Because far too many people falsely believe bloody=scary.
And, frankly, there's a difference between thrilling (i.e. 28 Days Later) and frightening.
I'm talking about the stuff of nightmares, here.
So, in honor of All Hallow's Eve, here are some films that legitimately made me afraid to turn off the lights at one point or another, in no particular order.
Anyone out there want to suggest any additions to my list?
October 28, 2008
Three Strikes
Christopher Nolan on 'Dark Knight' and its box-office billion: 'It's mystifying to me' | Hero Complex | Los Angeles Times
Reading this great interview with Christopher Nolan as he contemplates the possibility of doing a third "Batman" film really does raise the question: Has there EVER been a third film in a trilogy that's as good or better than the first two?
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite good, and definitely better than The Temple of Doom.
Revenge of the Sith? Well, it's the best of the three, but the whole trilogy is so suspect, I don't really want to count it.
Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is a very good 80's horror film, definitely better than part 2, but not as freakishly scary as the first film.
Matrix Revolutions contains elements of a brilliant film, but there spliced in with nearly an hour of a really terrible mecha war movie, so, no.
Rocky III? Not a particularly artistic or emotionally honest film like the first, but MAN, that movie is good clean fun! Mr. T and Hulk Hogan? What's there not to love?
Die Hard With A Vengeance? I enjoyed it, but it's not nearly as tight or well written as the first film, and the ending is kinda random, so, no.
Batman Forever? Again, I enjoyed it, but it was not nearly as rich as either of Burton's two films (of which, I think Batman Returns is the best).
The Bourne Ultimatum is an exceptional action movie, but, without the Marie character, it really lacks emotional resonance and, in the end, it's about very little.
Return of the King is, in my mind, the only one that surpasses the other two films in the series. And that's only because the entire series was conceived as one complete story beforehand, where Act Three is the big payoff.
Most other part threes are commissioned largely for commercial purposes, with people trying to find a story to justify a reason to capitalize on the success of the first two films.
In short, I would LOVE to see Nolan find a reason to do a 3rd Batman.
(My recommendation? Cast Daniel Day Lewis as Dr. Hugo Strange for the main villain. "Who the Hell is Hugo Strange?" you ask? Who cares? Outside of comic fanboys, who the Hell ever heard of Ra's Al Ghul before "Batman Begins"?)
But I hope it's for the right reasons. Story reasons.
Reading this great interview with Christopher Nolan as he contemplates the possibility of doing a third "Batman" film really does raise the question: Has there EVER been a third film in a trilogy that's as good or better than the first two?
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite good, and definitely better than The Temple of Doom.
Revenge of the Sith? Well, it's the best of the three, but the whole trilogy is so suspect, I don't really want to count it.
Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is a very good 80's horror film, definitely better than part 2, but not as freakishly scary as the first film.
Matrix Revolutions contains elements of a brilliant film, but there spliced in with nearly an hour of a really terrible mecha war movie, so, no.
Rocky III? Not a particularly artistic or emotionally honest film like the first, but MAN, that movie is good clean fun! Mr. T and Hulk Hogan? What's there not to love?
Die Hard With A Vengeance? I enjoyed it, but it's not nearly as tight or well written as the first film, and the ending is kinda random, so, no.
Batman Forever? Again, I enjoyed it, but it was not nearly as rich as either of Burton's two films (of which, I think Batman Returns is the best).
The Bourne Ultimatum is an exceptional action movie, but, without the Marie character, it really lacks emotional resonance and, in the end, it's about very little.
Return of the King is, in my mind, the only one that surpasses the other two films in the series. And that's only because the entire series was conceived as one complete story beforehand, where Act Three is the big payoff.
Most other part threes are commissioned largely for commercial purposes, with people trying to find a story to justify a reason to capitalize on the success of the first two films.
In short, I would LOVE to see Nolan find a reason to do a 3rd Batman.
(My recommendation? Cast Daniel Day Lewis as Dr. Hugo Strange for the main villain. "Who the Hell is Hugo Strange?" you ask? Who cares? Outside of comic fanboys, who the Hell ever heard of Ra's Al Ghul before "Batman Begins"?)
But I hope it's for the right reasons. Story reasons.
October 16, 2008
Diary of a bunch of Mad Black Writers
According to Nikki Finke, it looks like Tyler Perry finally got the message and is going to sign onto the WGA contract.
"Peace in our time", ladies and gentlemen.
And I'll refrain from referencing Chris Rock's old joke about people who want credit for things they're supposed to do. For now.
"Peace in our time", ladies and gentlemen.
And I'll refrain from referencing Chris Rock's old joke about people who want credit for things they're supposed to do. For now.
Mirror, Mirror
As I've mentioned in the past, one of my favorite episodes of the original Star Trek is entitled "The Enemy Within" - a transporter malfunction creates two versions of Captain Kirk.
One is intelligent, wise, compassionate, yet indecisive.
The other is....
Well, see for yourself:
Forceful? Yes. Decisive? Yes. But also crazed, lustful, paranoid.
And yet, as Spock points out, while separated, neither one is capable of surviving without the other. In the end, as much as the two repulse each other, they're forced to literally embrace each other to both survive and lead.
So, I've been following the coverage of the growing lynch mob qualities of the Palin/McCain rallies over the last few weeks.
And let's be real about this: McCain may be the official party nominee, but Sarah Palin is really the standard bearer for this particular facet of the Republican party these days. Given the choice, I'm sure many of them would prefer to have her at the top of the ticket simply because they trust her more. In their mind, she's one of them, through and through. McCain is, sadly, just someone who's hitched his carriage to them on the vain hope that this pony will carry him all the way to the Oval Office.
Honestly, I feel sort of sorry for both of them.
McCain, because, after the abuse he suffered at the hands of Bush & Co. back in 2000, could not get over his Presidential fixation and has debased himself over and over again by cowtowing to Bush, Falwell, et. al., hoping that these people that he once scorned will finally let him in the club. Frankly, much of his career has been spent seeking acceptance from the "cool kids". Originally, he hoped that by being a rebel Republican, he'd be popular among the Hollywood & press elites. And it worked. But it wasn't enough to get him elected, because as far as most Democrats are concerned, he's still a Republican. One they might want to have a beer with, but a Republican, nonetheless. So he did a switch, seeking favor from within his party. But, by then, it was too late, he'd pissed too many of them off. And the only reason he's the nominee now is because everyone else in the GOP field proved to be unacceptable to at least one sizable faction within the party (Rudy's too liberal and Romney's too Mormon for the cultural conservatives, and Huckabee was too much of a policy lightweight for the neocons and finance conservatives). In short, everyone else's constituencies killed the one guy they were the most offended by, and none of them were paying attention to McCain, leaving him the last man standing.
Sarah Palin's just like McCain in that her ambition consistently overrides whatever better judgment she may have about her career. I get the sense that when she was approached about taking the VP spot, she must have said to herself "well, how hard can it be?" My sympathy for her comes from the fact that she'll probably go down in the annuls of presidential election history in the same breath as Admiral Stockdale or Dan Quayle as a figure of national ridicule. But don't be misled. Even if McCain loses, we've probably not heard the last of Gov. Palin on the national stage.
Of course, there are limits to my sympathy.
And I suspect that McCain didn't fully appreciate the Frankenstein's monster he'd created by turning Palin loose to stoke up her base with the notion that Obama might somehow be a member of some fictitious joint Black/Muslim sleeper cell.
And, for the record, I'd just like to say two things:
1. If I were Obama, I would stand up during that prime time speech he's going to give the week before the election and say "Yes, my full name is, in fact Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and I have about as much in common with with Saddam Hussein as Bill Clinton has with George Clinton. Think, people!"
2. "Muslim" != "Enemy". My family was all raised in Protestant, Methodist traditions in the country churches on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Yet, my uncle converted to Islam some 30 years ago. And I can tell you that he, his wife, and his six children are among the most thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, disciplined, spiritual people I have ever known. His Islamic faith has given him a core of inner peace and personal strength the likes of which I feel I have almost never seen among even Christian clergy. And the VAST majority of Muslims are like that. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of a man like Bin Laden is like blaming all Christians for the actions of Hitler. Or Jim Jones. Or Timothy McVeigh.
But my point is this:
Even if Obama wins in a landslide next month (which, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, has a better than 50% probability of occurring. Hope springs eternal), these people who are currently literally screaming for his head aren't going anywhere.
The fearful, the paranoid, the hateful - these, too, are very much part of America. Always have been.
And yet, in these very same parts of the country, you probably get the highest recruitment ranks from the military. The highest church participation and activism. These people love this country. Many of them have wildly different, and, in some cases, mutually exclusive view of what this country is supposed to be.
And, as long as no one is picking up a pitchfork or a rope, that's actually OK.
It's called democracy.
I know Kos likes to talk about "breaking their spirits" and Karl Rove was renowned for seeking a permanent Republican majority, the fact of the matter is, short of straight up genocide, neither side can ever get rid of the other.
No matter how much it disgusts or repulses us, that other America is still America. And we could not have what we have without it.
That's not to say that it's a good thing. Far from it. The provincial hatreds and prejudices and fears are, in my mind, a part of our national shame.
And the generational times are changing for the better. But I don't think any of us on either side of the divide should delude ourselves into thinking that we can ever be rid of the other completely.
So, with that in mind, we have to look for the common ground, where it can be found.
And, where it cannot, and it comes to a point where we have to lay hands on each other in a non-Christian way to resolve our differences...
Well, just the thought of that makes me sad. But I have to acknowledge that there may just be some people who are beyond reasoning.
At which point, like Jill Scott said, we just have to take off these rings and deal with it.
It's ALL America. The good and the bad.
But, personally, just like J.J. Abrams, I'm encouraged by the fact that Star Trek is making it's return in the same year that a transformative, hopeful figure like Barack Obama potentially becomes the new leader of the free world. It's no accident that Star Trek's Final Frontier was the projected future from JFK's New Frontier. I mean, who can dispute the Kennedy-eque qualities of a character like this:
Yes, it's always been a challenge. But I, for one, am filled with hope.
The hope that this country will have leadership again who will once again make us proud through their actions at home and abroad. The hope that we will find the means and the will to resolve our most pressing problems while capitalizing on our most golden opportunities.
I believe the cultural zeitgeist is changing. I believe the sci-fi worlds of "Blade Runner" and "Mad Max" where an outgrown of our sense that The Future was dying. But now, people have hope again. The future looks bright again.
There will always be serpents. But that doesn't make the fruits of the garden any less sweet.
One is intelligent, wise, compassionate, yet indecisive.
The other is....
Well, see for yourself:
Forceful? Yes. Decisive? Yes. But also crazed, lustful, paranoid.
And yet, as Spock points out, while separated, neither one is capable of surviving without the other. In the end, as much as the two repulse each other, they're forced to literally embrace each other to both survive and lead.
So, I've been following the coverage of the growing lynch mob qualities of the Palin/McCain rallies over the last few weeks.
And let's be real about this: McCain may be the official party nominee, but Sarah Palin is really the standard bearer for this particular facet of the Republican party these days. Given the choice, I'm sure many of them would prefer to have her at the top of the ticket simply because they trust her more. In their mind, she's one of them, through and through. McCain is, sadly, just someone who's hitched his carriage to them on the vain hope that this pony will carry him all the way to the Oval Office.
Honestly, I feel sort of sorry for both of them.
McCain, because, after the abuse he suffered at the hands of Bush & Co. back in 2000, could not get over his Presidential fixation and has debased himself over and over again by cowtowing to Bush, Falwell, et. al., hoping that these people that he once scorned will finally let him in the club. Frankly, much of his career has been spent seeking acceptance from the "cool kids". Originally, he hoped that by being a rebel Republican, he'd be popular among the Hollywood & press elites. And it worked. But it wasn't enough to get him elected, because as far as most Democrats are concerned, he's still a Republican. One they might want to have a beer with, but a Republican, nonetheless. So he did a switch, seeking favor from within his party. But, by then, it was too late, he'd pissed too many of them off. And the only reason he's the nominee now is because everyone else in the GOP field proved to be unacceptable to at least one sizable faction within the party (Rudy's too liberal and Romney's too Mormon for the cultural conservatives, and Huckabee was too much of a policy lightweight for the neocons and finance conservatives). In short, everyone else's constituencies killed the one guy they were the most offended by, and none of them were paying attention to McCain, leaving him the last man standing.
Sarah Palin's just like McCain in that her ambition consistently overrides whatever better judgment she may have about her career. I get the sense that when she was approached about taking the VP spot, she must have said to herself "well, how hard can it be?" My sympathy for her comes from the fact that she'll probably go down in the annuls of presidential election history in the same breath as Admiral Stockdale or Dan Quayle as a figure of national ridicule. But don't be misled. Even if McCain loses, we've probably not heard the last of Gov. Palin on the national stage.
Of course, there are limits to my sympathy.
And I suspect that McCain didn't fully appreciate the Frankenstein's monster he'd created by turning Palin loose to stoke up her base with the notion that Obama might somehow be a member of some fictitious joint Black/Muslim sleeper cell.
And, for the record, I'd just like to say two things:
1. If I were Obama, I would stand up during that prime time speech he's going to give the week before the election and say "Yes, my full name is, in fact Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and I have about as much in common with with Saddam Hussein as Bill Clinton has with George Clinton. Think, people!"
2. "Muslim" != "Enemy". My family was all raised in Protestant, Methodist traditions in the country churches on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Yet, my uncle converted to Islam some 30 years ago. And I can tell you that he, his wife, and his six children are among the most thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, disciplined, spiritual people I have ever known. His Islamic faith has given him a core of inner peace and personal strength the likes of which I feel I have almost never seen among even Christian clergy. And the VAST majority of Muslims are like that. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of a man like Bin Laden is like blaming all Christians for the actions of Hitler. Or Jim Jones. Or Timothy McVeigh.
But my point is this:
Even if Obama wins in a landslide next month (which, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, has a better than 50% probability of occurring. Hope springs eternal), these people who are currently literally screaming for his head aren't going anywhere.
The fearful, the paranoid, the hateful - these, too, are very much part of America. Always have been.
And yet, in these very same parts of the country, you probably get the highest recruitment ranks from the military. The highest church participation and activism. These people love this country. Many of them have wildly different, and, in some cases, mutually exclusive view of what this country is supposed to be.
And, as long as no one is picking up a pitchfork or a rope, that's actually OK.
It's called democracy.
I know Kos likes to talk about "breaking their spirits" and Karl Rove was renowned for seeking a permanent Republican majority, the fact of the matter is, short of straight up genocide, neither side can ever get rid of the other.
No matter how much it disgusts or repulses us, that other America is still America. And we could not have what we have without it.
That's not to say that it's a good thing. Far from it. The provincial hatreds and prejudices and fears are, in my mind, a part of our national shame.
And the generational times are changing for the better. But I don't think any of us on either side of the divide should delude ourselves into thinking that we can ever be rid of the other completely.
So, with that in mind, we have to look for the common ground, where it can be found.
And, where it cannot, and it comes to a point where we have to lay hands on each other in a non-Christian way to resolve our differences...
Well, just the thought of that makes me sad. But I have to acknowledge that there may just be some people who are beyond reasoning.
At which point, like Jill Scott said, we just have to take off these rings and deal with it.
It's ALL America. The good and the bad.
But, personally, just like J.J. Abrams, I'm encouraged by the fact that Star Trek is making it's return in the same year that a transformative, hopeful figure like Barack Obama potentially becomes the new leader of the free world. It's no accident that Star Trek's Final Frontier was the projected future from JFK's New Frontier. I mean, who can dispute the Kennedy-eque qualities of a character like this:
Yes, it's always been a challenge. But I, for one, am filled with hope.
The hope that this country will have leadership again who will once again make us proud through their actions at home and abroad. The hope that we will find the means and the will to resolve our most pressing problems while capitalizing on our most golden opportunities.
I believe the cultural zeitgeist is changing. I believe the sci-fi worlds of "Blade Runner" and "Mad Max" where an outgrown of our sense that The Future was dying. But now, people have hope again. The future looks bright again.
There will always be serpents. But that doesn't make the fruits of the garden any less sweet.
October 03, 2008
Crabs in a Barrel
So, first, let's get to the facts:
A few days ago, Tyler Perry fired a bunch of black writers from his cable sitcom "House of Payne". In response, the Writers Guild of America just filed suit against Perry with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging unfair labor practices. Perry says the writers were fired because of the quality of their work. The writers say they were fired because they were pushing to have the show covered under a WGA contract.
When I first heard this, I did a double-take. The highest rated sit-com on basic cable is a non-union show?
But, as I researched it more, it was even worse than I thought.
"House of Payne" is a DGA signatory. Of course it is: Tyler directs most of the episodes, and he's a member of the Directors' Guild, so it would have to be.
"House of Payne" is also a SAG signatory. Of course it is: if it wasn't, he couldn't have cast actors like Allen Payne, who, like most of his castmates, are members of the Screen Actors Guild.
But, "House of Payne" is NOT a WGA signatory.
I mean, the one group that he COULD screw, he DID screw.
Now, to be totally fair, a number of the fired writers are WGAw members, so, they really had no business working on a non-union show in the first place, unless, of course, part of their agreement when they were hired was that the show would become a guild signatory. The guild has provisions to allow for that. And, if I had to guess, that is probably the essence of the case they're bringing to the NLRB.
Tyler recently signed a deal with TBS to create 100 episodes of "House of Payne" for $200 million, or $2,000,000 per episode. The WGA considers a show a "high budget minimum" if its budget exceeds $100,000 per episode for non-network primetime, in which case, the guild minimum fee for writing one such episode is ~$12,000. It also requires that, if you're on staff, meaning you're under the regular employ of the producer instead of a hired gun who's brought in on a one-off basis to write an episode, your minimum weekly salary for a basic cable show of this length is roughly $3,000.
Plus health benefits, pension, etc.
Pretty good work if you can get it. But even if you assume they make an episode a week (and they clearly work much faster, given how many they've produced in the last two years), and let's assume that the pension & health insurance costs as much as the total salary & writing fees involved for these writers (and it's considerably less), and you round up to the nearest $10,000, you're still only talking about $50,000 per episode, or 2.5% of the total budget per episode.
And it's not like House of Payne is an expensive show. It's a three camera comedy, meaning they have a series of standing sets in front of a studio audience with two stationary cameras and a third on a track, so that the actors get to perform almost like it's theater. No expensive locations. No special effects. Allen Payne is probably the highest paid actor on the show after Tyler Perry himself, and I guarantee you that brother is not making a million dollars an episode.
But let's put all of that aside for a moment.
For a guy who's built his career around promoting a certain kind of Black Christian faith and community responsibility....
I just don't understand.
Just like BET. Actually, worse than BET. At least BET is more up front about the fact that they're making money by getting over on Black people.
I was never particularly a fan of Tyler Perry's work. The minute I'm shown yet another Black man in drag for laughs, I immediately turn off. I think this trend, going all the way back to Flip Wilson, and continued through Will Smith & Martin Lawrence, has always been a double-edged diss against Black people. It perpetuates a de-feminized stereotype of Black women & mothers while simultaneously emasculating some of our more prominent Black male performers. And yet, I always had respect for him as an artist and a businessman who'd found a way to successfully navigate the entertainment industry while still owning his original content. I was really happy to see him succeed in film, especially as his films seem to reach for more authentic representations of Black relationships.
But come ON, man!!!! Pay the fucking writers! It's not like you don't have it.
Jeez.
A few days ago, Tyler Perry fired a bunch of black writers from his cable sitcom "House of Payne". In response, the Writers Guild of America just filed suit against Perry with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging unfair labor practices. Perry says the writers were fired because of the quality of their work. The writers say they were fired because they were pushing to have the show covered under a WGA contract.
When I first heard this, I did a double-take. The highest rated sit-com on basic cable is a non-union show?
But, as I researched it more, it was even worse than I thought.
"House of Payne" is a DGA signatory. Of course it is: Tyler directs most of the episodes, and he's a member of the Directors' Guild, so it would have to be.
"House of Payne" is also a SAG signatory. Of course it is: if it wasn't, he couldn't have cast actors like Allen Payne, who, like most of his castmates, are members of the Screen Actors Guild.
But, "House of Payne" is NOT a WGA signatory.
I mean, the one group that he COULD screw, he DID screw.
Now, to be totally fair, a number of the fired writers are WGAw members, so, they really had no business working on a non-union show in the first place, unless, of course, part of their agreement when they were hired was that the show would become a guild signatory. The guild has provisions to allow for that. And, if I had to guess, that is probably the essence of the case they're bringing to the NLRB.
Tyler recently signed a deal with TBS to create 100 episodes of "House of Payne" for $200 million, or $2,000,000 per episode. The WGA considers a show a "high budget minimum" if its budget exceeds $100,000 per episode for non-network primetime, in which case, the guild minimum fee for writing one such episode is ~$12,000. It also requires that, if you're on staff, meaning you're under the regular employ of the producer instead of a hired gun who's brought in on a one-off basis to write an episode, your minimum weekly salary for a basic cable show of this length is roughly $3,000.
Plus health benefits, pension, etc.
Pretty good work if you can get it. But even if you assume they make an episode a week (and they clearly work much faster, given how many they've produced in the last two years), and let's assume that the pension & health insurance costs as much as the total salary & writing fees involved for these writers (and it's considerably less), and you round up to the nearest $10,000, you're still only talking about $50,000 per episode, or 2.5% of the total budget per episode.
And it's not like House of Payne is an expensive show. It's a three camera comedy, meaning they have a series of standing sets in front of a studio audience with two stationary cameras and a third on a track, so that the actors get to perform almost like it's theater. No expensive locations. No special effects. Allen Payne is probably the highest paid actor on the show after Tyler Perry himself, and I guarantee you that brother is not making a million dollars an episode.
But let's put all of that aside for a moment.
For a guy who's built his career around promoting a certain kind of Black Christian faith and community responsibility....
I just don't understand.
Just like BET. Actually, worse than BET. At least BET is more up front about the fact that they're making money by getting over on Black people.
I was never particularly a fan of Tyler Perry's work. The minute I'm shown yet another Black man in drag for laughs, I immediately turn off. I think this trend, going all the way back to Flip Wilson, and continued through Will Smith & Martin Lawrence, has always been a double-edged diss against Black people. It perpetuates a de-feminized stereotype of Black women & mothers while simultaneously emasculating some of our more prominent Black male performers. And yet, I always had respect for him as an artist and a businessman who'd found a way to successfully navigate the entertainment industry while still owning his original content. I was really happy to see him succeed in film, especially as his films seem to reach for more authentic representations of Black relationships.
But come ON, man!!!! Pay the fucking writers! It's not like you don't have it.
Jeez.
Wrapped in the Flag
Comic Book Resources is running a poll on who should play Captain America in the new movie slated for 2010. So far, here are the results:
And I have to say, I don't like the idea of any of these guys as Captain America, even though many of them are actors I really enjoy and respect.
Pardon me while I think out loud for a bit.
Here's the deal: Captain America is a scrawny blonde-haired, blue-eyed kid who grew up on the lower east side of Manhattan during the Great Depression who gets injected with some super steroids by Uncle Sam to become a patriotic juggernaut against the forces of tyranny during the 2nd World War before being frozen in suspended animation and thawed out in modern times. He's like a character out of a Mickey Rooney movie who gets transformed into the one superhero that every other superhero instantly defers to as soon as they're in his presence.
May favorite line about Captain America comes from the 1st issue of Mark Millar's genius re-imagining of The Avengers in "The Ultimates", where a paratrooper about to be dropped into a Nazi hot zone calls Cap crazy to his sidekick, Bucky Barnes, for not wearing a parachute.
Bucky just laughs and says "Cap things chutes are for sissies."
Or, better yet, towards the end of that same series, where a villain demands that he surrender, a bloodied Cap points to the "A" printed on his mask and shouts:
So, which of those actors can you imagine believably pulling off that role in the same way that you just nodded in total agreement about the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man? Honestly, the closest to it would be Matthew McConaughey - he's whitebread enough and, judging by his performance in "Reign of Fire" he can do intensity, but he's bit too southern to play a New Yorker, and he doesn't really have the steel in his eyes that I would want for that character.
Aaron Eckhart is pretty close, but just perhaps a bit older than I would want, simply because I have a hard time seeing him doing much of the fighting & stuntwork that goes into Captain America. Although, to be perfectly honest, Tim Roth did a great job as kind of a proto-super soldier in "The Incredible Hulk" this summer, but that was only in one scene against a CGI Hulk. Personally, I want the scene where Cap wades into a gang of 30 Hydra agents and hands them their collective asses like a red-white-and-blue fighting whirling dervish, and I want it as authentic as the fighting Messrs. Bale & Nolan put together in "The Dark Knight".
I love Wil Smith, but, I'm sorry, Captain America is not Black. Period.
Hmmm. Eric Bana? No, that would be like casting a Yankee to play James Bond.
Frankly, I don't think you need a big name. In fact, I think it's better that you go with an unknown and let him create the role.
How about Timothy Olyphant? Anybody who's seen "Deadwood" knows he's an intense bugger, can get physical, and is a heck of an actor. But, to be perfectly honest, I really want him for "Green Lantern" - he was born to play cocky test pilot Hal Jordan.
OK, now I'm really rambling. :-) I'll have a LOT more to say about Green Lantern at a later date.
The short answer is "Go with an unknown, Marvel". Captain America is not Iron Man. Everybody knows who that character is, so you don't need a star to sell the movie.
Pardon me while I think out loud for a bit.
Here's the deal: Captain America is a scrawny blonde-haired, blue-eyed kid who grew up on the lower east side of Manhattan during the Great Depression who gets injected with some super steroids by Uncle Sam to become a patriotic juggernaut against the forces of tyranny during the 2nd World War before being frozen in suspended animation and thawed out in modern times. He's like a character out of a Mickey Rooney movie who gets transformed into the one superhero that every other superhero instantly defers to as soon as they're in his presence.
May favorite line about Captain America comes from the 1st issue of Mark Millar's genius re-imagining of The Avengers in "The Ultimates", where a paratrooper about to be dropped into a Nazi hot zone calls Cap crazy to his sidekick, Bucky Barnes, for not wearing a parachute.
Bucky just laughs and says "Cap things chutes are for sissies."
Or, better yet, towards the end of that same series, where a villain demands that he surrender, a bloodied Cap points to the "A" printed on his mask and shouts:
"You think this letter on my head stands for FRANCE?!?!?!"
So, which of those actors can you imagine believably pulling off that role in the same way that you just nodded in total agreement about the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man? Honestly, the closest to it would be Matthew McConaughey - he's whitebread enough and, judging by his performance in "Reign of Fire" he can do intensity, but he's bit too southern to play a New Yorker, and he doesn't really have the steel in his eyes that I would want for that character.
Aaron Eckhart is pretty close, but just perhaps a bit older than I would want, simply because I have a hard time seeing him doing much of the fighting & stuntwork that goes into Captain America. Although, to be perfectly honest, Tim Roth did a great job as kind of a proto-super soldier in "The Incredible Hulk" this summer, but that was only in one scene against a CGI Hulk. Personally, I want the scene where Cap wades into a gang of 30 Hydra agents and hands them their collective asses like a red-white-and-blue fighting whirling dervish, and I want it as authentic as the fighting Messrs. Bale & Nolan put together in "The Dark Knight".
I love Wil Smith, but, I'm sorry, Captain America is not Black. Period.
Hmmm. Eric Bana? No, that would be like casting a Yankee to play James Bond.
Frankly, I don't think you need a big name. In fact, I think it's better that you go with an unknown and let him create the role.
How about Timothy Olyphant? Anybody who's seen "Deadwood" knows he's an intense bugger, can get physical, and is a heck of an actor. But, to be perfectly honest, I really want him for "Green Lantern" - he was born to play cocky test pilot Hal Jordan.
OK, now I'm really rambling. :-) I'll have a LOT more to say about Green Lantern at a later date.
The short answer is "Go with an unknown, Marvel". Captain America is not Iron Man. Everybody knows who that character is, so you don't need a star to sell the movie.
October 02, 2008
Fear of a Black President
So, this has been on my mind for a long time.
But first, a speech from Richard Truma of the AFL-CIO:
Now, lets be clear, there's race-based voting happening all over the place.
As a Democrat and as an American, I am proud of the stand, the policies, the campaign, and the kind of thoughtful, principled Federal government that Barack Obama represents. In many ways, he's an extension of what I loved so much about Dean for America.
But, as a Black man in America, I am even more proud that it is a Black man at the center of these representations.
So, yes, there are probably a fair number of people, across all races, who are voting for Barack Obama simply because he's Black.
Now, I'm going to say something that will probably get me into a lot of trouble, but, fuck it, here goes.
I have much less of a problem with people voting for Barack Obama just because he's Black than I do with people voting for, say, Michael Steele or Alan Keyes just because they're Black, because, frankly, I consider Steele and Keyes to be sellouts.
There. I said it.
And here's why.
Whenever you hear about voter suppression, it's almost always targeted at poor Black communities, and it's almost always done on behalf of Republican candidates. It's been that way since Nixon and his so-called "Southern Strategy". Someone, somewhere within the GOP has decided that they stand a better chance of getting into office when Black people are prevented from exercising their rights as American citizens to participate in the electoral process.
Now, if you're a Black conservative - you believe in strong defense (whatever that means) and lower taxes and school choice - that's all well and good. We can agree to disagree on this point, and I can respect your convictions.
But I have NEVER, EVER heard a single Black Republican condemn the obvious and well-documented history of Black voter suppression committed by their own party. Not one. Which says to me that they're more than happy to keep more people who look just like them from voting as long as it helps them advance.
If you are willing to get ahead at the expense of large numbers of people from your own ethnic background who're less fortunate than you, you have, by definition, sold out.
My larger point is, while there is plenty of race-based voting to go around, there is very little moral equivalence, in my mind.
So, just to be clear, yes, given the history of this country, I do think there is, in fact, some nobility in being more inclined to vote for Obama just because he's Black.
Now, let's look at the other side of the equation.
There are two types of anti-Obama race-based votes. There are those who just hate Black people, and there are those who are afraid of Black people.
Needless to say, there's probably quite a bit of overlap there, but I want to speak to these two camps.
Well, I only really want to speak to the 2nd camp because, frankly, if you just hate Black people, chances are, you stopped reading this blog the minute I wrote "as a Black man in America..." And, honestly, what do you and I have to say to each other? You hate me because....
Remind me why you hate me again?
Because I went to Princeton and you didn't? Nevermind the ~3000 rich white people who also got into Princeton while I was there, you're mad at me and the other Black Princetonians (who, at the time, I believe, comprised somewhere between 4-6% of the student body, i.e. half the percentage of our representation in the general population).
Because I got a certain job and you didn't? I'm always amazed when racists complain about how the negroes are taking all of their jobs. As I said before, we're only 12% of the population, and, in case you haven't noticed, a whole lot of us aren't working. Again, maybe you should talk to the 10 other white kids who got hired at that company's particular office at the same time I did. They might have a bit more to do with it, statistically speaking.
Because I hooked up with your sister? I don't know why? I mean, she sure seemed to enjoy it. :-)
Which reminds me of a story one of my college classmates told me, about a study session where the instructor made a comment about the presumed sexual prowess of the Black man, and some young white guy just blurted out "BUT THAT'S JUST A MYTH, ISN'T IT?"
Is that really what the race hatred all comes down to? Should I rename this post "Fear of a Black Penis", just to make it more accurate? And are all of these other little hate bullet points just variations on that theme - the sense of powerlessness and inadequacy that then gets personified in the form of the opposite, the other, The Blacks, and the only way you can prove that you are not, in fact, impotent, is to destroy and humiliate and dehumanize The Black?
In the end, I suppose, it's all based on fear.
There's that word again.
Which brings us to the other, probably larger camp: those who won't vote for the Black man out of fear.
Consider this report I saw a few months ago on AlJazeeraEnglish, at about 2:20 minutes in:
It's the heart of the same fear that mobilized so many in opposition to the Black Panthers. This notion that the Black people, after years of getting dumped on by the white establishment, are going to flip the script as soon as they get into power and bring some righteous retribution against the white majority.
Or, as John Stewart so succinctly put it to Senator Obama himself during an episode of "The Daily Show":
I wonder how many people know that the full name of the organization was "The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense"? Or that it was originally conceived in response to rampant police brutality and officially sanctioned violence against Blacks in cities around the country?
The short answer is, those of you who're afraid that Obama's going to mandate that all the major broadcast networks air a new reality show called "America's Next Top White Lynching", take a chill pill. Your fear has yet again demonstrated your ignorance about Black America. When we say we want what you've got, that doesn't mean we want to take it from you. It means we want one of those for ourselves. This is not a zero sum game. As my dear friend Brokenbeatnik likes to say, the pie is enormous, big enough for everybody to have as big of a slice as they like.
I mean, really, when people say they don't trust Obama or they're afraid of having a Black president, what do you really think is going to happen? Seriously?
Take a moment and really look at your fear. Spend some time with it. Talk it out.
And let's take a step back for a moment. For those of you who say "well, I don't think he's sufficiently patriotic enough to be President, what with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright and all of that."
Let's just assume, for argument's sake, that you're right. Let's assume that Obama has a negative view of America, which means he wants to be president in order to change it into something more to his liking. Let's assume all of that.
Because clearly George W. Bush and Dick Cheney love America to death. Literally.
It's like, they loved America so much that they gave the country a gigantic bear hug for the last 8 years, breaking all of our ribs and puncturing our lungs in the process. Yeah, they really loved the Hell out of America.
I think what many Whites may not understand is that Blacks are deeply acquainted with the concept of "tough love". In other words, because I love you, I'm going to tell you about all of the unpleasant stuff you don't want to know about, because I believe you can be better and I'm not going to allow you to keep slacking off.
I think we could use some of that kind of love right now. Don't you?
But first, a speech from Richard Truma of the AFL-CIO:
Now, lets be clear, there's race-based voting happening all over the place.
As a Democrat and as an American, I am proud of the stand, the policies, the campaign, and the kind of thoughtful, principled Federal government that Barack Obama represents. In many ways, he's an extension of what I loved so much about Dean for America.
But, as a Black man in America, I am even more proud that it is a Black man at the center of these representations.
So, yes, there are probably a fair number of people, across all races, who are voting for Barack Obama simply because he's Black.
Now, I'm going to say something that will probably get me into a lot of trouble, but, fuck it, here goes.
I have much less of a problem with people voting for Barack Obama just because he's Black than I do with people voting for, say, Michael Steele or Alan Keyes just because they're Black, because, frankly, I consider Steele and Keyes to be sellouts.
There. I said it.
And here's why.
Whenever you hear about voter suppression, it's almost always targeted at poor Black communities, and it's almost always done on behalf of Republican candidates. It's been that way since Nixon and his so-called "Southern Strategy". Someone, somewhere within the GOP has decided that they stand a better chance of getting into office when Black people are prevented from exercising their rights as American citizens to participate in the electoral process.
Now, if you're a Black conservative - you believe in strong defense (whatever that means) and lower taxes and school choice - that's all well and good. We can agree to disagree on this point, and I can respect your convictions.
But I have NEVER, EVER heard a single Black Republican condemn the obvious and well-documented history of Black voter suppression committed by their own party. Not one. Which says to me that they're more than happy to keep more people who look just like them from voting as long as it helps them advance.
If you are willing to get ahead at the expense of large numbers of people from your own ethnic background who're less fortunate than you, you have, by definition, sold out.
My larger point is, while there is plenty of race-based voting to go around, there is very little moral equivalence, in my mind.
So, just to be clear, yes, given the history of this country, I do think there is, in fact, some nobility in being more inclined to vote for Obama just because he's Black.
Now, let's look at the other side of the equation.
There are two types of anti-Obama race-based votes. There are those who just hate Black people, and there are those who are afraid of Black people.
Needless to say, there's probably quite a bit of overlap there, but I want to speak to these two camps.
Well, I only really want to speak to the 2nd camp because, frankly, if you just hate Black people, chances are, you stopped reading this blog the minute I wrote "as a Black man in America..." And, honestly, what do you and I have to say to each other? You hate me because....
Remind me why you hate me again?
Because I went to Princeton and you didn't? Nevermind the ~3000 rich white people who also got into Princeton while I was there, you're mad at me and the other Black Princetonians (who, at the time, I believe, comprised somewhere between 4-6% of the student body, i.e. half the percentage of our representation in the general population).
Because I got a certain job and you didn't? I'm always amazed when racists complain about how the negroes are taking all of their jobs. As I said before, we're only 12% of the population, and, in case you haven't noticed, a whole lot of us aren't working. Again, maybe you should talk to the 10 other white kids who got hired at that company's particular office at the same time I did. They might have a bit more to do with it, statistically speaking.
Because I hooked up with your sister? I don't know why? I mean, she sure seemed to enjoy it. :-)
Which reminds me of a story one of my college classmates told me, about a study session where the instructor made a comment about the presumed sexual prowess of the Black man, and some young white guy just blurted out "BUT THAT'S JUST A MYTH, ISN'T IT?"
Is that really what the race hatred all comes down to? Should I rename this post "Fear of a Black Penis", just to make it more accurate? And are all of these other little hate bullet points just variations on that theme - the sense of powerlessness and inadequacy that then gets personified in the form of the opposite, the other, The Blacks, and the only way you can prove that you are not, in fact, impotent, is to destroy and humiliate and dehumanize The Black?
In the end, I suppose, it's all based on fear.
There's that word again.
Which brings us to the other, probably larger camp: those who won't vote for the Black man out of fear.
Consider this report I saw a few months ago on AlJazeeraEnglish, at about 2:20 minutes in:
It's the heart of the same fear that mobilized so many in opposition to the Black Panthers. This notion that the Black people, after years of getting dumped on by the white establishment, are going to flip the script as soon as they get into power and bring some righteous retribution against the white majority.
Or, as John Stewart so succinctly put it to Senator Obama himself during an episode of "The Daily Show":
"Is it true that, once you're elected, you intend to enslave the white race?"
I wonder how many people know that the full name of the organization was "The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense"? Or that it was originally conceived in response to rampant police brutality and officially sanctioned violence against Blacks in cities around the country?
The short answer is, those of you who're afraid that Obama's going to mandate that all the major broadcast networks air a new reality show called "America's Next Top White Lynching", take a chill pill. Your fear has yet again demonstrated your ignorance about Black America. When we say we want what you've got, that doesn't mean we want to take it from you. It means we want one of those for ourselves. This is not a zero sum game. As my dear friend Brokenbeatnik likes to say, the pie is enormous, big enough for everybody to have as big of a slice as they like.
I mean, really, when people say they don't trust Obama or they're afraid of having a Black president, what do you really think is going to happen? Seriously?
Take a moment and really look at your fear. Spend some time with it. Talk it out.
And let's take a step back for a moment. For those of you who say "well, I don't think he's sufficiently patriotic enough to be President, what with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright and all of that."
Let's just assume, for argument's sake, that you're right. Let's assume that Obama has a negative view of America, which means he wants to be president in order to change it into something more to his liking. Let's assume all of that.
Because clearly George W. Bush and Dick Cheney love America to death. Literally.
It's like, they loved America so much that they gave the country a gigantic bear hug for the last 8 years, breaking all of our ribs and puncturing our lungs in the process. Yeah, they really loved the Hell out of America.
I think what many Whites may not understand is that Blacks are deeply acquainted with the concept of "tough love". In other words, because I love you, I'm going to tell you about all of the unpleasant stuff you don't want to know about, because I believe you can be better and I'm not going to allow you to keep slacking off.
I think we could use some of that kind of love right now. Don't you?
Coming in the air tonight
I think this video says it way better than I ever could:
Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Except for the telcos that were hoping to make a mint off of new exclusive rights, and who're already unleashing the stormtroopers of lobbying to make that happen.
Do us all a favor. Sign the petition.
Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Except for the telcos that were hoping to make a mint off of new exclusive rights, and who're already unleashing the stormtroopers of lobbying to make that happen.
Do us all a favor. Sign the petition.
October 01, 2008
You ARE registered to vote, right?
Maybe I'm just naive.
I simply cannot think of a single person who might potentially be reading this blog who is SO disconnected that they're not yet registered to vote. It would really just astound me, absolutely astound me to find someone on here who's not registered to vote.
Like, the crazy Jamaican guy next door might not be registered to vote, but, like I said, he's crazy. "Crazy" as in "talks to the side of your head, not to your face, before spontaneously bursting out into reggae free-style lyrics" crazy. Like "punching my driveway gate and cursing at me then saying that he would never do something like that 15 minutes later" crazy. That joker may not even be a citizen.
And, if you haven't guessed, he clearly does not read this blog.
That I know of.
I guess I have to go have a conversation with him.
Maybe I'll talk to his wife, first. She seems, well, normal. Except for being married to him.
But, you get my point.
Are you seriously not registered to vote? SERIOUSLY? Are you actually in the same category as THAT dude?
Wow.
Uhm, go handle that right now.
Thank you.
September 30, 2008
Review: Let The Right One In
Well, more specifically, vampire movies. I've just seen so many and I feel like it's all been done and it's so cliched and the metaphors of vampires for sex or vampires for AIDS or whatever.
I'm just tired. Sick and tired.
Where are the new monsters, people?
When I got to Comic-Con this past summer and saw the signs for HBO's new series "True Blood" plastered all over the place, I think I rolled my eyes for five days straight. And the only reason I even bothered Tivo-ing the pilot episode of the show is because my roommate is an obsessive fan of Christine Feehan's Dark Series and I figured she would like it.
OK, so, maybe I'm not THAT tired of vampires.
I totally overlooked the social metaphors inherent in the Sookie Stackhouse stories, and I have to admit that True Blood has been one of the more consistently compelling hours of TV drama I've seen in the while.
It's good stuff.
So, when I got the invite to check out the Swedish vampire flick "Let The Right One In" as part of Mahalo.com's inaugural Movie Night here in Los Angeles, I was already primed for something good.
It didn't hurt that the film had gotten a nice mention on American Movie Classic's horror movie blog, MonsterFest, as a part of their emerging thesis that all of the good horror is coming from places other than North America (a thesis, with a few notable exceptions, that I tend to agree with).
I must say, even though I found parts of the pacing to be excruciatingly slow, "Let The Right One In" is an incredibly haunting film. It kind of takes the notion of Claudia from "Interview with The Vampire" and explores it to it's full potential. What would it be like to 12 years old... forever? And what's the inherent heartbreak of knowing you can only truly find love with a child, who'll always grow old, always disappoint, always become less than what they were, while you stand still in time?
In many ways, it's heartbreaking, even though it appears to have a happy ending, because we already know what the REAL ending is.
Which, of course, is not to say that it doesn't have it's crazy, only-in-a-vampire-movie moments. The vampire/house cat battle royal has to be seen to be believed.
And I cannot say enough about the two young leads, especially Lina Leandersson. You can totally understand how, even knowing exactly what she is, a lonely young boy could just completely lose himself in her pleading eyes, eternal hellfire be damned.
If you have the patience, it's definitely worth it.
Class War
I wish I could remember who said this first, but I read where some old social scientist said that the problem with democracy is that, eventually, the majority figures out that they can pass a law that just gives them all of the money in the society.
Consider that as you think about the current credit crisis. Eight years ago, we had a massive surplus in taxpayer revenues. Today, we're on the cusp of the biggest deficit in our history, and the vast majority of that money has gone to private entities with no oversight or competitive bids. And now they want to give an extra trillion on the way out the door.
I'm sort of in agreement with Randi Rhodes - we may be witnessing the biggest bank heist in the history of mankind.
And it's an inside job.
Consider that as you think about the current credit crisis. Eight years ago, we had a massive surplus in taxpayer revenues. Today, we're on the cusp of the biggest deficit in our history, and the vast majority of that money has gone to private entities with no oversight or competitive bids. And now they want to give an extra trillion on the way out the door.
I'm sort of in agreement with Randi Rhodes - we may be witnessing the biggest bank heist in the history of mankind.
And it's an inside job.
September 26, 2008
But, then again, what do I know?
Well, I clearly seem to be in the minority opinion tonight. Just about everybody else gives the victory to Obama by varying degrees.
Which, frankly, is fine by me. I'll take the "w".
If everyone else thought this was a great performance, here's hoping they're all pleasantly shocked when he delivers the coup de grâce in the final debate just before the election.
Now, on to the REALLY juicy one - the VP debate. I think it will be akin to how one sportscaster once described a Mike Tyson fight: it's thrilling because literally anything can happen.
Which, frankly, is fine by me. I'll take the "w".
If everyone else thought this was a great performance, here's hoping they're all pleasantly shocked when he delivers the coup de grâce in the final debate just before the election.
Now, on to the REALLY juicy one - the VP debate. I think it will be akin to how one sportscaster once described a Mike Tyson fight: it's thrilling because literally anything can happen.
Knives in GunFights
I remember back in college watching Shaquille O'Neal play for LSU during the NCAA tournament. He was an absolute monster - at one point, it seemed as though the entire opposing team was defending Shaq as he stood under the basket, and the other four members of the LSU team all just stood outside of the 3 point line WITH THE BALL, completely dumbfounded as to what they should do next.
They passed the ball to Shaq through quadruple coverage, and he still dunked it for the score.
He was a freight train. And if it wasn't for the other scrubs on that team, he would have been completely unstoppable.
In 1995, Shaq lead the Orlando Magic to the NBA Finals in only his 3rd season in the league.
And this unstoppable superman and his team got swept by the Houston Rockets and one of Shaq's idols, Hakeem Olajuwon. Swept and embarassed.
Shaq admits that this was only the second time in his life that he cried openly. And he said he father told him "I think you paid Mr. Olajuwon a little too much respect."
I watched tonight's debate literally screaming at the TV.
McCain left himself open to at least a half-dozen areas of attack tonight, and Obama didn't take a single one. Not one. Meanwhile, McCain built an argument across the entire debate, like a prosecutor making a case - "Senator Obama just doesn't understand A, B, and C", and concluded that Barack doesn't possess the wisdom or judgement to be president.
And all the while, Obama opened damn near every statement with "John is right about this".
Like Al Gore said, you've got to be ready to rip your opponent's lungs out in a debate.
Obama is brilliant, and charismatic, and has the collective hopes and dreams and positive wishes of an entire generation behind him.
But, as my roommate pointed out, "they still crucified Jesus."
That debate performance may have just cost us the election.
God help us.
They passed the ball to Shaq through quadruple coverage, and he still dunked it for the score.
He was a freight train. And if it wasn't for the other scrubs on that team, he would have been completely unstoppable.
In 1995, Shaq lead the Orlando Magic to the NBA Finals in only his 3rd season in the league.
And this unstoppable superman and his team got swept by the Houston Rockets and one of Shaq's idols, Hakeem Olajuwon. Swept and embarassed.
Shaq admits that this was only the second time in his life that he cried openly. And he said he father told him "I think you paid Mr. Olajuwon a little too much respect."
I watched tonight's debate literally screaming at the TV.
McCain left himself open to at least a half-dozen areas of attack tonight, and Obama didn't take a single one. Not one. Meanwhile, McCain built an argument across the entire debate, like a prosecutor making a case - "Senator Obama just doesn't understand A, B, and C", and concluded that Barack doesn't possess the wisdom or judgement to be president.
And all the while, Obama opened damn near every statement with "John is right about this".
Like Al Gore said, you've got to be ready to rip your opponent's lungs out in a debate.
Obama is brilliant, and charismatic, and has the collective hopes and dreams and positive wishes of an entire generation behind him.
But, as my roommate pointed out, "they still crucified Jesus."
That debate performance may have just cost us the election.
God help us.
President? But why?
I have a Democratic friend who, to this day, is still violently pissed off over the 2000 election. He emailed me a message that had been forwarded to him by a mutual acquaintance by some anti-gay zealot and asked my opinion.
Now, anyone who's a longtime reader of Macroscope knows, I have very strong feelings in favor of gay rights: In my opinion, the way we as heterosexuals brought up in Christian traditions treat homosexuals, personally & politically, is the very definition of putting your faith in action. And I don't think God will look kindly on those who use anachronistic scriptures to justify their bigotry, while ignoring those very same scriptures on things like personal hygiene.
In other words, I have no patience for gay bashers of any stripe, and it really offends me when other people of faith defend or exalt them.
So, when I responded to my friend, I pretty quickly dissected the zealot's argument and dismissed it. At which point my friend responded by forwarding the response of our mutual acquaintance to MY response (Yeah, I know - read it again if it's confusing), where he basically called me a bunch of names.
I was pretty pissed off, and responded in kind. And my friend had the nerve to respond, in so many words, "why are you so angry?"
In other words, he'd asked my opinion out of the blue. I gave it. He then forwarded me, unsolicited, an insult in response to my opinion, and then was perplexed that I might be a tad miffed.
That whole exchange just showed me that there are some people who actually really love to fight. I have an ex who once told me that the way her family showed that they loved each other was that they'd scream and yell and argue with each other until everybody started crying. And then they'd hug and make up.
It's like "Fight Club" - some people need to be punched in the face to feel alive, so they'll go around punching other people in the face just to earn a new knuckle sandwich.
I don't enjoy fighting. I never have. It simply doesn't feel good.
That's why I had to stop seeing that girl (which was, shall we say, messy).
That's why I stopped arguing politics with my brother, the Republican.
And that's why I stopped responding to the e-mails that this particular friend sends me that are political in nature.
It just doesn't feel good.
And, ultimately, fighting just for fighting's sake is a waste of time. I'm much more interested in having a discussion where both sides are open to being swayed. If you can change my mind and I can change your mind, well, that's a conversation worth having.
Conversation, mind you. Not argument. Not even discussion. Conversation. Dialogue.
But I can see the Fight Seekers coming a mile a way, now. On both sides of the aisle, someone will post something provocative about one or the other candidate, just to get a rise out of their supporters, and then it will just be ON!
And far too many of us non-combatants fall into this vicious cycle - we think this is the only way to participate and respond: with verbal fists.
Is anyone, then, still surprised at how poisoned our political process is today?
So, here's my challenge to you all:
Tell me why YOU are voting FOR your candidate. And not just "because we need change" or "I believe in strong defense", because, frankly, those aren't answers. Tell me what you think is the most important, concrete, actual THING you expect either Barack Obama or John McCain to do once either one gets into office, and why.
And be forewarned, McCainites - if your response is "He'll win the war in Iraq", I expect you to say both how you define winning, and how you expect him to achieve it. No more of this Nixonian "I have a secret plan to end the war" bullshit.
(And, let's be honest, if MCain really does have a plan, why hasn't he shared it with the President? I'm sure he'd appreciate the help)
Personally, the single most important thing I expect Obama to do as president is begin planning & implementing some sort of phased withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq. Why?
- It will stop the unnecessary drain of literally billions of dollars from our treasury during a time of fiscal & economic chaos.
- It will free our military to deal with the REAL terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
- It will stop the series of accidental Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of American soldiers, which just generates more potential terrorists.
- It will show the world that America, in the end, does finally learn from its mistakes.
September 20, 2008
Feudalism
You know, I try to keep my inner "crazy-conspiracy-theorist" in check, but sometimes....
So, if the United States government assumes sweeping authority to actually take ownership of millions of mortgages, essentially becoming the landowner for vast tracks of the American landscape....
I mean, isn't this kind of "eminent domain" taking to its absolutely worst extreme?
So, if the United States government assumes sweeping authority to actually take ownership of millions of mortgages, essentially becoming the landowner for vast tracks of the American landscape....
I mean, isn't this kind of "eminent domain" taking to its absolutely worst extreme?
September 17, 2008
Tina Fay as Sarah Palin was great, BUT....
...what I'm really waiting for is for Saturday Night Live to bring back Jon Lovitz so he can do John McCain as Tommy Flanagan, Pathological Liar.
"Yeah, when I said the economy was strong, I was talking about the biceps on the workers. Yeah, that's the ticket."
"Yeah, when I said the economy was strong, I was talking about the biceps on the workers. Yeah, that's the ticket."
Living in a Post-Rational World
So, before all of you liberals, progressives, and Democrats start doing the electoral victory dance because the failing economy has turned the tide presumably in Obama's favor, let me make one observation:
Although most people don't want to admit it, the vast majority of the electorate does not cast a vote for a specific policy or issue, even when they say they do. They're not voting for the issue, but for their emotional response to the issue.
They're not voting FOR a pro-life platform - they're voting because aligning themselves with the pro-life platform makes them FEEL better about their relationship with God.
They're not voting FOR environmental platform - they're voting because aligning with conservationism makes them FEEL like responsible stewards of the planet.
They're not voting FOR gun control - they're voting because the idea of gun control makes them FEEL safer.
As I mentioned earlier, Republicans figured this out a long time ago and decided to just cut out the middle man: they don't even really bother to run on issues anymore. Their campaigns are almost like reality TV shows, with characters cast in the roles as candidates to elicit specific emotional responses.
"The Maverick"
"The Hockey Mom"
"The Guy You'd Like To Have A Beer With"
Bill Clinton got it. He was "The Man From A Place Called 'Hope'".
Obama gets it, too. Just look at the early speeches.
The point is, if you're pinning your hopes for the election on convincing people with a rational argument about taxes and incentives and plans and such, I've got news for you: the average American is not listening.
They're feeling.
And if you want to win, you'd better start feeling and sharing and eliciting those feelings right along with them.
Although most people don't want to admit it, the vast majority of the electorate does not cast a vote for a specific policy or issue, even when they say they do. They're not voting for the issue, but for their emotional response to the issue.
They're not voting FOR a pro-life platform - they're voting because aligning themselves with the pro-life platform makes them FEEL better about their relationship with God.
They're not voting FOR environmental platform - they're voting because aligning with conservationism makes them FEEL like responsible stewards of the planet.
They're not voting FOR gun control - they're voting because the idea of gun control makes them FEEL safer.
As I mentioned earlier, Republicans figured this out a long time ago and decided to just cut out the middle man: they don't even really bother to run on issues anymore. Their campaigns are almost like reality TV shows, with characters cast in the roles as candidates to elicit specific emotional responses.
"The Maverick"
"The Hockey Mom"
"The Guy You'd Like To Have A Beer With"
Bill Clinton got it. He was "The Man From A Place Called 'Hope'".
Obama gets it, too. Just look at the early speeches.
The point is, if you're pinning your hopes for the election on convincing people with a rational argument about taxes and incentives and plans and such, I've got news for you: the average American is not listening.
They're feeling.
And if you want to win, you'd better start feeling and sharing and eliciting those feelings right along with them.
September 12, 2008
The Place Where Dreams Are Born
Let me wax poetic for a moment.
A few days ago, I wrote a blog post about the use of both negative and positive manifestation through the manipulation of collective emotional energy in the election process. I titled it "Before Sunrise", to hearken back to my Election '04 postmortem, "The Sun WILL Rise" (with a little nod to Richard Linklater), but also because so many of us seemed to be in a dark, scary place during this part of the election cycle, and, as they say, it's always darkest before the dawn.
But what else happens in the dark before the dawn?
We dream.
One of my dreams as I wrote that blog was that there would be a place where people could share their dreams and hopes and aspirations for the future of this country and the world, and where that collective, beautiful, joyous energy could coalesce into powerful, inspired action.
So, imagine my shock when a friend pointed me to this brand new blog:
Change. Hope. Dream.
Yes, a new blog, inspired by MY blog, that does exactly what I was hoping for.
Talk about a manifestation!
Dreams do become real.
So, GO THERE. Share your dreams. Share the blog. Help us all conjure the real magic that will transform the world around us.
A few days ago, I wrote a blog post about the use of both negative and positive manifestation through the manipulation of collective emotional energy in the election process. I titled it "Before Sunrise", to hearken back to my Election '04 postmortem, "The Sun WILL Rise" (with a little nod to Richard Linklater), but also because so many of us seemed to be in a dark, scary place during this part of the election cycle, and, as they say, it's always darkest before the dawn.
But what else happens in the dark before the dawn?
We dream.
One of my dreams as I wrote that blog was that there would be a place where people could share their dreams and hopes and aspirations for the future of this country and the world, and where that collective, beautiful, joyous energy could coalesce into powerful, inspired action.
So, imagine my shock when a friend pointed me to this brand new blog:
Change. Hope. Dream.
Yes, a new blog, inspired by MY blog, that does exactly what I was hoping for.
Talk about a manifestation!
Dreams do become real.
So, GO THERE. Share your dreams. Share the blog. Help us all conjure the real magic that will transform the world around us.
September 10, 2008
Before Sunrise
I love logic.
That comes from my training and natural inclinations towards math, science, and the rational process. I like to know how and why things work.
I have also always been a creature of faith.
Perhaps it's the rural roots of my family and our own brushes with the esoteric and unseen.
And I don't consider these to be mutually exclusive.
One of my all-time favorite books is "Fire In The Mind" by George Johnson. In it, he examines a pair of seemingly mutually exclusive systems of thought in Santa Fe, New Mexico - the nuclear physics labs in Los Alamos and the traditional religions of the local Native American tribes - and shows that, in many ways, they have much more in common than the average person would think. After all, whether it's a sky god or an electron, they both use a series of instruments and tools to predict the behavior of things we cannot experience directly with our 5 senses, but which they both assume have a direct impact on your everyday life.
So, let's start with a somewhat lazy logical argument:
I'm an enormous believer in Arthur C. Clarke's so-called Third Law of Prediction:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"And by "technology", I'm pretty much in agreement with Wikipedia's initial definition that it is "a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment."
Now, if that's true, than the logic student in me would also posit a corollary - that anything that appears to be magic is simply the usage and knowledge of a series of tools and crafts that the observer does not fully understand.
In short, magic is simply a science you haven't figured out yet.
Which is why I'm a big fan of John Dee.
For those of you who don't know, Dee was, officially, the queen's surgeon, as in Queen Elizabeth I of England, way back in the 16th century. Not only was Dee a scientist and a mathematician of the first order, he was also a specialist in mysticism and the occult. So, not only did the queen turn to Dee for his scientific acumen, but she relied on him to interpret her dreams, to check the path and influence of the stars, etc. Because, of course, back in those days, if you were a scholar, you studied everything and treated it all with equal weight based on the actual results, without having a bias to one system of thought over another (e.g. rational science over mysticism).
But, you'll notice, individuals in positions of power almost always have someone next to them, just behind the scenes, who is doing.... something that the average layman doesn't quite understand.
Every King Arthur has a Merlin behind him to "work the roots", as they used to say back in "the country", to help him stay in power.
Now, I'm sure some of you have read this and said "wow, Day really hides his insanity quite well. I had no idea he was such a madman."
And that's OK, because I needed to put what I'm about to say in some context first.
I want to talk about Karl Rove.
I know what you're thinking.
And, yes, you're 100% right - I AM saying that Rove is to Bush as Merlin is to King Arthur or Gandalf is to Aragorn and so on and so on.
And it didn't fully click for me until today. Here's why.
Right after the 2004 Presidential election, I wrote a post called "The Sun WILL Rise", in which I said the reason why Bush won was because he was, literally, The Candidate of Fear (tm). The entire electorate had bought into the fear paradigm - Republicans were afraid of what might happen to them if Bush lost, and Democrats were afraid of what might happen if Bush won. But the fact of the matter was that everyone's attention and emotional energy was all focused on Bush. Our collective national fear put him in office.
So, as I wrote in a 2006 blog called "The California Democratic Party Sucks", I was no longer going to vote out of fear ever again, even if the absence of my vote for Phil Angelides meant that Arnold would get re-elected governor. I was only going to vote FOR what I believed in, not AGAINST anything.
And, yes, Arnold was re-elected, but, if you look at his record since then, for all intents and purposes, he may as well have been a blue-dog Democrat for the last two years.
Now, consider what's happened this year - there had been a tremendous amount of positive energy flowing in Barack Obama's direction. He figured out that it wasn't enough to have good policies. You also had to inspire people and activate their hearts. Luckily, he also has the skills to do that. The Democrats were on their way to a landslide victory.
Until McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Oh, wait - let me clarify that.
Until Karl Rove and his surrogates who are now running McCain's campaign forced him to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
And, while everyone on the left and in the media is screaming "but she's completely unqualified!!! She's a right-wing ideologue!!! She has a history of misuse of power!!!", they've all completely missed the point.
The Rovians made McCain pick her BECAUSE she's unqualified. BECAUSE she's an ideologue. BECAUSE she has a history of misusing power.
They picked her because she terrifies us.
Sarah Palin is The New Candidate of Fear (tm).
And now, instead of all this talk about hope and the future, we get Democrats and Obama supporters running around with their hair literally on fire over the possibility of President Palin.
I mean, people who've been completely silent over the course of this entire campaign have suddenly been bombarding me with crazed e-mails, sounding like Randy Quaid in "Independence Day":
"We've got to stop them!!!!!!"The entire focus of the campaign is now on her - those who love her, and those who're afraid of her. And, at the moment, our collective national fear is putting her in office.
The manipulation of the emotional state of a group of people as large as a voting electorate is a science that Rove has employed for decades to adjust and control the political landscape to his liking. A science that the average person simply doesn't understand.
It's magic.
So, for those of you who support Barack Obama like I do, here's the plan - remember how you felt when you saw this?
Don't be misled by the news or the opposition: Our candidate gets it. He knows the power of the collective American spirit is what has propelled him this far and is what can bring him to victory.
So, from now until Election Day, stop forwarding all of those e-mails about how crazy Sarah Palin is.
Instead, tell me stories about the America you dream about.
The President and leadership you hope for.
The Future you believe in.
Write about your own faith in tomorrow, and forward THAT email to everybody in your address book. Re-ignite your belief in the horizon and pass those on to everyone you know.
There's a reason why this is Obama's logo:
To paraphrase Harvey Dent, it's always darkest before the dawn, but keep dreaming about the warmth of the sun on your face, and I promise you, THE DAWN IS COMING.
And remember to vote FOR Obama.
September 01, 2008
Lords of Illusions
I think both the haphazard process McCain employed to pick her as well as her own general lightweightness as a national candidate, not to mention McCain's proposed trip to the Gulf Coast while local officials are trying to prepare for a freakin' hurricane.... all of this simply reinforces the reality that the modern Republican party (at least, at the national level) is far more interested in symbolism and appearances than in actually, you know, doing what they're elected to do.
Let's LOOK like I'm doing something to respond to the hurricane.
Let's LOOK like I actually vetted my potential running mate.
Let's pick someone who literally LOOKS like she could appeal to the Hilary voters.
Let's drill for oil off our shores so that we LOOK like we're doing something for high gas prices.
Let's pass a law called "No Child Left Behind" so that it LOOKS like we're not leaving any children behing.
Let's pass a law called "Clear Skies" or something so that it LOOKS like we're doing something about the environment.
The GOP is just a massive sleight of hand being perpetrated on the American populace. There's no "there" there.
Let's LOOK like I'm doing something to respond to the hurricane.
Let's LOOK like I actually vetted my potential running mate.
Let's pick someone who literally LOOKS like she could appeal to the Hilary voters.
Let's drill for oil off our shores so that we LOOK like we're doing something for high gas prices.
Let's pass a law called "No Child Left Behind" so that it LOOKS like we're not leaving any children behing.
Let's pass a law called "Clear Skies" or something so that it LOOKS like we're doing something about the environment.
The GOP is just a massive sleight of hand being perpetrated on the American populace. There's no "there" there.
August 29, 2008
Human Shield
Given the verbal smackdown he received at the hands of Obama last night, isn't McCain's selection of Gov. Palin kind of the equivalent of The Macho Man Randy Savage pulling Miss Elizabeth between himself and the Ultimate Warrior and saying "you wouldn't hit a girl, would you?"
Of course, if he'd picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the GOP version of Sensational Sherri, it might be a different story....
Of course, if he'd picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the GOP version of Sensational Sherri, it might be a different story....
What You Got To Say NOW?
Watching that Obama acceptance speech tonight, I kept thinking back to the end of "8 Mile", with Eminem in the final MC battle against his nemesis, Papa Doc, the head of the so-called "Leaders of the Free World" clique.
Now, for those of you who've never seen an MC Battle before, it's basically a competitive performance where two rappers are given a fixed period of time in a hip-hop club to mock each other with rhyming lyrics they make up on the spot, i.e. freestyle. The crowd decides which one dissed the other the hardest, and awards him the victory.
By this point in the film, Eminem, who lived in a trailer park with his broke down mom (Kim Basinger) had just gotten his ass kicked by the entire Free World crew in a team beatdown, after one of them had had sex with his new girlfriend. And his own crew were so lame that one of them had even shot himself in the foot trying to be tough.
But watch how it all plays out. It's profane, but, man, is it worth it.
After that total tongue lashing, where Eminem basically threw every attack he knew was coming right back in Papa Doc's face, he as completely speechless and was booed off stage. Eminem wins.
I'm saying all of that to say, what could John McCain and the Republicans possibly say next week in response to Obama tonight that could have any weight or value?
Obama just asked McCain and the Rovians "Is THAT the best you've got?"
The balls in your court, boys.
August 22, 2008
Saving Superman
Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies - WSJ.com
I think the WSJ article above is somewhat encouraging to me, as both a movie fan and a comic fan on a number of levels:
- I think we can all finally agree that "Superman Returns" was a failure.
- I think we can all finally agree that a "JLA" movie as a spin-off spaminator is a bad idea.
- I think we're all starting to agree that comic book movies do not have to be aimed at small children, since comic books themselves stopped being aimed at them at least 20 years ago.
But Superman is different.
And, frankly, all this talk about how Superman is no longer relevant in today's world is a bunch of B.S. In fact, I think Superman is even MORE relevant than ever.
What most don't seem to get is that the best Superman stories are, essentially, morality plays. When you can do ANYTHING, it's not the physical obstacles that are the challenges, it's the CHOICES you must make.
Moreover, Superman's purpose is not just to save us physically, but to save our spirits by inspiring us to be better.
Honestly, in my dream version of "Superman Returns", he comes back and finds that the Earth has turned into....
naw. Can't give that one away. I may still get the call. :-)
Point being, you don't hire Paul Greengrass to direct a Superman movie. With the right script, I actually really like the idea of Tim Burton - the Tim Burton who did "Big Fish" and "Mars Attacks", not "Nightmare Before Christmas" Burton - making it into a sort of modern fairytale.
On second thought, the guy who could REALLY do it right would have been Luc Besson from about 10 years ago - Leelo Dallas was basically a female version of Superman.
In short, I'm cautiously optimistic. I'll relax when I see someone with real DC Comic street cred step up to be the Warner's equivalent of Avi Arad.
August 10, 2008
The Half-Way Mark
According to the CDC, as of 2004, the average life expectancy for a Black Man in the United States is 69.8 years.
Three days ago, I turned 35.
It's sobering to know that my government now considers my life half over.
Especially since I feel like it's really just getting started.
But then, I suppose I've been beating the statistics since the day I was born. A girl once pointed out to me on a date some 15 years ago, I was young black man from Baltimore who'd never been to jail, had no children, and was in the process of receiving an Ivy League education. "You don't realize how unique you are", she said.
Wow. 15 years ago.
My best friend just pointed out in his birthday wishes on my Facebook page that we've been friends for nearly 30 years. I can barely process the fact that I can measure anything over such a long period of time.
I can vividly remember my brother pumping his fists in the hospital the day that his son was born. Three months ago, that little baby just graduated from college. In the pictures from my recent trip to Comic-Con, my young cousin the photographer made a point of acknowledging me as "his older cousin".
But, for all of this talk about age, why can't I stop smiling this week?
Why do I feel so.... alive?
I feel like I've waited my entire life to be this age.
All week long, as people ask me how was my birthday and how do I feel to be another year older, I keep telling them the same thing:
I feel GRAND. In every sense of the word.
This has been a great year. And the next one? Even better.
Thank you everyone for all of the calls, emails, notes, well wishes, free drinks, cards, unmentionables, and everything else I've gotten in tribute this week. You all make every single moment sparkle like new money, and I appreciate every second.
Now, time to get back to it!
Three days ago, I turned 35.
It's sobering to know that my government now considers my life half over.
Especially since I feel like it's really just getting started.
But then, I suppose I've been beating the statistics since the day I was born. A girl once pointed out to me on a date some 15 years ago, I was young black man from Baltimore who'd never been to jail, had no children, and was in the process of receiving an Ivy League education. "You don't realize how unique you are", she said.
Wow. 15 years ago.
My best friend just pointed out in his birthday wishes on my Facebook page that we've been friends for nearly 30 years. I can barely process the fact that I can measure anything over such a long period of time.
I can vividly remember my brother pumping his fists in the hospital the day that his son was born. Three months ago, that little baby just graduated from college. In the pictures from my recent trip to Comic-Con, my young cousin the photographer made a point of acknowledging me as "his older cousin".
But, for all of this talk about age, why can't I stop smiling this week?
Why do I feel so.... alive?
I feel like I've waited my entire life to be this age.
All week long, as people ask me how was my birthday and how do I feel to be another year older, I keep telling them the same thing:
I feel GRAND. In every sense of the word.
This has been a great year. And the next one? Even better.
Thank you everyone for all of the calls, emails, notes, well wishes, free drinks, cards, unmentionables, and everything else I've gotten in tribute this week. You all make every single moment sparkle like new money, and I appreciate every second.
Now, time to get back to it!
August 08, 2008
I should have listened to my mother
Last Christmas, when we were all sitting around chatting about the upcoming election over some Yultide dessert, my mother, a fairly reliable progressive Democrat, said that, while she was a Hilary girl who found herself falling head over heels for Obama, under no circumstances whatsoever would she vote for John Edwards.
I was shocked.
That's when several of my cousins also nodded in agreement.
"Why?" I asked my family. "Why not Edwards?"
The response?
"There's just something about him. He just seems shifty".
I couldn't see it. I'd been a fan of Edwards from back in '04 - he was actually my choice before I became a Deaniac. He seemed to be the guy who'd be forceful in his defense of progressive beliefs and values, almost to the point of recklessness. No one could deny how passionate he was. Surely no one could doubt that, given the chance, he'd be a good advocate for that other America he kept talking about.
No, let's be honest.
I didn't WANT to see it.
Not even subconsciously.
This election has been a real education as to how so many negative traits aren't just inherent in members of a given party.
Because a man who'll do anything for a given cause, no matter how noble it may be, is, by definition, a man who cannot be trusted. And it's just as true of John Edwards as it is about George W. Bush.
I was shocked.
That's when several of my cousins also nodded in agreement.
"Why?" I asked my family. "Why not Edwards?"
The response?
"There's just something about him. He just seems shifty".
I couldn't see it. I'd been a fan of Edwards from back in '04 - he was actually my choice before I became a Deaniac. He seemed to be the guy who'd be forceful in his defense of progressive beliefs and values, almost to the point of recklessness. No one could deny how passionate he was. Surely no one could doubt that, given the chance, he'd be a good advocate for that other America he kept talking about.
No, let's be honest.
I didn't WANT to see it.
Not even subconsciously.
This election has been a real education as to how so many negative traits aren't just inherent in members of a given party.
Because a man who'll do anything for a given cause, no matter how noble it may be, is, by definition, a man who cannot be trusted. And it's just as true of John Edwards as it is about George W. Bush.
July 17, 2008
Eight Months To Midnight
The clock is officially ticking.
It took 22 years for the seminal graphic novel "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" to give birth to a movie version of the Caped Crusader that truly matched its sensibilities both in tone and substance, namely Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight".
Although, to be fair, "The Dark Knight"'s actual literary reference points are "Batman: The Killing Joke" and "Batman: The Long Halloween", featuring The Joker and Two-Face, respectively, but "The Dark Knight Returns" really reshaped the character into something much more rich and essential.
Three months after the last issue of "The Dark Knight Returns" shipped to comic stores, a comic with a blood-stained smiley face on the cover appeared on the newsstands that asked a very simple question:
How would the world that we know actually have changed if a man gained superhuman powers and declared himself our protector?That was the beginning of "Watchmen", by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. And what Frank Miller did for Batman in "The Dark Knight Returns", Moore & Gibbons did for the entire genre of superheroes.
So, now that this is the year that the superhero movie has finally arrived (thank you Iron Man, Hulk, Hellboy, and Batman), it's only fitting that the story that dismantled superheroes should follow right behind.
Friends, the trailer for Zack Snyder's movie adaptation of "Watchmen":
Will this be as rich and satisfying and as qualitative a film as "The Dark Knight" appears to be? Doubtful. Chris Nolan is a singular storyteller who wrestles every single aspect of the film to make it tell the story, and nothing more. Zack Snyder is a director with a tremendous visual eye and a great sense for good stories. But the difference between them is Nolan is also a writer, and Snyder is not. In fact, when Snyder says that he's absolutely committed to everything put on the page in the Watchmen graphic novel, that actually makes me MORE nervous about the final film. Slavish devotion to a literary piece is not what makes for a great film.
Just ask Mark Steven Johnson, who directed Daredevil and Ghost Rider.
In fact, I would even suggest that the reason why The Dark Knight surpasses Spider-Man and Iron Man is that Nolan was willing to jettison whatever didn't fully support what he felt was the basic premise of Batman - a regular man who makes himself into a superhero through the application of his wealth and force of will in self-mastery. It's the absolute commitment to reality that makes The Dark Knight transcend other films in the genre.
And, frankly, given the basic premise of "Watchmen", that should be the same basis of that film as well.At least, that's what I would do. :-)
In other words, I seriously doubt there will be any Oscar buzz around Watchmen.
But I DO think it it will be a fabulously fun movie, with the potential to be a very provocative film in the vein of "The Dark Knight" if they stay true to the heart of the story itself.
In short, I'm excited! Can't wait.
July 04, 2008
"Meet My FIST!!!" 2008
It seems like, in every election, there's someone who really needs to get their ass kicked.
Back in 2004, it was Ralph Nader - enter Howard Dean to administer the verbal beatdown in a debate, as I described here.
Ultimately, the debate I really wanted that year was Dean v. Bush, which I just knew would devolve into a fist fight on national TV.
But this year, my friends, we may get the next best thing.
Because someone somewhere had the delicious foresight to pit Karl Rove against John Edwards in a debate. Excuse me, potentially, in a SERIES of debates.
Just the thought of watching Turd Blossom getting his teeth kicked in verbally by this year's Angry Man Progressive is far too juicy to ignore.
I can't WAIT!
July 01, 2008
Counting Down on Oil
I'm reminded of my days back in Princeton, when many students of color were passionately lobbying the university to add an Ethnic Studies program to the curriculum through a series of rallies, protests, even a sit-in of the President's office. In the midst of this, were were a number of students who, at best, acted as devil's advocates that actively engaged the protesters on these issues. On many occasions, these Devil's advocates would make statements that were often contradictory, but were all individually inflammatory. As a result, some of these passionate protesters would become so incensed that they'd loose sight of their ultimate goal as they tried to shout down the inherent stupidness of elements of the opposition.
These so-called Devil's advocates, of course, grow up to be the Tucker Carlsons of the world.
And, in many cases, these well-intentioned passionates grow up to be Keith Olberman.
As much as I love and enjoy "Countdown with Keith Olberman", I suppose I must remind myself that, as often insightful and passionate as he can be, he can often loose sight of the forest for those damned trees.
Case in point: my recent post about his recent segment, laying much of the blame for high oil prices at the feet of Enron, oil speculators, former Senator & Mrs. Phil Graham, and, by proxy and omission, John McCain. As a number of commentators pointed out in that post, and, as this New Yorker article linked in the title addresses, while speculators can assume some of the blame, much of it must be laid at the feet of the insane growth of oil demand. Now, I'm still not entirely convinced that there isn't whole scale market manipulation, but I would not be doing my due diligence to not give voice to these other, potentially stronger factors.
And, as the New Yorker points out, these regulatory measures against speculators may, in some ways, be as much of a political stunt as the gas tax holiday proposal from the spring. While I believe it's clearly a more substantive stunt, it still beats up a familiar bogeyman for the public while not addressing the fundamental, underlying issues.
These so-called Devil's advocates, of course, grow up to be the Tucker Carlsons of the world.
And, in many cases, these well-intentioned passionates grow up to be Keith Olberman.
As much as I love and enjoy "Countdown with Keith Olberman", I suppose I must remind myself that, as often insightful and passionate as he can be, he can often loose sight of the forest for those damned trees.
Case in point: my recent post about his recent segment, laying much of the blame for high oil prices at the feet of Enron, oil speculators, former Senator & Mrs. Phil Graham, and, by proxy and omission, John McCain. As a number of commentators pointed out in that post, and, as this New Yorker article linked in the title addresses, while speculators can assume some of the blame, much of it must be laid at the feet of the insane growth of oil demand. Now, I'm still not entirely convinced that there isn't whole scale market manipulation, but I would not be doing my due diligence to not give voice to these other, potentially stronger factors.
And, as the New Yorker points out, these regulatory measures against speculators may, in some ways, be as much of a political stunt as the gas tax holiday proposal from the spring. While I believe it's clearly a more substantive stunt, it still beats up a familiar bogeyman for the public while not addressing the fundamental, underlying issues.
June 19, 2008
There Has Been Blood
Whenever I've been watching one of the billions of presidential debates over the last few months, my roommate has occasionally asked me "what are they going to do to bring these gas prices down?" And my answer has been pretty pathetic: "uhm, there's not enough refineries, and China's increasing the demand, so it's out of their control until we switch to renewable fuels.... I think".
But the more I really thought about it, the more that simply didn't make sense. If Exxon is making a BILLION dollars in profit for the first three months of this year, that means that their revenues have vastly outpaced their expenditures. So, even if the processing of crude oil had become so much more expensive because of bottlenecks in the pipeline, which would, presumably, drive up the price of a barrel of oil, it still doesn't account for the huge profit disparity.
And then I saw this segment on "Countdown with Keith Olberman" last night.
In short, it's all Enron's fault. Enron and Phil Graham.
So, the question is, if the so-called "Enron Loophole", that allows energy speculators to simultaneously drive up the price of oil while hording it as an investment and then reaping insane profits, has single-handedly caused the price of oil to double since it's inception, why haven't ANY of the Presidential candidates talked about it this year? After all, you would think that Enron is a pretty easy boogeyman to present for further public flogging.
And, yes, I'm talking to YOU, Senator Obama.
Some legislation has been passed to address this, but there's much more work to be done. If you want to help do something about it, check out StopOilSpeculators.com.
The other thing that concerns me is that, near the end of Keith's report, he mentioned the term "oil bubble".
Having lived through both the 1st internet bubble and now a real estate bubble, the thought of an oil bubble makes me extremely nervous. I mean, sure, if the bubble burst, the oil prices should collapse, which would be easier on my petrol budget. But, if all of these financial institutions are acting as major oil speculators, would the crash of the oil market make some collapse like Bear Sterns, pouring even more salt in the wounds of the credit crisis?
June 16, 2008
Robotech inches closer to big screen reality
OK, so, it's not quite a nerd-gasm yet. (Does that, then, make it nerd-play?)
Lawrence Kasdan to pen 'Robotech'
But it's still pretty tasty - because the minute somebody is paying an A-list writer for a script, you can at least know that somebody, somewhere, is serious enough about actually making the film to put some real skin in the game.
My only concern is that Robotech is a MASSIVE story. I mean, originally, they were three separate and totally unrelated anime cartoons that the producers redubbed and smooshed together to make one big, epic story spanning three generations of heroes fighting successive waves of mecha-enabled alien invaders (namely, the Zentraedi, The Robotech Masters, and, my personal favorites, The Invid). To do it even sort of right, you really ought to do three separate trilogies, one for each generation.
And, perhaps that's the point. If I was a studio head, I would be salivating at the chance to launch a property with a massive built-in audience and 8 potential sequels. Especially since you only need three-film commitments from any one actor (so the costs are fairly fixed, as opposed to other franchises that become increasingly expensive from actors' salaries).
And, unlike most 80's cartoons, Robotech already had fairly sophisticated dramatic elements - real death and cross-racial romance and the cost of war. It doesn't need to be upgraded to adulthood like, say, Transformers. In fact, my other concern is that the studio might try to soften some of the hardcore storytelling at the end of each saga in hopes of "sending people home happy".
Just tell a good story, man. That'll make people happy enough.
Then again, Kasdan did write "Empire Strikes Back". Maybe I shouldn't be concerned.
And I do think Tobey Maguire would make a pretty good Rick Hunter. And Katee Sackhoff is the obvious choice for Dana Sterling. Dare I suggest Grace Park is Lin Minmei?
Actually, the more I think of it, the more I realize Ron Moore is totally jacking Robotech tropes for Battlestar Galactica. Edward James Olmos is a total shout-out to Captain Gloval. The tone and lessons about war are also very similar, as well as the effect humanity has on alien cultures.
In short, I'm still anticipating the nerd-gasm. But, done right, this could be the "Lord of The Rings" for giant robot sci-fi summer action movies. I have renewed hope.
June 03, 2008
The Leader of the Free World
Damn that Obama!!!! I was supposed to be the first Black president!
PSYCHE. :-)
MSNBC & CNN are 4 years late.
I called this back in 2004, in a blog post I called "The Future".
Barack Hussein Obama is the presumptive nominee from the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America.
Think about that for a minute.
As we sit, a Black man has a 50/50 shot at becoming the leader of the free world.
And, if I can get all Marcus Garvey-ish on it for a moment, we're basically a coin toss away from having a man who looks like, frankly, the majority of the population of this planet, become the de-facto leader of said planet.
A bi-racial man of African descent who was raised by Americans of European descent, who worships with the majority religion on Earth (namely, Christianity), but wears a name with deep cultural resonance with the 2nd largest religion on Earth (namely Islam).
Delicious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)