Thursday, December 15, 2011

Television With Balls

I've done enough bad things to know I'm bad!
While this is not a love letter to American Horror story I have to give the Fox channel one more props for letting this show go forward with bigger balls then that construction robot from Transformer two.  This show manages to mix serious horror with camp and some "oh shit" moment that would make Lost jealous.  This show demonstrates one of the reasons I rail against the notion that TV is to be dismissed in any way.  Like any media, popularity and availability will breed far more garbage then quality, but when TV gets it right, it gets it right.   This is a dedication to TV with balls, a list of shows either highly popular or somewhat under the radar and should be watched as soon as you can find any of them on Netflix.   American Horror Story is the catalyst of this post so it goes first, only what more can be said that has not already be said by everyone making the show a success.   It doesn't hold back, doesn't have any compunctions about killing off main character and having a plausible within the logic of the show's reason for bringing them back.  This show defines creepy and it goes for every level of it.  This show has the kind of balls Tony Montana would respect.

Claudius, Rome deserves you!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1975 PBS, the seventh channel on the dial in a world without cable and internet, ran a mini-series that had to be the ballsiest show ever produced at the time.  Based on the book by Robert Graves it tells the autobiography of Roman Emperor Claudius who was thought to be mentally disabled because of a pronounced speech inpediment who eventually became leader of Rome just before Nero started playing with matches.  It starts in his youth shortly after Julius Caesar's assacination and is a tale filled with sex, murder, insanity and betrayal.   When a show feature two women making a bet as to who can be gang-banged by the most men and the show actually shows the contest, you're talking television with balls.  And if you think Darth Vader is the #1 black hat, you have to meet Livia.  If you enjoy shows like Tudors or Game of Thrones or Boardwalk Empire, take some time to meet the grand daddy of them all.  Trust me no matter how long ago it was made you will not be able to stop watching.

The people!!!
 Sally Field has been a in front of camera staple since as long as I can remember.  I have a permanent memory image of sitting in front of a black & white watching this cute woman take off because he only weighed 90 pounds and could direct herself with this wide ass habit.  I didn't care how phony the stock footage of her flying looked, I was about five or six, it looked good enough for me then.   The flying Nun was a pretty popular show lasting for three seasons and going into endless syndication for a big chunk of the early 1970's.   Back then a popular show could get an actor stuck in a role for life, meaning you'd be pretty much down and out until the nastolgia wave of the late 1990's began.    The goad therefore was to break out from TV to movies if you could, but many actors back then got type cast out of any other work except guest appearances.  They'd have to hope for the "break-thru" role.   For Sally Field Sybil was that role.   I was in middle school back then, and long before the TV movie the story of Sybil was a school yard legend.  Back then even your average bully had a Stephan King paperback in his back pocket, so reading wasn't the forced art people make it to be today.    Sybil can in this thick dark purple paperback with an unsettling picture on the front cover - and it seemed like everyone had read it.   The two part TV movie is one of the most un-nerving pieces of media art produced and was the lunchroom and assembly hall talk the next day.   The story features a mother who was so bad Satan kicked her abusive ass out of hell because she brought the place down.  There is a reason Sally Field won an emmy for this movie and when you see it you'll know why.

Good cop/bad cop left the room
One of the things that separate TV with balls from the rest of the herd is TV with balls will always have unique characters - ones that stand out so strongly they over power the show they are a part of.  Detective Vic Mackey is one of those characters.   Loving father, flawed husband, a cop who will always have his fellow officers backs during an arrest or action - and a very bad man.   Not bad meaning cool but bad meaning corrupt, self-serving, amoral, and a killer with very little conscious.  While most other police series tended to lean towards the occasional maverick character, either the lead or the 3rd co-star,  Michael Chiklis gave us a maverick with a big ass gun pointed to your head while he explained why you worked for him.   In a story that lasts for seven seasons we watch the slow fall of Vic Mackey and his Strike Team, a story with more twists and turns then an evening at Circus Oley.   It's first series where Forrest Whittiker didn't annoy the fuck out of me, and there is no cop show that comes close to the balls this one swung every season.   I dare anyone to watch the first three episodes and not be completely hooked into the story of one of TV biggest bad asses.   Vic Mackey is the bad guy and you root for him even when the good guys come after him.  Watch the Shield, you won't regret it.

Say it together, LESBIAN!!!
I know someone must be rolling their eyes thinking this was just comedy fluff whose main, but unspoken purpose was to let William Shatner play William Shatner - and those who think this could not be more wrong.  Boston Legal started out as the season wide and series ending plot line of The Practice.  It could be argued that the Practice had some ball but in the end it was only a step above the typical law show.  The Practice had it moments, but there was nothing like Boston Legal.  This show as crafted with the deft of a professional stand-up's routine.  It had a perfect storm of characters who you got to know quickly despite a large ensomble cast.   It wasn't what you'd traditionally think of as episodic but there were a few plot threads that lingered through the season and every episode stood alone while building on each other.   And it wasn't just William Shatner, every character who walked on the show were given their moments to shine.   However, Alan Shore and Denny Crane stole the show since almost day one.  They were a pair with a perfect onscreen rhythm.  There's a season where the show tried to shift the focus away from them a little, but it didn't work and once they stop that nonsense the sshow snapped right back to high quality form.  Excellent dialogue, spot on humor, unforgettable plots - is is simply five seasons of a damn good time.   This show had the balls to stand out from every other show with a hardy "fuck-yeah" attitude even when it got silly enough to make Monty Python jealous.  If you've never watched it or only caught the occasional episode, find and and give it a try.

Bitch, I was in proximity!
The facts are these. . .
At this very moment, 4 years, 2 months, 17 days, five hours and 33 minute from the literal time of this writing a little know network called ABC owned by a little know company ruled by a rodent icon is premiering a show so different everyone would agree it was, in fact, television with tremendous sackage.   It tells the tale of the pie maker, Ned, who as a boy discovered on the last day of his dogs life that when he touched something dead it would live again.   This gift came with conditions.  1.  If he left what he brought back alive for more then one minute something else of equal size  or "life value" in proximity died in it's place.  2.  If he touched that which he brought back to life twice it would die again, this time forever.   Noted actor Chi McBride played Detective Emerson Cod who discovered Ned's ability and made a deal with the pie maker to use his gifts to help him solve murders and collect rewards.   Things are going well until the case involving the murder of Ned's life long love Charlotte "Chuck" Charles and Ned's decision to keep her alive past the given minute.  While something (or someone) did die in Charlotte "Chuck" Charles' place, something else was born during that broadcast hour - one of the most unique shows on television.   With it came doomed romance, cases that defined quirky, simply insane but lovable plot threads and, of course, Olive Snook.  Regarding the stand out character Olive Snook; she is an ex-Jockey, ex-co-conspirator in the death of a fellow jockey, ex-trophy winner of the 2000 Jock-off, current waitress of the Pie Hole.   Played by the cute and curvacious Kristin Chenoweth who won one of the shows seven emmys for a performance that will melt your heart, make you laugh and annoy the hell out of you in a good way.  This show ended way too soon and should have lasted for at least five season.   Alas, writer strikes and network's constant lack of understanding of how a show is watched and received today (not every fucking show can be a LOST, give some shows enough time you idiots) lent to there only being two short seasons.   But if you're looking for something different, that knows it's different and embraces said difference like a child hugs it's first teddy, take some time to be entertained by a romantic fairy tale with serious over tones garnished liberally with original characters, dialogue and plot.

Drugs are bad, Um-Kay
Let me begin this by being honest, I don't really like this show.  I think it crosses lines too many times the creators could choose not to cross - but that doesn't mean this isn't a creative and funny show that change the language of society and is without argument one of the funniest shows on TV.  The show does not care what or who they go after, and in my own opinion I think sometimes they should.   There first five season burst with classic episodes, one of it's most popular characters is a singing, dancing piece of shit, and show get an award for being able to run the same joke for years before anyone got tired of it.   It spawn one of the top ten funniest movies of all time (so far, nothing will ever beat Airplane)  and started out as an internet animation where Santa fight Jesus for domination of Christmas (it's a must see if you can find it on YouTube.)  Not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean it isn't TV with a large swinging iron pair as this so apologies for nothing and manages to even make a point or two in the process. 

My Dark Passenger is stirring.
The serial killer who kills serial killers, that's all you need to know to start watching Dexter.   Where it goes from there is a roller coaster ride with more twists and turns then the Kinda Ka on Independence Day.  So far it's in it 5th season and it does not disappoint.  Dexter is a show that works as a whole.  It's not that the acting is good but there a coordination to the characters that fits in place to make every season work.  Dexter himself is a completely unique character.  He is the monster on our side, but he is a monster - just a monster that kills monsters.   He as a rigid code, but it's still a code of murder and the show pulls not punches pointing out he has the same impulse control as Ted Bundy or Manson - only if he had his way Manson would be on his table.   Each season Dexter faces another monster, some smarter then him, some off to the side, some played with such cold blooded intensity it would make Hannibal Lector take notice.  (Now wouldn't that be a story?  Dexter vs Hannibal.  I just felt a chill.)    Don't let the seemingly slow build in the beginning of some season fool you, as each episode builds what Dexter has to over come to keep his serial killer life while not damaging friends and family creates the fill of control chaos that could spill out into the world very easily.   If you have not met Dexter, then you're in for something different.  It's worth the ride.

If we can't save someone like
that, why we doing this?
My last two picks come with some personal nits I need to pick.  Fox, the network channel competing with the other big three, gets a bad rap.  I am not friends with anyone who works for FOX, and it's part of the over all conglomerate that is owned by the kind of money I'll most likely not see in my life time.  But I am clear there are four sides to FOX - The right-wing nut job news channel, the Network TV channel, the basic cable channel,and  the other bunch of channels it owns but I don't really know too much about.  The FOX bashing beings with the whole Firefly thing and the excuses made for it's failure.  Browncoats, here's the truth.  No one watched Firefly but you and you did not have the numbers to keep it on the air.   And a good percentage of the Firefly watchers watched it on DVD.   TV is a business, not a "please sections of the public entities.   At best you can say FOX should have put it on the basic cable channel.   They do not make shows to fail because successful shows means lots and lots and lots of cash.   And that's what these channels and the evil empires behind them love the most.   So Human Target may have made some changes in it's second season but LOST increased it's cast every six episodes and no one complained.   Fox took a chIf ance and gave us a balls to the wall action show that did not lose that action in season 2, but it did not have the watchers - and that the truth of the matter.  I agree the addition of "love interests" wasn't the best idea because no one asked for it and it took away from a little bit of what made the show work - but that didn't mean the show didn't keep on it's toes and remember where it started.   So stop blaming FOX for canceling this as if they targeted it for death from the beginning.   Audiences like what they like.  Human Target was a spot on action show and you can enjoy it in seasons or separate episodes equally.  It is that good.


Let's have a chat about that last episode, because I love to piss off fans with the truth.  LOST is my finale pick for TV with balls because it, it fact, was  the very definition of TV with balls.   LOST has forever change how a TV show can be presented.   LOST owned the art of flashback to the point that if you have a 15 minute internet quickie with a memory scene it will accused of imitating LOST.   The kind of people who accuse anything that uses a flashback of imitating LOST are the same ones that accused Charlie's Angels the movie of imitating Matrix.  Here's my first "get a fucking grip" statement to fanboys:   The Flashback were a TECHNIQUE not a plot element.  It was a McGuffin, a mechanic of story telling.  So when other shows do it, it is NOT imitation, it use of technique.  The things that bugged he hell out of me the most from LOST fans was the reaction to the finale.    For instance the idea that the finale killed all enjoyment of every other season.   I for the life of me cannot see how.   For six season we got one of the most complex and compelling stories TV had to offer.  ABC threw caution the wind and let the show creators go full speed and it worked.   LOST, like The Shield, is a six season movie and there had to be an ending.  It didn't answer any questions?   Seriously?    The show that made its fame never answering any fucking questions got a bad rap because the final episode, LOW AND BEHOLD, didn't answer any questions.  Did it occur to anyone that some shows can move on in spin-off and maybe there could have been other material to explore - so best not to give it all up?   How about the complaints of the religious overtones to the final episode - unlike all that religious symbolism of the entire show.    Excellence is excellence and there is a reason why LOST was so popular.  It can be re-watched and proves just as gripping as the first run.   If you're one of the few that's never seen it or gave up on it in a certain season, get the set and go for a ride.   The show stands out and is most certainly a stand out example of TV with balls. 

Everyone has their idea of ballsy TV, so if you have a show you think deserves that title, feel free to let me know.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Egg MacGuffin With a Slice of Cheese

This is the beginning to my many love letters to what makes the things love in Pop Culture the things we love.  I'm not sure if any topics in these love letters will be original, but they will be my thought on the topic at hand, and that's enough for now.   This time around it's time we give some love (or hate, depending on where you stand) to one of the parts of many a movie or book or TV series that keeps the gears greased and rolling along just fine.  This time around let's have a talk about the McGuffin (or MacGuffin depending on what side of English you take.)

In order to write this I actually did some hardcore research.   I put the word in Google and went through 12 pages of links to demonstrate just how tenacious I can be and how boring my day job can get.   For the most part the definition boil down to this:

An object, event, or character in a film, TV show or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance.

Sometimes the McGuffin is so interesting people talk about it for years after the popularity of the movie or TV show.  Fans write Master's Thesis size posts about it or dedicate websites to the exploration of it.  Many fan will have collections of McGuffins in a special place in their homes, or use the McGuffin to mass-snail mail the networks for canceling their favorite show.'
On the one hand you have what makes the McGuffin cooler than a penguin on an iceberg.  A McGuffin could be a person, an object, a plot device, point or twist, a line of dialogue, an animal, etc.  Other times the McGuffin is so fucking lame the only thing you can do is roll your eyes and hope something else can keep your interest in the show or movie - usually the hope of nudity or something blowing up real good might or might not make your forget exactly how brain meltingly stupid a McGuffin was.  Most of the time it doesn.t.

Ironically, what makes a McGuffin cool can also make it really stupid?  Alfred Hitchcock is the genius who coined the phrase, which makes sense because his movie relied on McGuffins in order to be what they were.  This doesn't make him the master of McGuffins, but he knew how to use them, most of the time to great effect.   For instance the McGuffin in Psycho was the money stolen by Norman's first on screen victim.  One would think the McGuffin would be the Bates Motel or cross dressing hotel owners, but if you watch the movie carefully the money and those who either stole it or was looking for it is what brought everyone to the Bates Motel.  The money served to fool you about what kind of movie you were watching.  It opens with illicit sex, stolen money and Janet Leigh in a bra.  Seemed like a typical crime drama about to happen.  Until she got in the shower.

While Alfred Hitchcock coined the phrase and freely admitted the usage of the McGuffin in his movie, the undisputed master of the McGuffin has to be Gene Rodenberry.  The Star Trek Franchise should be in the World Record books under McGuffin for several well-earned sub-lists

Most used McGuffin(s) in a TV show
Most amount of McGuffins in a TV Show
Lamest McGuffin ever (an award earned by every single version of Star Trek produced to date.)
Repeated use of more the one McGuffin in a given line of dialogue.
The "I didn't see that McGuffin coming" awards for some of the better episodes.
Finally, the "What the Fuck Were They Thinking" award for McGuffin's even a two year old would roll their eyes at.

People reading might say, "Surely we can find many a TV show or Movie guilty of that last one, Dafixer?"   If there was only the original series this might be true, but because of the success of every other Star Trek movie. Crops of new series were spawned, and those series gave us the Olympic Champion of the "What the Fuck Were They Thinking" McGuffin:  Holodeck episodes.   Holodeck episodes are generally so bad they make babies in the womb cry.

Star Trek is not the first nor the last to over use the McGuffin, or to have more McGuffins then you can shake an Ark of the Covenant at.    Science Fiction needs the McGuffin in all its forms - as do more than a few genre.  But Star Trek piled them on like the weekly laundry bags at Octomom's house.  It's no more guilty for using them then, let's say, an action movie or daily soap or slasher flick.   But soaps have no choice and no one really remembers their McGuffins past two weeks, and horror movies use the same five or six McGuffins which is why the Scary Movie franchise stops being funny - how many times can you tell the same four jokes.

So how come action movie or series don't get the same rap as Science Fiction?  Because the McGuffin(s) in any given Science Fiction hold a certain level of importance.  Science Fiction relies on the McGuffin and far more suspension of disbelief the average action flick.  After all you have to believe that a space ship travels from one solar system to another in less than a day, despite all that pesky science telling how impossible this is unless you get into some pretty high-falutin physics.   So you need a Star/Warp/Gravatron drive to get you from Earth to Seti-Alpha 6.  You only need a horse to get to the OK Corral, and a car in movie can move as fast as they want in any city street, town or hamlet

On the other hand, the McGuffin in your average action movies are of no real importance at all.  Sometimes they stand out for good reasons or bad ones, but action movies do not need them to suspend the belief, they only need them to get everyone involved in the action.  Once everyone is in the action the McGuffin is about as important as the color of walls in the hotel room you take a hooker to. 

Instead of bumping into the genre and snarking away at how they might or might not use their McGuffin(s), let’s just break it down accordingly:

Horror - As I said before, Horror movies use the same few McGuffins, because they all boil down to something chasing someone to do some kind of harm to them they cannot fight by ordinary means.   So the monster could be anything from a human to Satan the Horror movie's job is to scare and excite.  When they came up with the "there are no new stories" line they were thinking about Horror.  The monster is the McGuffin.  Of course depending on if it's a book series, a Movie or a TV show there can be other McGuffins but they never out shine the main one, the monster and who it's going to hurt next.

Romance - Does not need a McGuffin but have been known to use one or two of them.  It could be argued the love story itself it the McGuffin, but since they are, for the most part, cheaply made movies mostly about people trying to fuck, the McGuffin is of little if any importance.

Westerns - Western movies and TV show are America's self-congratulatory lie to itself, and therefore by their nature are the actual McGuffin of a storyline with well-defined McGuffins.   The old west where lawlessness ruled, brave men and women go out to make some land their own, or bring a town to life from nothing, or fight those injuns who didn't quite think the land taken from them belonged to someone else.  They are stories of overcoming harsh condition, bravery in the face of impossible odds and generally a lot of bullshit that leaves out genocide and slavery as if they didn't exist in the land of the Western.  All that being true Western are McGuffins that use the same McGuffins over again, but that is one of the things that make them cool.

Science Fiction - Needs the McGuffin, loves the McGuffin, and wants to have dirty monkey-sex with McGuffins.   Sci-Fi excepts the McGuffin like a fictional wolf excepts a human baby into its pack.  The McGuffin grows up thinking it's a member of the pack, honestly believing Vulcan can be a desert world near no visible sun or that it's helping Andromeda escape the event horizon of a black hole. Science Fiction can have as many McGuffins as it wants even when it is dumber than a slug, but no Science Fiction can survive without the McGuffin.

War Stories - For the most part the war story have the distinction of rarely having a bad McGuffin.  Because most the time the War Story is base (either loosely or heavily) on history therefore the McGuffin, for the most part, is already there.   This is not to say there are no bad War Movies; just that there are rarely bad McGuffins in a war movie because the McGuffin tends to be part of the history.  Some might be highlighted over others, but this does not change the facts of what makes a War Story a War Story.

Action - The McGuffin in an Action movie is nothing more than the starting line in a 100 yard dash leading to big explosions and guns then never run out of bullets.  Sometimes you care about McGuffin, most times no one could give less than a shit.  It doesn't matter what the Euro-trash are stealing, we just want to see John McClain get fucked up and do some fucking up back.  Who were those villains in those 3 Mission Impossible movies, and what did they want again?  Couldn't say off the top of my head but I can name the big stunts Ethan Hunt performed.   In fact three of them have been imitated to the point of making you beg for mercy.  Me, or, in fact, no one cares why Phillip Seymour Hoffman was upset in the first place, or why Thandee Newton was fucking both the good guy and the bad guy in the sequel.  We wanted to see Tom Cruise jump from a building or out run a car crash.   We don't want explanations; we want action so anyone complaining about a McGuffin in an action movie should take their asses to see a romance.



Crime/Thriller - There is usually one big McGuffin in these sorts of stories.  Be it the results of the bank heist or the thing stolen for stereotype Mafia Don, or a black painted bird, there's always the McGuffin in the thriller that usually drives the story from beginning to end.  The McGuffin and your average crime/thriller are bound together like trees to earth or divorced men to alimony. There may or may not be smaller McGuffins depending on the story, but in the end there's always the great big on that needs to work for the story to work.  However Crime/Thrillers are unique in that the McGuffin could be well thought out or bat shit crazy as long as it works for the story it will always be successful.  Hence this genre needs the story to work not the McGuffin.

Drama - The average drama doesn't need a McGuffin.  They are heavily character driven and require only back story and resolution.   You could have a McGuffin in a drama or not.  Dramas can have McGuffins and can be disguised as other genre.  For instant CW's show Smallville is the story of young superman complete with all the characters and locations that come with Superman yet at its heart Smallville was a drama wrapped in a Super Hero story.   Thus, and this has been pointed out many times before, the character relationships in Smallville were barely different from those in 90210 or Gossip Girl.  Being s Super-Hero show (i.e. Science Fiction/Fantasy) the show was filled with enough McGuffins to give Roddenbury a woody in his grave, but was still a drama and didn't need the McGuffins to make it a drama.

So let's have a toast to the McGuffin.   It could be a drab as rings that let vampires run around in the sun or as mysterious as a briefcase that glows when you open it, but it's an important part of our world of entertainment and we should never neglect it nor put it down, unless it deserves to be put down.   Love it or hate it the McGuffin is what drive most of what we love, or hate - and it should be given the respect it deserves.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Getting Real on Super Heroes


1.  Super-Heroes Go To The Movies

There is no argument that Christopher Nolan reinvigorated the Batman movie franchise with two of the most excellent films to come to the big screen since Blade and Superman: The Movie.  Taking out the camp and taking the character and the worlds seriously was a huge step in doing what many comic fans and insiders said they should have been doing in the first place, otherwise any franchise runs the risk of ending up with a Batman & Robin or Superman: The Quest for Peace.  Often movie makes who take on Superheroes tend to make comments that gives the impression that they spend a lot of time in yoga classes learning to place their heads right up their asses, explaining the fault of a lot of the former failed attempts at bring beloved comic heroes to the big screen.  Tim Burton comes to mind as one of those head-planted-in-ass figures.  When he was asked if he read the comic he commented, "Do I look like the type to read a comic book?"  Beetle Juice and Edward Scissorhands were such films grounded in reality that anyone in a coma could understand why the idea that Burton read a comic would be just silly.

Tim Burton aside, Hollywood began to learn it's lesson on keeping enough camp in any comic movie to make a boyscout jealous when Wesley Snipes and the Worchorski bothers paved the way with two high grossing movies grounded in super hero lore - one from a character so obscure only die-hard comic fans even knew who he was and the other movie an invention of the directors - well they invented the parts they didn't steal, that is.  X-Men hit theaters taking the ultra-popular series seriously and grossing more money then Famke Janssen has every seen in every movie she'd done before combined.  This began the Super-Hero movie explosion that in the beginning we all assumed would be a 15-minute of fame thing.  At the same time teen angst show king WB (which is now CW) decided Superman needed a new series and while the vocal minority that comprises internet whiners heaped hatred on the show and the lovely Kristen Kreuk, the show pulled in enough high ratings to make ten seasons.  The second comic boom was here and it was, in fact, televised.  Movies came and went, most made enough money to finance large nations, others were blips on the radar coming and going with the duration of UFO sightings.

2. Really Real? Really?



Saying Hollywood learned to take them seriously was half-right.  The obvious gross of your average comic-to-movie film will keep the super-hero movie coming for years, but the lesson of "taking them seriously" turned into "make them realistic" and that in and of itself is causing it's own headaches.  There may be something to the argument.  Fantastic Four went over the top Super-Hero, and while it didn't do as badly as nay-sayers wished, it didn't do the X-Men or Spider-Man or Batman bucks either.  Watchmen pretty much told the same story the comic did and was soundly beaten by Paul Blart Mall Cop.  Scott Pilgrim Vs the World was the graphic novel come life and it didn't make it didn't top the gross of today's concession stand.  (To be fair, our current deficit doesn't top the prices of today movie concession stands, but you get the idea.)  So it's an understandable argument to hold on to the idea of the realistic super hero movie. 

Batman Begins - $372,710,015 worldwide
X-Men - $296,339,527 worldwide
X-Men United - $407,711,549 worldwide
X-Men The Last Stand - $459,359,555  worldwide
Spider-Man - $821,708,551 worldwide
Spider-Man 2 - $783,766,341 worldwide
Spider-Man 3 - $890,871,626 Worldwide
Dark Knight - $1,001,921,825 worldwide

Impressive numbers, indeed.  So maybe there is something to injecting a little realism in Super-Hero movies.  After all didn't Marvel spend more then a few decades kicking DC's ass in comics when they came along and decided to inject realism and continuity into their books?

However, there is a flip side to this.  There comes a point when the argument gets more then a little stupid.   Injecting a little realism is okay, but when you start smoking too much weed in your success you begin to say things makes one wonder.  I'm talking specifically about Christopher Nolan and his take on the Batman franchise.  That weed is so good that fans, especially geeks, get a contact high and begin repeating a stupid argument without thinking about how stupid it actually is in the first place.

3.  Truth in Super Heroes.


When asked about villains many people thought the idea of a Clayface or a Mr. Freeze being in Nolan's Batman would not work because they were not realistic.   Because we have to have "human" villains in the movie to keep that "realism" flowing.  If that idea wasn't stupid enough, people went further with the idea that They can't include any references to Superman in Nolan's Batman because the idea of him wouldn't fit the realism.  And then everyone went back to smoking that bong and putting tin foil on their heads and the mothership picked them up for a trip around the galaxy.

Batman is about a billionaire, who used to be a millionaire, whose so messed up over his parent getting gunned down he puts on a suit, goes out at night and beats the crap out of criminals.  As time went on he's diverse group of villains the world has become familair with through the comic, the TV show and the various movie - the most famous of which being the Joker.  The 1960's TV show was highly popular and had Batman and comics stuck under an impression of Super-Heroes being about as clownish as Cesor Romero's portrayal of the Joker.  Not to mention the addition of Robin and an attack on comics in the 1950's, comics almost died as an industry and from the 1960's to the 1980's they were consider only for kids despite the fact that they were purchased by teenagers, adults and kids.

What made Batman a very popular character, aside from the name-recognition that came with the TV show is that in a universe of super powers he had no powers at all.  However the point is he is, in fact from a universe - or continuity - filled with super-powered individuals. Much of the same people who know Batman knows he occupies a world of super people.  A lot of comic fans think they are in a special kind of know because they believe they are the only ones who knows all the characters in the world Batman.  There a certain truth to this, but it's mostly an assumption.  Because comic collecting has always been grouped in with "Revenge of the Nerds."  What the fans of the comic forget is people generally know Batman live in the same universe as the Flash, Superman, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Wonder Woman.  They know he's part of something called the Justice League.  They might not know that Starro was the League's first villain or that Green Lantern is a cop whose station house is a planet run by omnipotent smurfs.  But they do know that Batman is Bruce Wayne and Bruce Wayne lives in Gotham and Batman's main squeeze is a hot chick in a cat suit.

This is no put down on Nolan's movies, but the idea that adding a Clayface to them would be unrealistic is stupid.  The idea that letting it known that a Superman exists in Batman's world wouldn't fit the tone of the movies is equally dumb. Batman jumps off tall buildings, throws razor sharp bat shapes at people, uses his cape like a glider and wears a suit that is far from bullet proof and has a big ass cape but allows him to fight like Bruce Lee on steroids.  Just the fact a multi-billionaire can maintain the huge business interests the keeps him in his bat toys is far out there enough.  Yet, despite all of this - which, by the way, are all portrayed in the movie, the idea of a Clayface or Superman becomes too much?  That's just absurd.

As much as anyone would like to believe realism in super stories can only go but so far.  Once the hero survives a fall from 40 stories, or movies with perfect silence besides wearing a fucking armada on his body, you've crossed from realism to fantasy.  So no matter how great the Nolan films are, or how "grim and gritty" Frank Miller makes Batman, in the end he's a fantasy and in a fantasy it's possible to do anything as long as the quality of the production holds up. 

So give us a Superman, give us a Clayface or Mr. Freeze (sans the Arnold bullshit.)  Stop pretending you're being high-brow with a character that is no less real then a bloody Hobbit and pretend you have the talent to simply make it work.  I don't think that's so much to ask, do you?

Friday, January 14, 2011

Shooting Ouselves in the Foot With a Way-Back Bullet

Or, YOU KID'S GET ON MY LAWN

When you've lived long enough there are certain patterns that seem to play themselves out on a regular basis.  One of the modern patterns which manifests with the regularity of eating too much fiber daily, is the prediction of death and doom.  From the conspiracy theorist to the religious fanatic, predictions of doom come with more variety then a Halloween bag at the end of the night.  Do some research and see how many times Nostradamus has predicted some form of doom, from the death of an army ant to the fall a European Monarch.  With enough research you'll find Nostradamus to be a highly versatile predictor.  He'd make a fortune on reality TV today.

Pop culture geeks, who come in a wide variety of shape, sizes, colors and genre, predict doom almost as much as Michael Bay blows things up in his movies.   TV is dying, the movie business is dying, the comic business is dead, the internet is killing our ability to read - and so on.  Calling Pop Culture geeks self-defeating is as much an understatement as saying Lindsey Lohan might have a slight substance abuse problem. And these persistent predictions of death and doom to their much beloved Pop Culture is the culmination of years of pent up insecurity and a low sense of self worth given to them mostly by a larger society.  

The latest manifestation of this defeatist attitude comes from comedian  Patton Oswalt, in his article from Wired Magazine article entitled, "Wake Up, Geek Culture. Time to Die" where he laments at great length about how modern day high speed information access sounds the death march for all things geek, or nerd or fanboy/fangirl - depending upon what handle you choose to place on it - culture.  Along with Mr. Oswalt's . specious POV, there are the reactions from various sights aimed at said geek culture.  From blog to message board you find a lot of fanboys and fangirls practically applauding the comedians observations.  It's no coincidence that all this agreement comes from geeks who are roughly Patton Oswalt's age - and he is 41 by the way. 

The biggest danger to geek culture in the past decade are, for the most part, the geeks themselves. Being a group with more passion and zeal then the villain on a daytime soap, they have graced the same high speed information highways, which is no longer limited to just that series of tubes that connect computers, with more vitriol the anyone on the outside could heap upon us.  Any visit to the Neworama Message board will make you feel so dirty that only a shower of Malt Liquor and Porn could make you feel cleaner.  Patton's article is an illustration of that vitriol, and the example of one of the glaring problem with geek culture - too many live with a gun perpetually aimed at their feet, and they are constantly pulling the trigger.

In days of old, we geeks were not bold and jocks were the perpectual enemy, we were represented at bottle bottom glasses wearing, too skinny and nasal challenge stereotypes whose entire purpose in life was to study math and science, fixate on games no one else would play, quote Tolkien with enough zeal to make sure the cheerleaders would lay everyone else in school but us, and only be the hero in the Revenge of the Nerd movie series.   It was a dark time when CGI was limited to half-assed sci-fi films, the best of which featured muppets chasing crystals or video games being the pathway to becoming space ship pilots.   Slasher films dominated the movie screens, Battlestar Galactica was consider anything but "good" or even low art, and the Terminator and Alien was the movie every other good genre film aspired to.   As the song says, "When I was young, I never needed anyone, making love was just for fun. . . those days are gone."

Patton Oswalt starts his semi-observational article as follows:  "I’m not a nerd. I used to be one, back 30 years ago when nerd meant something. I entered the ’80s immersed, variously, in science fiction, Dungeons & Dragons, and Stephen King. Except for the multiple-player aspect of D&D, these pursuits were not “passions from a common spring,” to quote Poe"  And he continues with, "When our coworkers nodded along to Springsteen and Madonna songs at the local Bennigan’s, my select friends and I would quietly trade out-of-context lines from Monty Python sketches—a thieves’ cant, a code language used for identification. We needed it, too, because the essence of our culture—our “escape hatch” culture—would begin to change in 1987."

Way-Back syndrome is not new.  In  fact, 40-something geeks suffer too much from Way-Back Syndrome.  Because of this, what we should be embracing we embrace with the same anger a Republican embraces a Democrat president.   For example:  When the last Star Trek TV show, Enterprise was announced, and they began to show some trailer clips, elder Star Trek fans complained that the ship looked too new, that is could not match the old Star Trek series because the special effects were better and the ship looked better then the  ship from the days when special effects amounted to wires and velvel curtain backgrounds.  It was as if they expected the show makers to drop all the new technology and go back to effects that were only good when most of America had black and white television and High Definition was still in the sperm and egg stage of being a reality.  Admittedly Enterprise turned out to be a disaster of Gigli perportions, the reasons for its failure was not because of the difference between the star ships.  However the point is that before it was known whether the show was good or not, Way Back Syndrome kicked in and Star Trek geeks were pissing all over the thing because it didn't match the old show. 

Patton Oswalt's article suffers from Way Back Syndrome, therefore is built on a foundation that forces flaws into it from the start.   Once upon a time we got around on horses, today it's with cars, planes and other forms of high speed transport.  Once upon a time business relied on what we now call the snail-mail system, today there is e-mail, video conferencing and iphones.  The old ways are gone, and until the overly predicted death of modern civilization, be it by zombie uprising or alien needing our women/water/bodies as batteries, we can not go back, and should not go back.

So what is it that threatens geek culture in our modern times?  Here's Mr.Oswalt's take:  "The problem with the Internet, however, is that it lets anyone become otaku about anything instantly. (Note:  the word otaku refers to people who have obsessive, minute interests—especially stuff like anime or videogames. It comes from a term for “someone else’s house”—otaku live in their own, enclosed worlds.)   In the ’80s, you couldn’t get up to speed on an entire genre in a weekend. You had to wait, month to month, for the issues of Watchmen to come out. We couldn’t BitTorrent the latest John Woo film or digitally download an entire decade’s worth of grunge or hip hop. Hell, there were a few weeks during the spring of 1991 when we couldn’t tell whether Nirvana or Tad would be the next band to break big. Imagine the terror!"

I am the generation after the Baby-Boomers, so in my childhood the adults railed at how TV would ruin the minds of youth and how once upon a time you never saw breasts in movies.  When I was working for New York University back in the late 1990's, a women roughly 15 years older then me said she didn't like the idea of the internet, as it would destroy social interaction between humans.  She felt that we would all become shut-ins, living in dark basements only chatting on AOL and Prodigy, never coming out to see the sun or have babies or even buy a pack of cigarettes.  It's 2011, nigh clubs are still here, babies are still being born - and made for that matter, colleges are having graduation ceremonies despite those mind-killing TV sets and people are still getting sun tans.   There are many valid criticisms to new technology, but the modern nature of said technologies is not one of them.

Wanting to keep Geek-Culture as underground as if is said to be, and  that in and of itself is debatable, is silly.  Who wants to go back to the days of Steve Urkle and pocket protectors.   That was in the day when computers were only those huge rectangles in the back of mad-scientist's labs.   Those days no one knew that one day Steve Urkle would be making 300k designing networks or owner of a multi-billion dollar media empire.  No one knew that the very things that made geek-culture underground would be the cool as hell fad that would last beyound Warhol's 15 minutes.   Once geek-culture was comedy fodder, now they have developed awesome new special effect technologies and that technology need geek culture to show itself off.  Once upon a time geek culture was a microcosmic slave to society, now geek culture defines society, it practically is society.   Instead of fighting this we should embrace it.  Patton Oswalt is wrong, this is not destroy geek-culture, it's bringing it together and making it grow.

Oswalt say that geek culture is being eroded by Etewaf- meaning "everything that ever was - available forever."  The availability of every obscure book, song and movie has somehow moved it away from that fleeting underground of jock fodder to become something anyone can get and become expert at in a weekend.  He says, "Here’s the danger: That creates weak otakus. Etewaf doesn’t produce a new generation of artists—just an army of sated consumers. Why create anything new when there’s a mountain of freshly excavated pop culture to recut, repurpose, and manipulate on your iMovie? The Shining can be remade into a comedy trailer. Both movie versions of the Joker can be sent to battle each another. The Dude is in The Matrix."

Okay, that's pretty much the paranoid way to view it.  While on the surface this sounds like a very canny observation it's little more then case for an In Treatment session that should be moderated by the ex-drill sergeant in the GIECO commercial.  It's an over inflated view t o say the least and it's bounces to the foundation of the problem, Way Back Syndrome (and let's just call it WBS from here on.)  WBS is the yellow brick road to the fairytale called "The Way We Were" - and in this case it is a very sad love story.   It's a sad old persons way of thinking, the "you kids have it so much better" trip through get off my  lawn-ville.   Artists are not produced by access to information, they are products of the times.  While they are products of their times, they define the times they are in.  Art reflects life then life imitates that art.  Just because we are not in the days when carrier pigeons were the way kings communicated doesn't mean that artist somehow suffer.   In the 1980's art took on odd forms.  People were collecting garbage and metal pipes, welding car part or using legos as a medium.  In some cases this produce abject madness, in others art - it's all subjective after all.  That was the 80's.  Decade of the A-Team and jellies, mullet rock and the celebrated rise of pop music.  Nothing in all that destroyed or even limited art.  The 1990's is a time that any comic geek will tell you seemed to sound a death toll for their favorite medium.  If was possible to go back and find the fanzines of the time you find a variety of predictions of our comics were about to die, the reasons have been restated by various websites.  Both big companies filed for bankruptcy.   And while comics do not enjoy the million dollar sales of those days they are still here and finding ways to survive.  The point is that the idea that the changes we go through as new technology opens the world to connecting in ways none of us imagined we would, it is idiotic to say that because of these changes art and imagination suffers.

In fact, the fan videos that permeate entities like Youtube are the very examples of how imagination is expanding, not stagnating.   The availability of geek culture only means that we are growing more geeks, not dying.   It means a culture once the object of ridicule is not the subject of something to aspire to.  That should be celebrated, not run from.  We should embrace the new not act like a bunch of phobics and luddites.  Most geeks from way back will describe those days with a mix of joyous memory and adject terror.  Many of us geeks were smaller then those nerd screaming jocks, being given swirlies and stuffed in locked, and in all too many cases having the crap beaten out of us   What's changed today is that what we were put down for once is celebrated today.  Super Hero movies was the stuff of stand-up, now stars practically put doing one in their contracts.  This what we have today, this is the times we live in.

Finally, Oswalt's idea that we should help geek-culture die so it can rise again to what it used to be is patently ridiculous.   The idea that the availability of all things old and new is harmful is silly.   We waited for the weekly TV show because we had no choice.  Now we can wait for the DVD set, which also give us the opportunity to pass good shows or movies to people who might not have experienced them before.   Once upon a time we would hear of excellent programs in foreign markets and hope we could see them one day on UHF or Publc Television.  Now we have the internet, cable and, as mentioned before, DVD's.  Dr. Who is not limited to shaky local TV stations that you needed a special antenna or your little brother with a wire hanger to tune into.  The bottom line is that geek culture is not dying, it's changing.   Change is good because things staying the same means a society cannot grow, and when a society does not grow it implodes.  Everything must grow, everything must mature, and everything changes.  How about we take a glass half full view of this and celebrate by letting the children on our lawns to fill the air with laughter and life, not apathy and death.