. Eliza never expects to live with Higgins, though. She thinks she'd do it like her friend who took French lessons. She'd come to Higgins's house once or twice a week, clear up her accent, get a job in a shop, and move on with her life.
By moving into Higgins's house and working with him on a Daily basis, Eliza is pushed into the world of academia. As she speaks her vowels and practices her "h" sounds and says those tongue twisters she also overhears Higgins and Pickering discussing dialects and the human condition. It's easy to imagine that sometimes she might have even join in the discussions, once she starts to speak-up.
After the ball, knowing that the grand experiment is over, what's she to do?
Can she go on and work in someone's flower shop and be happy?
Can she really marry Freddy?
I don't think she can do either one.
Marrying Freddy's out because he's self-centered and an idiot. If there's any conversation to be had between the two of them, it'll be about him. (His song is about how he feels to be near her, which is sort of flattering, but I'd have more respect for him if he sang about how it felt to be with her.) It's like he thinks she's a trinket that he can put in a case and admire because it makes him feel good to know he has something so nice. There's only status in him, no vigor or life, no real thought. By the end of My Fair Lady Eliza learns how to think and isn't likely to marry just for money.
Working in a flower shop could be more likely, but where's the challenge to Eliza. She's been working and learning for months. Not only does her way of speaking change, but her view of the world (and the world's view of her). Before, she knew how to read and write, but that was all. After, she knows how to analyze what she sees and reads and use it to her advantage. The ball was where the audience sees her using the things she had been taught to her advantage: adapting as the situation changes, and letting the people think of her what they want. Working in a flower shop isn't a place where she could stretch her mind.
She couldn't marry an idiot (if she had, I would hate the movie/play with a passion). She wouldn't be happy simply selling flowers. What other choices did a woman, with no money, have in the early 1900s?
Eliza had another choice. Was it the perfect choice? No, but I think it was better than the alternatives.
Perhaps what really gets to the people who don't like the ending is that the last thing Eliza tells Higgins before showing up in his study at the very end is that she can do bloody well without him, but she, in the end, decides she does need him. I can understand how that could stick in their craws, but I still think that, for the time she lived in, she made the best choice.
Useless Labels:
movies,
musicals,
over analyzing
Monday, May 03, 2010
Classic vs. Cliché
When it comes to the ending of a movie or a book or short story, how can you tell when the ending is classic (an homage) or cliché?
Example: Kid gets cool toy. Toy has artificial intelligence capabilities. AI is nice and helpful to kid. Kid helps AI to learn and AI helps kid get through problem, or whatever. In the end, AI ties up kid and kid's family. The end.
AI betrays its creator/master/friend is a "twist" that's happened a lot in science fiction. It's happened so much that when I read something that introduces an AI that's important to someones survival that I expect it to betray and when it doesn't (*SPOILER* watch the movie Moon *END SPOILER*) I'm surprised.
So, when is that sort of an ending a classic and when is it a cliché? Is it only a classic ending when I enjoy the story and a cliché when everything building up to it is boring and painful? Is it still a cliché even when I, or you, enjoy the story/movie/novel? Are all classic elements -- plots, character archetypes, endings -- of stories that keep getting repeated cliché, or are they something else entirely?
Example: Kid gets cool toy. Toy has artificial intelligence capabilities. AI is nice and helpful to kid. Kid helps AI to learn and AI helps kid get through problem, or whatever. In the end, AI ties up kid and kid's family. The end.
AI betrays its creator/master/friend is a "twist" that's happened a lot in science fiction. It's happened so much that when I read something that introduces an AI that's important to someones survival that I expect it to betray and when it doesn't (*SPOILER* watch the movie Moon *END SPOILER*) I'm surprised.
So, when is that sort of an ending a classic and when is it a cliché? Is it only a classic ending when I enjoy the story and a cliché when everything building up to it is boring and painful? Is it still a cliché even when I, or you, enjoy the story/movie/novel? Are all classic elements -- plots, character archetypes, endings -- of stories that keep getting repeated cliché, or are they something else entirely?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Another God damned post about fan ficiton!?
Yeah, but this one's about me, too.
To say that I've been reading a lot of fan fiction recently is like saying that people breathe. I've been through lots of bad stuff and found a few pretty good things, but I've read way more than some may want to believe.
As I read a question crept into my mind: Why haven't I been writing fan fiction? I've been reading it off and on since 1997, why haven't I created my own? I sit and think "what if?" about nearly everything I enjoy. I wonder about the life of characters after then end or at an age that the original never went to and I think up arcs and stories, why haven't I ever put them down in writing?
(Okay, so technically, I have. There's that Voyager thing I did and a short Sliders story (Both of which need some massive editing. Like and embarrassing amount of editing.), but I haven't done any regular fan fiction writing, ever.)
In the beginning I think it was because I saw fan fiction as a fun diversion. I was in school and busy with my school work and what not. It was there for me to read and enjoy, but it wasn't something that I wanted to create myself.
When school ended I kept reading, but I had delusions of being a "real" writer. Of writing short stories and novels and having them published on paper that people paid money for. Of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people enjoying a tale spun from my thoughts. I didn't write anything much beyond a paragraph, though. Eventually, I knew I wouldn't do anything more than that and did my best to stop thinking.
Still the hope was there and I started that Fiction Friday experiment. I think there's some strong stuff in there. Good ideas and plenty of okay writing. (Also, poor editing, but that's only because I'd post 'em right after I wrote 'em. So, really, that's a different problem. Procrastination.) If wishes were ponies, I'd still be posting those on a regular basis an have more than two years worth of short stories on here.
The main problem was that I just didn't write. There were, and are, plenty of ideas in my head, but I didn't, and don't, write. I can't say why, but I don't. I guess that just not enough of me wants to.
Ce qui a été, est.
Which, pretty much, brings us up to this latest run in with fan fiction and me still not writing it.
Why not?
1. I know this one isn't true, a lot of the stuff is crap, but I've read some stuff by people who can really write. They know how to craft a sentence to support a paragraph to build a story. I even found one today that had writing in the good-to-great range.
It is real writing. There are creative plots and intriguing ideas. The writers may not create the character and too many don't know how to keep the characters in character, but they're still putting one word next to another (except for the ones written in 1337 or txtese) to create an (hopefully) original story.
2. Well, that's true, but really how often to "real" writers make money from their first several short stories. Pretty damn rare for a new writer to get published in The New Yorker.
Plus, if money was made off of fan fiction (aside from the company approved stuff) we'd see the publishers and movie/TV studios and authors come swooping in with their lawyer to crush the folks who write the stuff.
3. Also true, but at least you know that they're there because they like the characters, right?
4. What I mean by this is that I'm far more interested in putting in new characters to explore the universe without ever necessarily going near the original characters.
To better explain, hopefully: How are young wizards, in the Harry Potter-verse, in the USA trained? There are some boarding schools in the USA, but there's very few and very far between. Even the ones that do exist don't really do the whole different-houses-that-compete thing. Would there be one or two or three big schools for wizarding children for the USA or maybe all of North America that all the magical children go to? Or would it be more like a local after school program for those certain special individuals? And how did Voldemort causing trouble in England effect the wizards in the US and Canada?
That's something that I'd be more interested in exploring than what happened to Ron after he ditched Harry and Hermione in Deathly Hallows and then coming back to them or Peter Pettigrew's adventures with the Weasley family or redeeming Draco Malfoy. But is it really a Harry Potter fan fiction if it never mentions Harry Potter?
5. Whatever you write, even if people like it, you won't ever get any constructive criticism, which I think is important for any writer.
Also, once you start writing under any fandom they, or a vocal number of them, think they own the characters and therefore should be able to tell you exactly what you should have done while they call what you, probably, worked hard on a horrible piece of shit.
Oh, sure, fuck 'em, right? It's not that simple, though. As seen by 3, those are the only people who are going to be reading what you wrote. Fan fiction does not expand beyond the small part of the fanbase that reads and writes it.
6. Always a concern. Some of the original creators support fan fiction, some ignore it (or pretend to ignore it), some ask for it to be removed when they find out it's been done. Lots of the properties aren't owned by the original creators, or at least not totally, and who can tell when Viacom or Universal or Warner Bros. or Disney will have their attorneys send out cease and desist letters to the massive fan fiction websites.
7. Once you write it and put it on a fan fiction site, your part of that community. Whether it's a site that's about all fan fiction or a site dedicated to one certain character/show/book/whatever your part of a community and there are certain expectations that I'm uncomfortable with, like conversations with people. Even knowing it's via message board it makes my stomach flop.
8. I'm not. I know I'm not.
To be better than fan fiction I'd at least have to be writing something. I'm not though.
To actually be better than fan fiction I'd have to be published or filmed and have people writing fan fiction based on my stuff.
And it really bugs me that floating around in my brain is that damn thought because at least those guys and girls are writing something creative. I'm not even doing that. I'm just sitting and thinking about ideas. Nothing goes down on paper or takes up bits on the hard drive, nothing. Still, the thought is there.
I feel like I should be wrapping this up, but I don't know how. Will I continue to not write fan fiction? Will I start writing fan fiction? Will I quit the fan fiction thing altogether? I really can't say.
I have ideas. Like the one mentioned above. Hell, I even have ideas for a couple of series of stories for several different fandoms, for lack of a better word. As I wrote earlier, I just don't write. (And, yes, I realize the irony in that sentence.) I don't. I think I should, but... you know.
To say that I've been reading a lot of fan fiction recently is like saying that people breathe. I've been through lots of bad stuff and found a few pretty good things, but I've read way more than some may want to believe.
As I read a question crept into my mind: Why haven't I been writing fan fiction? I've been reading it off and on since 1997, why haven't I created my own? I sit and think "what if?" about nearly everything I enjoy. I wonder about the life of characters after then end or at an age that the original never went to and I think up arcs and stories, why haven't I ever put them down in writing?
(Okay, so technically, I have. There's that Voyager thing I did and a short Sliders story (Both of which need some massive editing. Like and embarrassing amount of editing.), but I haven't done any regular fan fiction writing, ever.)
In the beginning I think it was because I saw fan fiction as a fun diversion. I was in school and busy with my school work and what not. It was there for me to read and enjoy, but it wasn't something that I wanted to create myself.
When school ended I kept reading, but I had delusions of being a "real" writer. Of writing short stories and novels and having them published on paper that people paid money for. Of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people enjoying a tale spun from my thoughts. I didn't write anything much beyond a paragraph, though. Eventually, I knew I wouldn't do anything more than that and did my best to stop thinking.
Still the hope was there and I started that Fiction Friday experiment. I think there's some strong stuff in there. Good ideas and plenty of okay writing. (Also, poor editing, but that's only because I'd post 'em right after I wrote 'em. So, really, that's a different problem. Procrastination.) If wishes were ponies, I'd still be posting those on a regular basis an have more than two years worth of short stories on here.
The main problem was that I just didn't write. There were, and are, plenty of ideas in my head, but I didn't, and don't, write. I can't say why, but I don't. I guess that just not enough of me wants to.
Ce qui a été, est.
Which, pretty much, brings us up to this latest run in with fan fiction and me still not writing it.
Why not?
- It's hard to suppress the belief that fan fiction isn't real writing.
- You don't make money from it.
- Only a niche group is going to read it.
- I want to play in the sandbox, but play with my own toys more than the creator's toys.
- Fandom is insanity, even if there are a bunch of decent people.
- Copyright infringement.
- I'd have to join a community.
- I'm better than fan fiction.
1. I know this one isn't true, a lot of the stuff is crap, but I've read some stuff by people who can really write. They know how to craft a sentence to support a paragraph to build a story. I even found one today that had writing in the good-to-great range.
It is real writing. There are creative plots and intriguing ideas. The writers may not create the character and too many don't know how to keep the characters in character, but they're still putting one word next to another (except for the ones written in 1337 or txtese) to create an (hopefully) original story.
2. Well, that's true, but really how often to "real" writers make money from their first several short stories. Pretty damn rare for a new writer to get published in The New Yorker.
Plus, if money was made off of fan fiction (aside from the company approved stuff) we'd see the publishers and movie/TV studios and authors come swooping in with their lawyer to crush the folks who write the stuff.
3. Also true, but at least you know that they're there because they like the characters, right?
4. What I mean by this is that I'm far more interested in putting in new characters to explore the universe without ever necessarily going near the original characters.
To better explain, hopefully: How are young wizards, in the Harry Potter-verse, in the USA trained? There are some boarding schools in the USA, but there's very few and very far between. Even the ones that do exist don't really do the whole different-houses-that-compete thing. Would there be one or two or three big schools for wizarding children for the USA or maybe all of North America that all the magical children go to? Or would it be more like a local after school program for those certain special individuals? And how did Voldemort causing trouble in England effect the wizards in the US and Canada?
That's something that I'd be more interested in exploring than what happened to Ron after he ditched Harry and Hermione in Deathly Hallows and then coming back to them or Peter Pettigrew's adventures with the Weasley family or redeeming Draco Malfoy. But is it really a Harry Potter fan fiction if it never mentions Harry Potter?
5. Whatever you write, even if people like it, you won't ever get any constructive criticism, which I think is important for any writer.
Also, once you start writing under any fandom they, or a vocal number of them, think they own the characters and therefore should be able to tell you exactly what you should have done while they call what you, probably, worked hard on a horrible piece of shit.
Oh, sure, fuck 'em, right? It's not that simple, though. As seen by 3, those are the only people who are going to be reading what you wrote. Fan fiction does not expand beyond the small part of the fanbase that reads and writes it.
6. Always a concern. Some of the original creators support fan fiction, some ignore it (or pretend to ignore it), some ask for it to be removed when they find out it's been done. Lots of the properties aren't owned by the original creators, or at least not totally, and who can tell when Viacom or Universal or Warner Bros. or Disney will have their attorneys send out cease and desist letters to the massive fan fiction websites.
7. Once you write it and put it on a fan fiction site, your part of that community. Whether it's a site that's about all fan fiction or a site dedicated to one certain character/show/book/whatever your part of a community and there are certain expectations that I'm uncomfortable with, like conversations with people. Even knowing it's via message board it makes my stomach flop.
8. I'm not. I know I'm not.
To be better than fan fiction I'd at least have to be writing something. I'm not though.
To actually be better than fan fiction I'd have to be published or filmed and have people writing fan fiction based on my stuff.
And it really bugs me that floating around in my brain is that damn thought because at least those guys and girls are writing something creative. I'm not even doing that. I'm just sitting and thinking about ideas. Nothing goes down on paper or takes up bits on the hard drive, nothing. Still, the thought is there.
I feel like I should be wrapping this up, but I don't know how. Will I continue to not write fan fiction? Will I start writing fan fiction? Will I quit the fan fiction thing altogether? I really can't say.
I have ideas. Like the one mentioned above. Hell, I even have ideas for a couple of series of stories for several different fandoms, for lack of a better word. As I wrote earlier, I just don't write. (And, yes, I realize the irony in that sentence.) I don't. I think I should, but... you know.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
More of That Fan Fiction Stuff
For the last few weeks, my fan fiction kick has been the Daria stuff. (I'm not brave/stupid enough to log onto the adult fan fiction sites at work, so it's all safe, and so far nothing is too risqué, since I know y'all are so sensitive about that sort of thing.) (PENIS! VAGINA! VULGAR TERMS FOR BODY PARTS!)
So far, the thing that's surprised me most is how the Trent 'shippers treat their love for putting Daria and Trent together. They seem unwilling to make it simple. There's been a surprising number that don't hook them up until she's out of college and not all of them work out in a "happily ever after" way. Most of the ones who do put them together while she's in school make it fairly clear that it won't be like that forever, that eventually they'll grow apart.
It's like these people actually paid attention to the show and the characters!
Of course, then you occasionally get bits like this:
One thing, though, that sort of bothers me is how some of the 'shippers try to make Trent better, or flesh him out. (This author does it a lot.) I never thought Trent was dumb, but I still don't think he's a deep thinker. He's just a guy who wants to do what he enjoys.
Some more at 9:40 AM the next day:
Okay, here's an example of what I was writing about above, but didn't finish because I was eager to leave work. The author above wrote a story from Trent's point of view for the episode "Jane's Addition." For those who don't remember, or know, "Jane's Addition" is the episode where Daria pretty much gets over her crush on Trent. (A much more thorough summary. Transcript.) He's just too --I want to say lazy, but I don't think the guy's lazy, just not overly motivated?-- relaxed (still not the right word, but it's the best I can come up with) for Daria. She makes sure she keeps any commitments she makes. Trent isn't so worried about that.
Anyway, in "Jane's Addition" the crush ends because Daria really gets to know who Trent is. (And the end was coming, as they showed in the episode "Lane Miserables.") They'll stay friends, but that's it.
In the story mentioned above, "Trent's Equation," the author makes it clear that Trent disappointed Daria and ended her crush on him on purpose. Trent thought that the crush was having a bad effect on Daria and decided that it was better for her to be heartbroken for a while than to be entangled with him. The author, in a note at the end of the story, writes, "I believe Trent is actually a more mature character than we actually see on the show, I think his method of expressing his feelings will come across subtlety and peripherally, since he is at an age where he is much more cognizant of relationship consequences than Jane or Daria." But the author also saw Trent developing a crush on Daria when he told her that it's "[t]oo bad [she's] not a few years older [because he] could take [her] out" at the end of "Lane Miserables." Reading it that way changes a lot.
So far, the thing that's surprised me most is how the Trent 'shippers treat their love for putting Daria and Trent together. They seem unwilling to make it simple. There's been a surprising number that don't hook them up until she's out of college and not all of them work out in a "happily ever after" way. Most of the ones who do put them together while she's in school make it fairly clear that it won't be like that forever, that eventually they'll grow apart.
It's like these people actually paid attention to the show and the characters!
Of course, then you occasionally get bits like this:
She thought about it. "Yes. Sleep is good." She stretched, and suddenly remembered that she was naked under her robe, she looked down and realized that she had just flashed Trent. He looked completely discommoded, she didn't really care, she had pretty breasts.I never thought of Daria as one who really thought about whether or not her breasts were pretty. (Click for the story.) Still, a little of this isn't a horrible thing.
One thing, though, that sort of bothers me is how some of the 'shippers try to make Trent better, or flesh him out. (This author does it a lot.) I never thought Trent was dumb, but I still don't think he's a deep thinker. He's just a guy who wants to do what he enjoys.
Some more at 9:40 AM the next day:
Okay, here's an example of what I was writing about above, but didn't finish because I was eager to leave work. The author above wrote a story from Trent's point of view for the episode "Jane's Addition." For those who don't remember, or know, "Jane's Addition" is the episode where Daria pretty much gets over her crush on Trent. (A much more thorough summary. Transcript.) He's just too --I want to say lazy, but I don't think the guy's lazy, just not overly motivated?-- relaxed (still not the right word, but it's the best I can come up with) for Daria. She makes sure she keeps any commitments she makes. Trent isn't so worried about that.
Anyway, in "Jane's Addition" the crush ends because Daria really gets to know who Trent is. (And the end was coming, as they showed in the episode "Lane Miserables.") They'll stay friends, but that's it.
In the story mentioned above, "Trent's Equation," the author makes it clear that Trent disappointed Daria and ended her crush on him on purpose. Trent thought that the crush was having a bad effect on Daria and decided that it was better for her to be heartbroken for a while than to be entangled with him. The author, in a note at the end of the story, writes, "I believe Trent is actually a more mature character than we actually see on the show, I think his method of expressing his feelings will come across subtlety and peripherally, since he is at an age where he is much more cognizant of relationship consequences than Jane or Daria." But the author also saw Trent developing a crush on Daria when he told her that it's "[t]oo bad [she's] not a few years older [because he] could take [her] out" at the end of "Lane Miserables." Reading it that way changes a lot.
Useless Labels:
fan fic,
over analyzing
Monday, July 13, 2009
7:30 - 4
Last week I got to start a Modified Work Schedule. It's not the modified work schedule that I wanted, though.
To refresh, for those who don't want to click, I wanted to come in at 7AM and leave at 3:30PM. Because (and this is all me guessing) the PJ doesn't trust, it was decided that I couldn't come in that early. I do, however, get to come in earlier, at 7:30AM and then I leave at 4PM.
Why is 7:30AM okay, but not 7AM?
Because SUSM is supposed to be here at 7:30AM nine days out of ten and then she can make sure that I'm showing up on time!
Of course, SUSM rarely gets here, in my experience, before 7:40AM, so what would she, and the PJ, know if I showed up a little late each morning?
No one has come out and told me it's a trust issue, but I know it is. I hope it's not personal, and don't think it is, because I'm just a clerk and clerks don't deserve the same level of trust that court reporters and secretaries do.
Ah, well, at least I get to leave early. And it's really great leaving early. I don't have to worry about as many dumb-asses racing through yellow (and red) lights. No comics have sold out at the shop on Wednesdays. And other good things that I have yet to discover.
One thing, though, is that I find myself really wishing I lived somewhere with a yard of some sort. I like to imagine that I'd use that extra hour to do something "extra," like root around in a garden, or something.
In a very different vein, I'm trying to come up with an analogy for my thoughts on the new Star Trek movie. So far, I've only come up with New Coke vs. Coca-Cola, but it's imperfect because New Coke was a failure and this "reboot" of Star Trek is, and will continue to be for at least two more movies, a success.
Can anyone think of an analogy where the new product is liked by more people than the original? (And don't give me other TV shows or movies or comics or other entertainment stuff. I'm looking for something really different.)
To refresh, for those who don't want to click, I wanted to come in at 7AM and leave at 3:30PM. Because (and this is all me guessing) the PJ doesn't trust, it was decided that I couldn't come in that early. I do, however, get to come in earlier, at 7:30AM and then I leave at 4PM.
Why is 7:30AM okay, but not 7AM?
Because SUSM is supposed to be here at 7:30AM nine days out of ten and then she can make sure that I'm showing up on time!
Of course, SUSM rarely gets here, in my experience, before 7:40AM, so what would she, and the PJ, know if I showed up a little late each morning?
No one has come out and told me it's a trust issue, but I know it is. I hope it's not personal, and don't think it is, because I'm just a clerk and clerks don't deserve the same level of trust that court reporters and secretaries do.
Ah, well, at least I get to leave early. And it's really great leaving early. I don't have to worry about as many dumb-asses racing through yellow (and red) lights. No comics have sold out at the shop on Wednesdays. And other good things that I have yet to discover.
One thing, though, is that I find myself really wishing I lived somewhere with a yard of some sort. I like to imagine that I'd use that extra hour to do something "extra," like root around in a garden, or something.
In a very different vein, I'm trying to come up with an analogy for my thoughts on the new Star Trek movie. So far, I've only come up with New Coke vs. Coca-Cola, but it's imperfect because New Coke was a failure and this "reboot" of Star Trek is, and will continue to be for at least two more movies, a success.
Can anyone think of an analogy where the new product is liked by more people than the original? (And don't give me other TV shows or movies or comics or other entertainment stuff. I'm looking for something really different.)
Useless Labels:
over analyzing,
work
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Trans-lash
Like most geeks out there, I've been following the online bitch fest that's come out of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I haven't seen the movie, and I don't plan to. (I saw the first and after watching it I decided that if movies called "Transformers" focuses on a human rather than the robots, what's the point?)
Anyway, lots of people don't like the movie. Lots of people who do like the movie seem to being assholes and using the age-old line, "Well, it's making a lot of money, so we must be right, it's good," to defend their position. (Less often used is the "That's just you're opinion" line, which, when reading a review of anything, is like a huge DUH.)
Because of so many people only reading the first paragraph, or looking at the number of stars, of the negative reviews, Jim Emmerson, of Scanners, wrote about the fallacy of the majority of reactions to what critics have been writing. He should know all about this stuff, he's editor-in-chief of RogerEbert.com, so he gets to see all the bullshit comments, as well as the few good ones. (Last year, he wrote that he didn't think The Dark Knight was great, only kind of okay. Here'sa link to all his posts on the subject, but you should start with Under Cover of The Dark Knight to see that sometimes real discussion can take place. I recommend it all, though.)
Which leads me to why I'm getting into this:
Over at The Moviefile Blog, in a post about things the writer enjoyed about the movie, some commenter named damage wrote: "The movie was awsom who cares if it jump around the world it not reality so just enjoy it if your a true fane of the transformers this movie was about the bots." The comment bugs me, not just because of the bad spelling and grammar.
Really, I want to know what a true fan of Transformers is? Seriously, what is it? Is it someone who watches or reads or plays with anything that has the word "Transformers" on it and automatically loves it? Would this damage person enjoy Kiss Players? And if he (I assume it's a he.) didn't, would that mean he isn't a "true" Transformers fan?
Is that the only way to be considered a "true" fan of anything? Just shut up and "enjoy"? So, those SF Giants fans who sit and bitch about the line-up, but watch and cheer at every game, aren't "true" fans? Can a "true" fan never criticize the thing they enjoy?
I'm a fan of The Transformers, but there's a lot of it that I don't like.
The (North) American shows are what I really enjoy. I grew up watching the original cartoon. Beast Wars was a giant step forward in plot an pacing for animated shows. And Animated is just pure fun while keeping characters pretty true to their beginnings.
The ones from Japan that I tried watching, just didn't click for me. Robots in Disguise's "humor" just rubbed me the wrong way and made it hard to watch the show. (Plus, a flying shark, really?) And Transformers: Pokémon really irked me, and that irked-ness spread into it's two successors.
Like I wrote before, I really didn't care for the murky movie that came out in 2007 and, given the opportunity/motivation, can say exactly why I didn't want to see the new one in the theater. If I were to see it, I promise I'd be one of the complainers, too.
I don't collect the toys. I only occasionally buy the comics, but that's very rare. I don't keep up with any of the news and gossip surrounding the franchise. I can only name a few actors and who they played in the original and have no clue about who plays whom in later shows.
Does that make me less of fan of Transformers that this damage guy?
I still drool over the box set that's coming out. (The GI Joe one, too.) I assume he does, too.
So, why aren't I a "true" fan because I didn't enjoy the first movie and don't think I'd enjoy the second movie?
Maybe it's just because I won't accept something as good just because it tickles my nostalgia.
Anyway, lots of people don't like the movie. Lots of people who do like the movie seem to being assholes and using the age-old line, "Well, it's making a lot of money, so we must be right, it's good," to defend their position. (Less often used is the "That's just you're opinion" line, which, when reading a review of anything, is like a huge DUH.)
Because of so many people only reading the first paragraph, or looking at the number of stars, of the negative reviews, Jim Emmerson, of Scanners, wrote about the fallacy of the majority of reactions to what critics have been writing. He should know all about this stuff, he's editor-in-chief of RogerEbert.com, so he gets to see all the bullshit comments, as well as the few good ones. (Last year, he wrote that he didn't think The Dark Knight was great, only kind of okay. Here'sa link to all his posts on the subject, but you should start with Under Cover of The Dark Knight to see that sometimes real discussion can take place. I recommend it all, though.)
Which leads me to why I'm getting into this:
Over at The Moviefile Blog, in a post about things the writer enjoyed about the movie, some commenter named damage wrote: "The movie was awsom who cares if it jump around the world it not reality so just enjoy it if your a true fane of the transformers this movie was about the bots." The comment bugs me, not just because of the bad spelling and grammar.
Really, I want to know what a true fan of Transformers is? Seriously, what is it? Is it someone who watches or reads or plays with anything that has the word "Transformers" on it and automatically loves it? Would this damage person enjoy Kiss Players? And if he (I assume it's a he.) didn't, would that mean he isn't a "true" Transformers fan?
Is that the only way to be considered a "true" fan of anything? Just shut up and "enjoy"? So, those SF Giants fans who sit and bitch about the line-up, but watch and cheer at every game, aren't "true" fans? Can a "true" fan never criticize the thing they enjoy?
I'm a fan of The Transformers, but there's a lot of it that I don't like.
The (North) American shows are what I really enjoy. I grew up watching the original cartoon. Beast Wars was a giant step forward in plot an pacing for animated shows. And Animated is just pure fun while keeping characters pretty true to their beginnings.
The ones from Japan that I tried watching, just didn't click for me. Robots in Disguise's "humor" just rubbed me the wrong way and made it hard to watch the show. (Plus, a flying shark, really?) And Transformers: Pokémon really irked me, and that irked-ness spread into it's two successors.
Like I wrote before, I really didn't care for the murky movie that came out in 2007 and, given the opportunity/motivation, can say exactly why I didn't want to see the new one in the theater. If I were to see it, I promise I'd be one of the complainers, too.
I don't collect the toys. I only occasionally buy the comics, but that's very rare. I don't keep up with any of the news and gossip surrounding the franchise. I can only name a few actors and who they played in the original and have no clue about who plays whom in later shows.
Does that make me less of fan of Transformers that this damage guy?
I still drool over the box set that's coming out. (The GI Joe one, too.) I assume he does, too.
So, why aren't I a "true" fan because I didn't enjoy the first movie and don't think I'd enjoy the second movie?
Maybe it's just because I won't accept something as good just because it tickles my nostalgia.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Hours, Money, Holidays, and Possibilities
For eight out of the last nine work-day's I've been coming in at 7AM to get some overtime and I discovered that I like coming in early. So, last week I submitted a request to my supervisor, SUSM, to see if I could change my schedule so I could come in at seven, take a half-hour lunch, and leave at 3:30PM rather than five.
She was gone last week, so I figured, while filling out the form, that she wouldn't approve it before this week and the stupid rules say that we who get our schedule modified can only start it on a Monday. Fine, I thought, I'll ask to start it on the 15th.
Monday, late morning-ish, I get an e-mail from her titled "FYI":
Without really understanding her reasons, I wrote back an okay because I figured if they decided in the positive, I'd get to start on the 15th.
Around 8:30 this morning she e-mailed me: "[ticknart] – did [the PJ] come see you about this yesterday?" meaning my request for modified work. I wrote back a simile "No." because he didn't.
Funny, I thought, isn't she the one who should be speaking with him? I think I made my position pretty clear by submitting the form that, you know, says I want to come to work earlier, take a shorter lunch, and leave earlier. Why should there be any discussion with me about it? Is it necessary for the two of them to know my motivations behind this change?
At nine she sent a reply: "He will be returning on Monday. The effective date on your request is Monday, so we will need to amend this if he approves it."
I printed and signed another request asking for the first day of this thing to be on the 22nd, since it has to start on a Monday. Not that it really matters this month because I'm going to be coming in at 7AM at least four days a week, and leaving at 6PM, so I can get a full 8 hours of overtime each week while it lasts.
Most of me doesn't think this'll get approved, though.
Sometime after I finished my first year here I submitted one of these so I would work four ten hour days each week and was denied because he didn't want to have an exhausted staff. A week after that denial I tried for a 9/8/80 schedule, but I'd stay here until 6PM (because my supervisor at the time -- I despised her -- came in at 7AM and I wanted less time with her around) and he said no to that one because the he'd have to stay until six with me, which made me feel real trusted. After that one was crushed, I quit for a while. I asked again about a year later with the schedule I'm asking for now and was denied because we had just lost two clerks and I should try again when more were hired.
So, here I am, trying again. Hoping to get an earlier shift, but preparing to once again be disappointed.
Why am I asking for this schedule?
Well, the main reason is because I'd have an hour in the morning where I could wear headphones and dick around on the 'netstuff. Sure, if I needed to get caught up, I'd use that time to do actual work, but I've been siting here writing this for the last 30 minutes and I spent much time (like more than an hour) launching hedgehogs into space. My best time is three days.
Also, though, the governator wants to cut my pay by another 5%, which would drop my pay by something like 14.6% from where it was last year at this time and that would make my buying a car in November an even stupider move and one harder to pay for than it was then. AND if the budget doesn't get passed by the end of the month the state may drop pay to all it's employees to federal minimum wage, or $6.55 an hour. (That's about $1100 a month before taxes, and since taxes take away 1/3rd of my pay not that would leave me with about $733, and my rent is, oh, $750 a month no matter how much I get in my paycheck. I know this sort of stuff is scare tactics, but it's like that old cliché: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.")
I figure that if I work until 3:30PM I'd be in a good position to get a second job, downtown here, in the evenings and on weekends. I could start at 4PM and work until 11PM, or whenever, to offset the probably loss in pay. Sure, I may not visit my family at Thanksgiving or Christmas so I can work, but at least I'd be getting by. (Besides I was already getting myself ready to miss Christmas because I may not be able to afford the new vehicle licensing fee increase. We'll see.) How well that'd work out, I don't know. Still, it'd be better than quitting, having no job, and moving in with my parents and hoping that I'd be able to find something up in Cowtown that's more than serving coffee or putting a prefabricated burger on a bun to people who just... well, I won't write anything overly nasty about them while I'm not working in that situation.
Now I sit an wait. I'm waiting for all of this bullshit to settle into place, but mostly I'm waiting to find out if my schedule will be changes so I can come in earlier, take a shorter lunch, and leave earlier each day I work here. And when the waiting for that is done, I'll wait for the next piece of shit to settle so I can make a move to prepare for the shit that'll come after that.
Cricket Christ, there sure is a lot of waiting for shit to happen in life, isn't there?
She was gone last week, so I figured, while filling out the form, that she wouldn't approve it before this week and the stupid rules say that we who get our schedule modified can only start it on a Monday. Fine, I thought, I'll ask to start it on the 15th.
Monday, late morning-ish, I get an e-mail from her titled "FYI":
I just wanted to let you know that I have your Request for Alternate/Modified Work Schedule. I will need to talk to PJ & get back to you on this. He is out all week, but I think he may be coming in for a while on Wednesday – but not certain about that. I’ll let you know.I wrote back with a simple okay, even though I don't understand why she can't just approve or deny it on her own. The other guys and gals who are clerks here don't want to regularly come in at 7AM if they're not getting overtime, so we'll be fully staffed until 5PM. And I asked for an earlier lunch, when no one else has one, which guarantees, on days that I'm here, that no one will ever have to leave for a late lunch again unless they WANT to. And that's a great thing, especially since I'm the one who usually has to leave late for lunch because some of the assholes I work with don't know how to make it there and back again (not a fucking Hobbit's tale) in an hour.
Without really understanding her reasons, I wrote back an okay because I figured if they decided in the positive, I'd get to start on the 15th.
Around 8:30 this morning she e-mailed me: "[ticknart] – did [the PJ] come see you about this yesterday?" meaning my request for modified work. I wrote back a simile "No." because he didn't.
Funny, I thought, isn't she the one who should be speaking with him? I think I made my position pretty clear by submitting the form that, you know, says I want to come to work earlier, take a shorter lunch, and leave earlier. Why should there be any discussion with me about it? Is it necessary for the two of them to know my motivations behind this change?
At nine she sent a reply: "He will be returning on Monday. The effective date on your request is Monday, so we will need to amend this if he approves it."
I printed and signed another request asking for the first day of this thing to be on the 22nd, since it has to start on a Monday. Not that it really matters this month because I'm going to be coming in at 7AM at least four days a week, and leaving at 6PM, so I can get a full 8 hours of overtime each week while it lasts.
Most of me doesn't think this'll get approved, though.
Sometime after I finished my first year here I submitted one of these so I would work four ten hour days each week and was denied because he didn't want to have an exhausted staff. A week after that denial I tried for a 9/8/80 schedule, but I'd stay here until 6PM (because my supervisor at the time -- I despised her -- came in at 7AM and I wanted less time with her around) and he said no to that one because the he'd have to stay until six with me, which made me feel real trusted. After that one was crushed, I quit for a while. I asked again about a year later with the schedule I'm asking for now and was denied because we had just lost two clerks and I should try again when more were hired.
So, here I am, trying again. Hoping to get an earlier shift, but preparing to once again be disappointed.
Why am I asking for this schedule?
Well, the main reason is because I'd have an hour in the morning where I could wear headphones and dick around on the 'netstuff. Sure, if I needed to get caught up, I'd use that time to do actual work, but I've been siting here writing this for the last 30 minutes and I spent much time (like more than an hour) launching hedgehogs into space. My best time is three days.
Also, though, the governator wants to cut my pay by another 5%, which would drop my pay by something like 14.6% from where it was last year at this time and that would make my buying a car in November an even stupider move and one harder to pay for than it was then. AND if the budget doesn't get passed by the end of the month the state may drop pay to all it's employees to federal minimum wage, or $6.55 an hour. (That's about $1100 a month before taxes, and since taxes take away 1/3rd of my pay not that would leave me with about $733, and my rent is, oh, $750 a month no matter how much I get in my paycheck. I know this sort of stuff is scare tactics, but it's like that old cliché: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.")
I figure that if I work until 3:30PM I'd be in a good position to get a second job, downtown here, in the evenings and on weekends. I could start at 4PM and work until 11PM, or whenever, to offset the probably loss in pay. Sure, I may not visit my family at Thanksgiving or Christmas so I can work, but at least I'd be getting by. (Besides I was already getting myself ready to miss Christmas because I may not be able to afford the new vehicle licensing fee increase. We'll see.) How well that'd work out, I don't know. Still, it'd be better than quitting, having no job, and moving in with my parents and hoping that I'd be able to find something up in Cowtown that's more than serving coffee or putting a prefabricated burger on a bun to people who just... well, I won't write anything overly nasty about them while I'm not working in that situation.
Now I sit an wait. I'm waiting for all of this bullshit to settle into place, but mostly I'm waiting to find out if my schedule will be changes so I can come in earlier, take a shorter lunch, and leave earlier each day I work here. And when the waiting for that is done, I'll wait for the next piece of shit to settle so I can make a move to prepare for the shit that'll come after that.
Cricket Christ, there sure is a lot of waiting for shit to happen in life, isn't there?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
"How are you?"
I got the question, "How are you?" from an old friend who I haven't corresponded with in quite a while.
When I went to reply, I paused. A long pause. The thought was, how much do I write?
Do I spill everything on this person? (A person who I never really spilled anything on before.) Do I just say I'm "meh" and leave it at that? If I aim for the middle, which side should I favor more?
Eventually, I wrote. I kept it light. Sure, I said I'm terrified of my immediate future, but even that was kept more jokey than serious.
What's a person supposed to do? A letter out of no where (I was reminded of this fun thing we did years ago, wasn't that a blast?) isn't the proper place to throw hardcore feelings and painful thoughts. The "How are you?" is more an I-hope-you're-doing-pretty-well,-but-if-your-not-I'd-rather-you-pretended-because,-really,-I-just-wanted-to-say-a-quick-hello-and-remember-a-bit-of-fun-and-it's-polite-to-also-ask-how-your-doing-at-the-same-time, isn't it?
Or maybe it's not. Maybe it's just me trying to work out my frustration on how fucking vague that question is. "How are you?" ranges from the toe you stubbed on the door while walking to the bathroom at 2AM to the promotion you got at work to the soggy fries you had at lunch to the exquisite, intense, painful, joyful release of an orgasm you had during sex to the mediocre TV you watched, and beyond. "How are you?" envelopes your life, but, in my experience, it never wants more than a three word response, "I'm doing fine." and that's just not really an answer.
"How are you?" has become a meaningless question and it only expects meaningless answers.
Oh, and if the friend who wrote me that letter reads this (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! *ahem* HA!), it's not about you. I promise. It's about what I think of all of us.
When I went to reply, I paused. A long pause. The thought was, how much do I write?
Do I spill everything on this person? (A person who I never really spilled anything on before.) Do I just say I'm "meh" and leave it at that? If I aim for the middle, which side should I favor more?
Eventually, I wrote. I kept it light. Sure, I said I'm terrified of my immediate future, but even that was kept more jokey than serious.
What's a person supposed to do? A letter out of no where (I was reminded of this fun thing we did years ago, wasn't that a blast?) isn't the proper place to throw hardcore feelings and painful thoughts. The "How are you?" is more an I-hope-you're-doing-pretty-well,-but-if-your-not-I'd-rather-you-pretended-because,-really,-I-just-wanted-to-say-a-quick-hello-and-remember-a-bit-of-fun-and-it's-polite-to-also-ask-how-your-doing-at-the-same-time, isn't it?
Or maybe it's not. Maybe it's just me trying to work out my frustration on how fucking vague that question is. "How are you?" ranges from the toe you stubbed on the door while walking to the bathroom at 2AM to the promotion you got at work to the soggy fries you had at lunch to the exquisite, intense, painful, joyful release of an orgasm you had during sex to the mediocre TV you watched, and beyond. "How are you?" envelopes your life, but, in my experience, it never wants more than a three word response, "I'm doing fine." and that's just not really an answer.
"How are you?" has become a meaningless question and it only expects meaningless answers.
Oh, and if the friend who wrote me that letter reads this (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! *ahem* HA!), it's not about you. I promise. It's about what I think of all of us.
Useless Labels:
life,
me,
over analyzing,
people,
thinking
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
Watchmen Thoughts
***There are probably
SPOILERS!
Beware.***
SPOILERS!
Beware.***
So, Watchmen...
I've spent a large portion of the day, at least larger than I should have, poking around and reading the thoughts other comic fans have about the movie. The opinions range from those who thought it was a (near) perfect movie to those who thought it was one of the most awful movies ever made.
I talked to one of my co-workers about the movie, too. He'd never read the book, but went and saw the movie this weekend and he isn't sure what to think about it. He liked it in the beginning, but about halfway though he thinks the movie went crazy. And he hated the end. (He also hated Dr. Manhattan's penis all over the place.) He told me he wants to like it, but he just can't.
Me? Well... it lived up to my expectations, but didn't exceed them.
That is to say, the movie looked really good. Zack Snyder makes films that are fun to look at. To me, his movies are spectacles more than they're anything else. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's bad. For Watchmen, it's sort of a mixed blessing.
Things look like they do in the comic, for the most part. The colors are bright and slick. The world is grimy. Watching (some of the) scene come to life directly out of the comic was fun. Rorschach's mask was amazing. (Although I found it distracting that the rate at which the "ink" flowed got faster when things were tense.)
The story, though, seemed shallow.
Let me put it this way, if I had seen this movie after the first time I read the book, I would have loved it. The movie nailed everything I liked about the book back then. It was dark and dirty. The heroes weren't perfect. Rorschach was a bad-ass. It was violent. When I first read the book, that's what I thought reading an adult comic meant.
I don't think quite that way anymore.
(I'm having a very hard time articulating. Sorry.)
The book was very much about the dark times it was written in, 1986-87. There's a sense of losing innocence to the book. A loss of wonder. A question of lies being (or becoming) truth. Being hurt by truth. Finding humanity that's been lost and losing humanity because of humanity.
That's just a few I can think of here at work. The book is dense. And the movie isn't. (Or at least it isn't as dense.) The movie softly touches a lot of the themes of the book, but it doesn't delve (because of time constraints or other reasons) into the themes like the comic does.
Comics can let readers linger over panels and pages. Comics allow time to reread the thoughts and spoken words of characters. Comics give readers the ability to control time. Watchmen comic thrives on readers being able to do what only comics allow. Watchmen movie just barrels through from one scene to the next forcing views to linger on the absurd slow motion moments in fight scenes (or when Silk Spectre's hair is flowing around her); forcing people to see the moments of Watchmen in set amount of time hurts the plot.
There's so much more to say, but I just don't have the ability to write it.
One thing, though, I really wish they'd had Captain Metropolis found the Crimebusters in the movie and not Ozymandias. Losing Captain Metropolis made the team lose its link to the past. There was no direct juxtaposition of the old and new, which only makes the failure of the team to come together even sadder and gives Ozymandias a huge step toward his ultimate end.
Useless Labels:
comics,
fandom,
movies,
over analyzing
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I WAS RIGHT!
Spoilers for Battlestar Galactica!
It's annoying...
...but some people...
...may be pansies...
...and not...
...want to know...
...until they...
...see it.
From Ain't It Cool News:
And I called it 6 months ago!
It's annoying...
...but some people...
...may be pansies...
...and not...
...want to know...
...until they...
...see it.
From Ain't It Cool News:
* He discloses when it was decided that Ellen Tigh would be revealed to be a Cylon. (Remember how everybody thought she was a Cylon when she was miraculously discovered among the fleet? It turns out even the writers didn’t know the real truth at the time.)
And I called it 6 months ago!
Useless Labels:
fandom,
over analyzing,
TV
Monday, November 17, 2008
Bones
In the new Star Trek trailer, NewBones has a line. He says, "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
It bugs me.
It bugs me because the real Dr. McCoy would have made that kind of a comment about humanity or sentient species in general, not space. The real Bones just saw space as a place where all beings were just as stupid as they were on their home worlds.
I tell you, if they get NewBones to be as great a character as the real Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, the rest of the movie can be shit and I'll still enjoy it.
It bugs me.
It bugs me because the real Dr. McCoy would have made that kind of a comment about humanity or sentient species in general, not space. The real Bones just saw space as a place where all beings were just as stupid as they were on their home worlds.
I tell you, if they get NewBones to be as great a character as the real Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, the rest of the movie can be shit and I'll still enjoy it.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Trekkie, and What That Entails
I addressed many of my concerns about the new Star Trek movie a while ago.
Then I came across this:
So tell me, what is Star Wars? The good ones, I mean. What are those movies and what about them do the writers of the new Trek movie want in Star Trek?
Is it the action? There's no denying that there tends to be more action in Star Wars and it's hard to deny that it was the action in Star Trek: First Contact that led it to be the highest grossing TNG cast movie because it's not the most non-fan friendly story.
Is it the look and worn/used feel of the Star Wars universe? (Although I'd argue that none of the Imperial ships nor the big rebel ships look "worn." If you want a used future watch Alien; that's future tech that's getting worn out.) Star Trek isn't about being worn out, at least Starfleet isn't. For more worn and lived in future in the Trek universe there are the Klingons. Star Trek tends to be about looking to the future more than hanging on to things of the past, especially when it comes to technology.
Is it the fantasy elements and the lack of "technobabble"? One thing that's always been certain to me is the Star Trek is a harder form of science fiction than Star Wars. Trek likes to take the time to explain the science (and "science") behind everything, Wars just shows that it works and doesn't care why. (And then when it does *cough*midichlorians*cough* the explanation makes little or no sense.) Star Wars is more of a fantasy with its swords and the magical ability to crush throats from across the room and duels and such.
Is it the focus on a small main cast rather than an ensemble? The original Star Wars movies really only had three main character: Luke, Han, and Leia. In a 90- or 120-minute film a small group of main characters makes for a tighter film. One of the reasons I had a hard time watching the TNG movies was because they tried to shift the focus of a seven character ensemble TV show onto only two characters while giving the other five characters a "moment" in the films.
This choice seems the most logical to me because TOS focused on three main characters pretty exclusively.
Still, I want to know, what is Star Wars and what about it needs to be infused into Star Trek?
I think that sometimes some stories never need to be told. When they told the origin story of Wolverine in the comics it only made me sad because I had built up my own ideas about his past based on many of the things he'd done and the memories that had surface. Star Wars's most recent trilogy was a huge disappointment to me, partly because they were just bad movies, but also because, again, I'd developed my own back story for Vadar that I liked better.
Now comes this movie. Is it so bad for me to picture that James T. Kirk inherited the Enterprise from Christopher Pike. The ship already had a crew, including Spock, and a few new people came aboard with Kirk and over the five year mission they became a team and friends.
Sure, my origin isn't as exciting as a time traveling Spock and Klingons and Romulans, but it's an origin that smacks of realism and for a show so full of the fantastic the few moments of realism make the fantastical elements more acceptable.
Me? Even if it sucks I'll accept it as cannon, but I'll always remember my simple origin and continue to think it was a better storytelling choice.
Still, I hope it's good. I hope I see the ship on screen and am in awe. I hope that Uhura is more than just eye-candy and that the guy who plays Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy is a worthy successor of the subtle brilliance that DeForest Kelly brought to the roll for nearly thirty years.
God, I so very much hope.
Then I came across this:
And it's controversial to even mention Star Wars and Star Trek in the same sentence, but Alex said, "We have to bring more Star Wars into Star Trek." Original Star Wars. I want to feel the space, I want to feel speed and I want to feel all the things that can become a little bit lost when Star Trek becomes very stately -- which I love about it , but....(All quotes from this article.)
So tell me, what is Star Wars? The good ones, I mean. What are those movies and what about them do the writers of the new Trek movie want in Star Trek?
Is it the action? There's no denying that there tends to be more action in Star Wars and it's hard to deny that it was the action in Star Trek: First Contact that led it to be the highest grossing TNG cast movie because it's not the most non-fan friendly story.
Is it the look and worn/used feel of the Star Wars universe? (Although I'd argue that none of the Imperial ships nor the big rebel ships look "worn." If you want a used future watch Alien; that's future tech that's getting worn out.) Star Trek isn't about being worn out, at least Starfleet isn't. For more worn and lived in future in the Trek universe there are the Klingons. Star Trek tends to be about looking to the future more than hanging on to things of the past, especially when it comes to technology.
Is it the fantasy elements and the lack of "technobabble"? One thing that's always been certain to me is the Star Trek is a harder form of science fiction than Star Wars. Trek likes to take the time to explain the science (and "science") behind everything, Wars just shows that it works and doesn't care why. (And then when it does *cough*midichlorians*cough* the explanation makes little or no sense.) Star Wars is more of a fantasy with its swords and the magical ability to crush throats from across the room and duels and such.
Is it the focus on a small main cast rather than an ensemble? The original Star Wars movies really only had three main character: Luke, Han, and Leia. In a 90- or 120-minute film a small group of main characters makes for a tighter film. One of the reasons I had a hard time watching the TNG movies was because they tried to shift the focus of a seven character ensemble TV show onto only two characters while giving the other five characters a "moment" in the films.
This choice seems the most logical to me because TOS focused on three main characters pretty exclusively.
Still, I want to know, what is Star Wars and what about it needs to be infused into Star Trek?
It's about how the original crew came together, which was never covered in its entirety by either the show or any of the movies. No one has ever told the story of how the Enterprise set sail.Of course if it's a twenty-something Kirk newly an officer, then how is he building a crew for the ship he captains approximately ten years later?
I think that sometimes some stories never need to be told. When they told the origin story of Wolverine in the comics it only made me sad because I had built up my own ideas about his past based on many of the things he'd done and the memories that had surface. Star Wars's most recent trilogy was a huge disappointment to me, partly because they were just bad movies, but also because, again, I'd developed my own back story for Vadar that I liked better.
Now comes this movie. Is it so bad for me to picture that James T. Kirk inherited the Enterprise from Christopher Pike. The ship already had a crew, including Spock, and a few new people came aboard with Kirk and over the five year mission they became a team and friends.
Sure, my origin isn't as exciting as a time traveling Spock and Klingons and Romulans, but it's an origin that smacks of realism and for a show so full of the fantastic the few moments of realism make the fantastical elements more acceptable.
There's going to be a debate when this movie comes out whether or not it's consistent with canon. We argue that it is.And that's sort of the end of it, really. If it's a good movie, most fans will agree that it is. If it sucks and tanks Paramount will do what Warner Bros is doing to Superman Returns, pretend it never existed and most fans will go along with that.
Me? Even if it sucks I'll accept it as cannon, but I'll always remember my simple origin and continue to think it was a better storytelling choice.
Still, I hope it's good. I hope I see the ship on screen and am in awe. I hope that Uhura is more than just eye-candy and that the guy who plays Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy is a worthy successor of the subtle brilliance that DeForest Kelly brought to the roll for nearly thirty years.
God, I so very much hope.
Useless Labels:
movies,
over analyzing,
TV
Friday, August 01, 2008
Many Plays, 2
There's still plenty to do, but I have to take some time for myself. Which is funny since I'm at work and getting paid, sort of, maybe, that should be my focus, but I'm going a little crazy.
Anyway, like I wrote before, this last month I went to see a lot of plays and I thought it'd be fun (for me) to go over what I saw and what I liked and didn't like about each.
The Women:
At its most, it's the story of a bunch of women in New York and how they deal with men. Divorce, cheating, dating, and remarriage are all big parts of the story. Not that the play's a downer, because it's not. It's really funny. The only real problem with it is that the playwright didn't do a very good job of transitioning from comedy to the drama and them back. It's like laugh, laugh, laugh, and then get hit upside the head with melodrama and weeping; new scene: laugh, laugh, laugh, hit with melodrama. And it does this over and over again.
Still the good far out weighed the overwrought drama and most of the women were spectacular at the comedy and those that weren't were really only important to the drama aspects.
The Producers:
Only one of the most fun musicals ever written. People cheating old ladies out of lots money after having sex with them to put on the worst play ever and after it closes take the extra cash and run off to Rio, with flaming gay men, a Nazi, and songs, what's not to enjoy?
In fact, I enjoyed this version almost as much as I did the touring company Wings and I saw years ago in SF. I did wish that Ulla had a better blonde wig and that we could see the dancers in their swastika formations during "Springtime for Hitler," but an overhead mirror would have cost too much for this little theater.
The Crucible:
This power of this play, when it's performed, rest on the shoulders of one character: John Proctor. Which was the problem with this performance. The guy playing John was too young and he just wasn't that good of an actor. When he's having dinner with his wife, Elizabeth, and she's poking at him because he screwed around on her, John should be played with righteous fury, like he's about to blame his affair on Elizabeth because she got sick and he couldn't have sex with his wife; the actor played it more like a teenager whining to his girlfriend about how sick he is of her teasing. The lust between John and Abigail Williams should be hot and animalistic; she draws him in with her sex appeal and he simply can't resist, but, again, this actor played it more like a first time crush, all awkward and bumbling and clammy.
The rest of the cast was spectacular, though. They took the words of Arthur Miller and really turned them into a morality tale and saved me from being totally bored with the play.
Kiss Me, Kate:
With this play, Cole Porter was trying to move his writing from what Broadway used to be -- a show with songs that were good, but had little to do with the plot -- to what they were becoming -- shows with songs that were integral to the characters or plot -- but didn't quite succeed. There may not be a lot of songs that are useless to the story, but the very first one, "Another Op'nin', Another Show" sure is and so is one of Porter's best songs ever, "Too Darn Hot." And it really bugs me.
Yeah, I enjoyed the show and really all the songs are wonderful, and the actors were great, especially the women who played Lilly/Katherine and Lois/Bianca and the show are extremely strong. I guess that why the non important song, like "Brush Up Your Shakespeare," bother me so much, the play is nearly perfect and these songs, as fun as they are, just take me right out of the story.
A Chorus Line:
Talk about you musical for those who love musicals.
It's all about the casting of a chorus for a play. It's one act of like 17 characters standing on an empty stage dancing, and talking about themselves or their love of dance, and practicing. And the dancing is amazing. From the perfect solo dances, to the practice groups where people misstep, to the high kicking finale.
Spectacular.
Snoopy!!! The Musical:
This play so wanted to be You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, but it just couldn't be and doesn't ever come close.
Frankly, to me, Snoopy is the most boring character in Peanuts. Yes I like his imagination, but everything always works out for him, or, if it doesn't, he just says it did and then moves on to something else. He's just so boring.
So is the play. Between the songs are short sketch like things that are supposed to be like a daily strip brought to life. Some of them are funny, but none of them connect to each other except that they include Charlie Brown, Lucy, Sally, Linus, Peppermint Patty, and Snoopy, other than that, nothing.
Most of the songs are light and airy and useless. Snoopy almost always sings about how great his life is or how great he is and how everything should focus on him.
And then there are the two songs that Focus on Peppermint Patty that completely mischaracterize the Peppermint Patty I remember from the strips. She has a crush on Charlie Brown. We all know it. (And yes, I'm aware of the lesbian jokes with her and Marcie, and even if Peppermint Patty's gay she can have a crush on a boy that's kind to her. I'm sure it happens all the time out there in the real world.) In the strips she constantly denied it, but she also called him up or sat under a tree with him and talked about love to him, but he never got the hint and she'd get frustrated. She'd never admit to the crush, though. But in this play she first asks him about her looks and when he mentions her big nose and how she might grow into it she then sings a song about how she wants her face to catch-up to her nose and later she sings Charlie Brown a song where she calls him "poor, sweet baby." It was all just so overt. The strip tended to balance her crush by having Marcie mock Peppermint Patty by insisting the crush was there. The play just has Peppermint Patty throw the crush in the audience's faces.
The last song, "Just One Person," while having a nice message, wasn't earned. You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown earned the sweetness of it's final song, "Happiness," by sort of tearing down Charlie Brown and showing him as a failure, so him and his friends finding happiness in little, everyday things was earned. This Snoopy!!! play shows some disappointment, but every time something happens to him, Snoopy turns it into a victory up to the point where he's actually proclaimed the Head Beagle. There is just too much winning to then delve into such a super sweet song.
The acting was decent. The guy who played Snoopy really hammed it up, but the woman who played Peppermint Patty was wonderful, I wish she'd had a bigger role in one of the other plays. It's too bad they had such a poor play to perform in.
And there we have it. All the plays I've seen in the last month, or so. It's pretty obvious which one I saw last, isn’t it? Here's hoping, if I'm still around then, next year is as enjoyable.
Anyway, like I wrote before, this last month I went to see a lot of plays and I thought it'd be fun (for me) to go over what I saw and what I liked and didn't like about each.
The Women:
At its most, it's the story of a bunch of women in New York and how they deal with men. Divorce, cheating, dating, and remarriage are all big parts of the story. Not that the play's a downer, because it's not. It's really funny. The only real problem with it is that the playwright didn't do a very good job of transitioning from comedy to the drama and them back. It's like laugh, laugh, laugh, and then get hit upside the head with melodrama and weeping; new scene: laugh, laugh, laugh, hit with melodrama. And it does this over and over again.
Still the good far out weighed the overwrought drama and most of the women were spectacular at the comedy and those that weren't were really only important to the drama aspects.
The Producers:
Only one of the most fun musicals ever written. People cheating old ladies out of lots money after having sex with them to put on the worst play ever and after it closes take the extra cash and run off to Rio, with flaming gay men, a Nazi, and songs, what's not to enjoy?
In fact, I enjoyed this version almost as much as I did the touring company Wings and I saw years ago in SF. I did wish that Ulla had a better blonde wig and that we could see the dancers in their swastika formations during "Springtime for Hitler," but an overhead mirror would have cost too much for this little theater.
The Crucible:
This power of this play, when it's performed, rest on the shoulders of one character: John Proctor. Which was the problem with this performance. The guy playing John was too young and he just wasn't that good of an actor. When he's having dinner with his wife, Elizabeth, and she's poking at him because he screwed around on her, John should be played with righteous fury, like he's about to blame his affair on Elizabeth because she got sick and he couldn't have sex with his wife; the actor played it more like a teenager whining to his girlfriend about how sick he is of her teasing. The lust between John and Abigail Williams should be hot and animalistic; she draws him in with her sex appeal and he simply can't resist, but, again, this actor played it more like a first time crush, all awkward and bumbling and clammy.
The rest of the cast was spectacular, though. They took the words of Arthur Miller and really turned them into a morality tale and saved me from being totally bored with the play.
Kiss Me, Kate:
With this play, Cole Porter was trying to move his writing from what Broadway used to be -- a show with songs that were good, but had little to do with the plot -- to what they were becoming -- shows with songs that were integral to the characters or plot -- but didn't quite succeed. There may not be a lot of songs that are useless to the story, but the very first one, "Another Op'nin', Another Show" sure is and so is one of Porter's best songs ever, "Too Darn Hot." And it really bugs me.
Yeah, I enjoyed the show and really all the songs are wonderful, and the actors were great, especially the women who played Lilly/Katherine and Lois/Bianca and the show are extremely strong. I guess that why the non important song, like "Brush Up Your Shakespeare," bother me so much, the play is nearly perfect and these songs, as fun as they are, just take me right out of the story.
A Chorus Line:
Talk about you musical for those who love musicals.
It's all about the casting of a chorus for a play. It's one act of like 17 characters standing on an empty stage dancing, and talking about themselves or their love of dance, and practicing. And the dancing is amazing. From the perfect solo dances, to the practice groups where people misstep, to the high kicking finale.
Spectacular.
Snoopy!!! The Musical:
This play so wanted to be You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, but it just couldn't be and doesn't ever come close.
Frankly, to me, Snoopy is the most boring character in Peanuts. Yes I like his imagination, but everything always works out for him, or, if it doesn't, he just says it did and then moves on to something else. He's just so boring.
So is the play. Between the songs are short sketch like things that are supposed to be like a daily strip brought to life. Some of them are funny, but none of them connect to each other except that they include Charlie Brown, Lucy, Sally, Linus, Peppermint Patty, and Snoopy, other than that, nothing.
Most of the songs are light and airy and useless. Snoopy almost always sings about how great his life is or how great he is and how everything should focus on him.
And then there are the two songs that Focus on Peppermint Patty that completely mischaracterize the Peppermint Patty I remember from the strips. She has a crush on Charlie Brown. We all know it. (And yes, I'm aware of the lesbian jokes with her and Marcie, and even if Peppermint Patty's gay she can have a crush on a boy that's kind to her. I'm sure it happens all the time out there in the real world.) In the strips she constantly denied it, but she also called him up or sat under a tree with him and talked about love to him, but he never got the hint and she'd get frustrated. She'd never admit to the crush, though. But in this play she first asks him about her looks and when he mentions her big nose and how she might grow into it she then sings a song about how she wants her face to catch-up to her nose and later she sings Charlie Brown a song where she calls him "poor, sweet baby." It was all just so overt. The strip tended to balance her crush by having Marcie mock Peppermint Patty by insisting the crush was there. The play just has Peppermint Patty throw the crush in the audience's faces.
The last song, "Just One Person," while having a nice message, wasn't earned. You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown earned the sweetness of it's final song, "Happiness," by sort of tearing down Charlie Brown and showing him as a failure, so him and his friends finding happiness in little, everyday things was earned. This Snoopy!!! play shows some disappointment, but every time something happens to him, Snoopy turns it into a victory up to the point where he's actually proclaimed the Head Beagle. There is just too much winning to then delve into such a super sweet song.
The acting was decent. The guy who played Snoopy really hammed it up, but the woman who played Peppermint Patty was wonderful, I wish she'd had a bigger role in one of the other plays. It's too bad they had such a poor play to perform in.
And there we have it. All the plays I've seen in the last month, or so. It's pretty obvious which one I saw last, isn’t it? Here's hoping, if I'm still around then, next year is as enjoyable.
Useless Labels:
acting,
musicals,
over analyzing,
plays,
songs
Friday, July 18, 2008
Athiesm in the Worlds of the Fantastic, with Super Science
Kalinara wrote up a post about how hard it would be for a person to be an atheist in the DC universe. She hauls out the standard that in a world where people regularly interact with divine beings, it should be impossible, or extremely difficult, to deny the existence of gods or God or other creatures of divinity. (I've used the word "divine" and its derivatives a lot this morning.) Denying those beings as you interact with them would be like standing on the beach in San Diego watching and hearing the surf roll in and out and smelling the sea breeze and denying that there was an ocean out there, right?
It's a classic thought and pretty logical. There's good reason why it's been around so long. For a while, I agreed with it. To pretend that something in front of you doesn't exist is just stupid. I don't think that way anymore.
I decided that just because something is in front of you, doesn't mean you shouldn't question it. Especially when you live in a fantastic world. And most especially when you live in a fantastic world that has tons of super science in it.
I understand that on a world like Middle Earth or Krynn or other such fantasy worlds where the gods and magical beings talk to regular people and no one seems to be out to explain how the universe works through science and mathematics it would be very hard to deny that a being who claims to be divine wasn't divine.
But the DCU isn't like those worlds. The DCU is full of aliens and strange creatures born from the depths of the ocean. Not only do the aliens bring super suits and power rings, but there are villains and heroes who make robots that absorb energies and pills that give people super strength. Hyperspace and wormholes and beams of energy are the normal ways for people to travel between stars and galaxies. Aliens, who look human, fly because their skin absorbs and converts solar energy. Men run faster than the speed of light because chemicals spilled on them as lightening struck. Women turn invisible by pointing a "black light ray projector" at themselves. And then there are so many people who get fantastical abilities because a gene, or combination of genes, becomes active through natural or artificial means.
Super science. That's what so-called gods and divine beings have to contend with. To be taken for what they say they are, they have to convince the people of the world that they aren't just guys and gals with a flight ring or spandex made out of an invulnerable fiber or who drank the wrong (or right, depending on how you look at it) soda and can suddenly lift a bus over their heads. How can they prove that they're magical or divine by summoning a feast when the US army has a transporter that can send a man to the asteroid belt? Hurling bolts of lightening seems less impressive when there's a guy out there who can summon hurricanes and blizzards by waving the mechanical wand he built*. When a robot can age or de-age a man by looking at him, when a group of explorers or a woman invents a ray that can heal all but death or a father can take his severely mutilated son and save his life with cybernetics, why should anyone think those who claim to be divine are?
In that kind or a world, could there be anyone who didn't doubt the existence of the supernatural and divine? Probably, but I think there'd be a lot less of them than there are on our world.
PS The strangest responses to her post were that some people decided that the atheists would probably be more like, "Sure, gods exist, but why should I worship them? What have they done that I should use my precious time and energy to tell them how great they are?"
I don't think a person who say gods exist is an atheist, but, you know, I like to go by the definition of the word.
* I know it's been retconned out, but fuck that.
It's a classic thought and pretty logical. There's good reason why it's been around so long. For a while, I agreed with it. To pretend that something in front of you doesn't exist is just stupid. I don't think that way anymore.
I decided that just because something is in front of you, doesn't mean you shouldn't question it. Especially when you live in a fantastic world. And most especially when you live in a fantastic world that has tons of super science in it.
I understand that on a world like Middle Earth or Krynn or other such fantasy worlds where the gods and magical beings talk to regular people and no one seems to be out to explain how the universe works through science and mathematics it would be very hard to deny that a being who claims to be divine wasn't divine.
But the DCU isn't like those worlds. The DCU is full of aliens and strange creatures born from the depths of the ocean. Not only do the aliens bring super suits and power rings, but there are villains and heroes who make robots that absorb energies and pills that give people super strength. Hyperspace and wormholes and beams of energy are the normal ways for people to travel between stars and galaxies. Aliens, who look human, fly because their skin absorbs and converts solar energy. Men run faster than the speed of light because chemicals spilled on them as lightening struck. Women turn invisible by pointing a "black light ray projector" at themselves. And then there are so many people who get fantastical abilities because a gene, or combination of genes, becomes active through natural or artificial means.
Super science. That's what so-called gods and divine beings have to contend with. To be taken for what they say they are, they have to convince the people of the world that they aren't just guys and gals with a flight ring or spandex made out of an invulnerable fiber or who drank the wrong (or right, depending on how you look at it) soda and can suddenly lift a bus over their heads. How can they prove that they're magical or divine by summoning a feast when the US army has a transporter that can send a man to the asteroid belt? Hurling bolts of lightening seems less impressive when there's a guy out there who can summon hurricanes and blizzards by waving the mechanical wand he built*. When a robot can age or de-age a man by looking at him, when a group of explorers or a woman invents a ray that can heal all but death or a father can take his severely mutilated son and save his life with cybernetics, why should anyone think those who claim to be divine are?
In that kind or a world, could there be anyone who didn't doubt the existence of the supernatural and divine? Probably, but I think there'd be a lot less of them than there are on our world.
PS The strangest responses to her post were that some people decided that the atheists would probably be more like, "Sure, gods exist, but why should I worship them? What have they done that I should use my precious time and energy to tell them how great they are?"
I don't think a person who say gods exist is an atheist, but, you know, I like to go by the definition of the word.
* I know it's been retconned out, but fuck that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)