Socrates said, "Wisdom begins in wonder."
Bill S. Preston, Esq. said, "Ghengis very much enjoys Twinkies because of the excellent sugar rush."
Poposophical sits somewhere between the two: "Wisdom begins in Twinkies."
According to Latino Review, Poposophical's first casting campaign was unsuccessful. Warner Bros. has cast Dumbledore's son as Professor Moriarty. Considering [minor spoiler alert--if you haven't seen the latest episode of Mad Men, consider skipping ahead] he got slapped around by his elderly father in Mad Men, I'm having trouble seeing the sinister in him; however, anyone from that show has my good graces (which are coveted among the collectors of graces from unknown pop-culture blogs). Mad Men has a great cast--one of the main reasons the show's won three consecutive Emmys.
Speaking of award-winning, The Social Network opened this weekend. It's being hailed as the top Oscar-contender. Poposophical would be extremely grateful to anyone who could explain this. I understand the whole David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin thing. But it's a movie about facebook. With Justin Timberlake. And the kid from Zombieland. Which brings me to what I really want to talk about: the Spider-Man reboot.
Wait, you ask. How exactly did we go from facebook and zombies to Spider-Man?
Well, we went from facebook to Jesse Eisenberg, to Zombieland, to Emma Stone--who is being offered the role of Mary Jane Watson in the new Spider-Man movie. But! We could have just as easily gone from facebook to Andrew Garfield, the new Peter Parker, to Emma Stone. There were options. In any case, we're at Emma Stone and Spider-Man, and these are the things I want to talk about.
Despite my concerns about the reboot, I like the decision to offer Emma Stone the role of Mary Jane. She was awesome in Zombieland. And everything I've heard says she was awesome in Easy A. Also, she's not Kirsten Dunst, which helps. (Sorry Kirsten. You peaked with Bring it On.) However, the studio is indicating that Gwen Stacy will be the main love interest for at least the first film; so whether Stone wants to lock herself into a probable three-film contract as a secondary love interest is another question.
I do support the decision to foreground Gwen Stacy, though--it'll help distinguish the new franchise, and provide a ton of dramatic potential, given Gwen's fate in the original comics continuity. Dianna Agron is the current front-runner for the role, according to various IMDb links.
Still, there are some big questions to be answered about the new film. Namely, if this is to be a gritty reboot as suggested by early reports, can the filmmakers balance that with the unique Spider-Man tone? (Can they? Yes. The real question is will they?) I recommend looking to Ultimate Spider-Man for inspiration, especially for Parker's non-heroic encounters. Need proof?
Great Line #1: Parker: Hey! Listen--this isn't what it looks like--unless it looks like that costumed freak Spider-Man punching your firend in the face so he can break into your boss's security system. Because if that's what it looks like...that's actually right.
Great Line #2: Aunt May: I don't want any hanky-panky up there. I mean it!
Great Line #3 Parker: I'm from a planet many galaxies far, far, far away from here where people and spiders mate and live in harmony.
Greatest Line: Jameson: This story has more holes in it than a Michael Bay movie!
But the biggest obstacle facing this reboot is undoubtedly the insurmountable task of replacing J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson [see above]. It can't be done! Cannot! And let's all be honest, he was the best part of the first three movies.
I welcome any challenging opinions (have a better choice for MJ?) or new ideas (is there someone not-from-Glee who can play Gwen?). And look for my next post, where I respond to a reader's short-essay-length comment on my superheroes post.
First, there was Glenn Beck. A month later, Jon Stewart. Less than 30 minutes later, Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA. They told us Honor had fled our country. Sanity was lost. Fearmongers had downgraded to mere mongers.
Then, they had the audacity to assemble on the nation's second-most sacred location: the Lincoln Memorial. (The most sacred? The Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando.) How dare they desecrate Big Beardy Abe's memorial! As President, Lincoln stood for values like Freedom, Unity, and Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. By launching their campaigns at the foot of his shrine, these mere mortals are crapping in the face of everything our sixteenth deity achieved in his lifetime!
We here at Poposophical intend to fight back against this outrage. But to stage a rally to upstate another rally is like fighting fire with fire: it only exacerbates the problem, even if it looks really damn exciting. So, even with two casting campaigns still active (We're still behind you, Diddles!), Poposophical announces the Poposophical Sit-On-Your-Ass to Sustain the Status Quo!
Who is this for? People who are sick of all these demonstrations but don't give a shit enough to do anything about it! Or maybe they're not sick of the demonstrations--they might even support the demonstrations hypothetically--but they're still too damn lazy to do anything about it! Other rallies talk about true American values, but Poposophical's Sit-On-Your-Ass is the only one that really upholds them.
What, exactly, is it? This is an international event where, on Monday, October 11th, people will not gather in any significant location, and will continue to do exactly whatever the hell they would normally be doing! Do you have work? Go to work! Do you normally skip work? Hit the strip club! Going in for a root canal? Go in with a party hat and suffer the terrible agony!
Why the hell are we doing this?
Uh...
Doing what, exactly? Our normal, monotonous, day-to-day routines? Well, because they're kind of necessary. Besides, these calls to arms are getting kind of ridiculous. First of all, we've totally forgot about making up absurd names just to create a mildly interesting acronym (SOY ASS Q!). Worse, if we keep pledging, rallying, and marching, the whole nation will be too damn tired to do anything else. What energy will be left for destroying the environment or ignoring our loved ones? None, sadly. Just none.
So on October 11th--and really, the majority of weekdays--sit on your ass and keep doing what you usually do. Before it's too late.
I've made a recent discovery that I felt necessary to share. If you were to type the letters "DC" into a google search at the moment of this posting, here are the first three results, top to bottom, with google's site descriptions:
1. DC Shoes
"Team profiles, a company history and pictures of all the crazy shoes they've put out."
2. DC Comics
"The official DC Comics web page. Plenty of information about all their titles. Listen to the Superman radio show."
3. DC.gov
"The official web site of the Government of the District of Columbia."
Yes, that's right. The capital of the United States of America comes in third. Beaten by shoes and comic books.
Before the article, a couple of things to clarify:
1. Poposophical is still running. Slowly, yes, but still running. I’ve been having a problem with my router, where it automatically redirects me away from certain webpages, and as it turns out, Poposophical is one of them. The problem’s been running for two months, and until I finally solve it, I’ll be working out of other computers. Posts will remain infrequent, but—hopefully—not two-months-apart infrequent.
2. This article will refer frequently to BMI: Body Mass Index. It’s a type of measurement comparing weight against height. This measure is approximate, and best used relatively. I’d also like to note that BMI measurements are less accurate for particularly muscular persons, such as superheroes and athletes. But, for general comparisons, it works.
And now to the article.
In the rush of Comi-Con 2010, I came across an article on io9 examining the BMI of male and female superheroes in comparison to statistics on actual Americans. As expected, most Americans are overweight. Also as expected, there’s a significant discrepancy between superheroes and superheroines. The article defines a BMI under 18.5 as underweight, and over 25 as overweight. Guess what the averages are for male and female characters?
Superheroines average a BMI of 19.3—just barely inside the “normal” range—while their male counterparts balance out around 25.5—a tiny bit into the “overweight” range. Anyone who’s ever even seen the cover of a superhero comic should not be surprised. Professional athletes envy Superman’s physique, and equally professional supermodels would envy Wonder Woman’s, if they weren’t having so much fun rolling around beaches in their bikinis.
When I directed a friend to this article, she pointed out that, rather than answering its title (“Why All Female Superheroes Look the Same”), the article simply acknowledges that “people like skinny women with big boobs” (her words. And well said). So, what’s going on with this? Are there exceptions? And perhaps the bigger question: is this a problem?
Comic books are unrealistic. Let’s just get that out of the way first. All of them in different ways, and some of them in practically every way, but the fact is that the universe of comics is not our universe. In fact, the comics universe is idealized version of our universe. People have superpowers. They have explicit antagonists they can fight. Their words come out in little bubbles! Clearly nothing like real life, where normal-powered people fight alcoholism, child-support checks, and medicinal side-effects without the aid of dialogue bubbles.
So, yes, superheroes (male and female) are unrealistic. I praise Tim Gunn for pointing out (during his 20-minute critique of superhero costumes, which can be found here) that everyone decries comics for presenting unreasonable standards for women’s physical appearance. But guess what—they do the same exact thing with men. It’s just in the opposite direction. Even with the greatest possible workout regimen and eating plan—and a tankfull of steroids—no athlete or bodybuilder will look as astounding as Jim Lee’s superheroes.
Comics—particularly the superhero genre—could give anyone body image issues regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, or fitness level. Personally, the problem doesn’t affect me because I recognize the comics as fantasy. The over-idealized physique is part of the escape from the “normal”; it’s part of what makes the whole thing exciting. I love the Bond films, but does that mean I actually desire being shot at, bedding numerous hot women, and having my testicles smashed in by an asthmatic gambler? No! Well, two-for-three, anyway. The point is: those things are exciting because we get to experience them without actually facing any of the physical danger. Similar for superhero comics: the physique and the superpowers are just parts of the fantasy.
Part of the problem is that images are powerful, and by presenting “idealized” images well beyond the realm of normality, comics seem to suggest that this is what people should look like. So we have boys putting hazardous chemicals into their bodies while girls refuse to put anything into theirs. Each is bad, and I’m not condoning either. Thus ends this portion of Poposophical PSAs.
The major difference between the exaggeration of men and women in comics is that for men, it’s more logical (much like the difference in pant sizes). Here’s what I mean by “logical”: superheroes have to fight powerful foes and armies of henchmen. Thirty-four-inch biceps help with that. Superheroines, on the other hand, usually have waists that are inversely proportioned to their mammary glands. Meaning that their cup sizes greatly eclipse their belts. Which is to say, they are very, uh….
They have huge knockers.
Aside from being a distraction (cf. Powergirl), having enormous boobies doesn’t logically aid the superhero cause. Really, it’s just an appeal to the same fantasy element that gives male superheroes pectorals the size of small redwoods. Let’s look at extreme cases for both sides. Since the io9 article only looked at Marvel characters, I’ll do the same. For the men, we have the Incredible Hulk.
Again, these are extreme cases. But the Hulk is one hell of an extreme. According to Marvel’s website, the Hulk stands somewhere between seven and eight feet tall, weighing over 1,000 pounds. That’s a BMI of at least 80. Remember what was overweight? Twenty-five. When studios had to cast a ridiculously muscled man to play the character in a TV series, they chose Lou Ferrigno, who, when he first won Mr. Universe, was 6’5” and weighed 285—a BMI of 33.8. That’s at least seven inches shorter than Hulk’s official listings, and less than one-third the weight. But in defense of Hulk’s absurd size, he did have to fight tanks. Actual tanks.
On Marvel’s site, she’s listed at 5’10”, 120 lbs. At that height, they can just barely pass off her weight, but it still gives her a BMI of 17.2. However, one look at Storm’s official page suggests that Marvel isn’t being very precise with its measurements. How does this compare with actual women? Victoria’s Secret supermodel Alessandra Ambrosio is 5’10”, 112 lbs, giving her a BMI of 16.1 (below the underweight mark of 18.5). Despite having “super-” in her job title, I don’t think Alessandra is the best comparison for a superheroine. Superheroes fight crime, which should require more muscle. Let’s look at an athlete: Caroline Wozniacki.
Wozniacki’s WTA page lists her at 5’10 and 128 lbs. That’s fairly average for a tennis player, although I’d argue that she has a little less muscle (physical muscle, which adds weight) than her competitors. Still, those stats translate to a BMI of 18.4, which is the smaller edge of “normal”. Compare that to players like Serena Williams: 5’9”, 150—a BMI of 22.1 which is right in the middle of the “normal” range. I argue that Wozniacki is on the lower end of the BMI charts, so even comparing Emma Frost to female athletes is a stretched comparison.
Perhaps this is overanalyzing our pencil-and-ink heroes. Is it really fair to speculate on their heights and weights, using that data to compare them to actual people? No. Would we compare Bond’s MI6 history to actual secret agents? Of course not. (Partially because we wouldn’t have the real-world data.) The io9 article was simply making a point—a statistical one, at that. Do you ever feel like superheroines all look the same, more so than the guys? That’s because their (approximate) height-to-weight ratio has a smaller standard deviation than male superheroes. Without making this a stats class, this basically means that the range of their weights is much smaller than the supermen. The only real outlier I could find is She-Hulk:
Even she only looks like a well-muscled athlete, although she is listed at 6'7", 650 lbs. But this is also the Ultimates incarnation of She-Hulk, part of Marvel's movement to make more realistic superheroes. The non-ultimate She-Hulk is much less bulky, especially in comparison to her male counterpart.
Does uniformity of size make superheroines visually uninteresting? In some cases, perhaps. But does it make them uninteresting as a group? Not at all. If the story is compelling and the artwork draws me in, I don’t really care if Felicia Hardy looks a lot like Supergirl. I just want to watch them beat the shit out of badguys and make witty comments. Just like James Bond.
As my dedicated fanbase is surely aware, I have a special place in my heart/a burning, borderline-debilitating obsession with Batman. Not unlike my affection for Neil Patrick freakin' Harris. And with Christopher Nolan currently working on a script for the follow-up to the slightly-overappreciated-but-not-really The Dark Knight, any mention of Batman grabs my face like the weird hand-thingies in Alien.
The name facehugger sounds just a little too friendly.
The immediate problem of a film like Dark Knight becomes who should serve the forces of darkness in the sequel? The Riddler is the obvious choice, being better-known and more realistic than villains like the Man-bat. But who to play him? Can the world handle the process of casting two villainous masterminds? I've spent that past 692 days trying to solve this problem. So has pretty much everyone else: we've heard rumors that ranged from the fairly uninspired (Johnny Depp) to the downright blasphemous (Eddie Murphy) to awesome-in-theory-but-probably-not-realistic.
But still awesome in theory.
Casting the Riddler is even more complicated than the Moriarty decision for 2 reasons. First is the more obvious, who-on-earth-can-follow-Ledger's-act question. But, four years ago, the same might have been asked of Jack Nicholson's Joker, which leads to the second issue: Christopher Nolan is all about unexpected casting decisions. Again, to succeed Jack Nicholson, he picked the guy who played a cowboy. To succeed George Clooney, the epitome of the handsomely successful American, he picked the anorexic guy from Wales. So any casting rumor that sounds like it would make sense (is that a paradox?) probably isn't going to happen.
Which is why this is the greatest thing I've read all month: Joseph Gordon-Levitt is rumored to play Riddler.
Yes, this is still over two years before the film's release date. And yes, his reps have already denied it. I don't care. This needs to happen. Immediately. Christopher Nolan, if you're reading this, (first of all, I'm honored. We should talk sometime--I have some ideas) please take care of this immediately. You're obviously tight with JGL after making Inception (which is the sparkling jewel in the otherwise unexciting summer lineup). Just call him up and say, "Hey buddy, you're the Riddler. Shooting starts in December." No need to negotiate. Just do it.
As has already been noted over at KMDb, Warner Bros. has officially locked down a date (December 16) for a Sherlock Sequel, and is promising everyone more Moriarty. For anyone who's a fan of Sherlock, Robert Downey Jr. or evil geniuses in general, this is great news. (And, honestly, if you don't fall into at least one of those categories, how much can you really matter?) But these announcements raise one very important question.
"Yes, Watson?"
Who the hell are they going to get to play Moriarty? This is the second-most important casting decision in the entirety of Hollywood! (Penultimate only to another villain--possibly villains--scheduled for release July 20, 2010.) And casting Sherlock Holmes' archrival is no small task. This is a man who has already outsmarted Holmes and manipulated Irene Adler. A man who, in Holmes' frequently-quoted description "is the Napoleon of crime". A man who was authored for the express purpose of killing Sherlock Holmes! He must command the greatest terror this side of Transylvania!
Note that nowhere in that description was there a square jaw or rippling muscles. So, sorry Brad Pitt--you're out. Moriarty's role requires someone who looks menacing, but in a I'm-killing-you-with-my-mind way, not a I'm-about-to-call-the-Bear-Jew kind of way. Poposophical is here to lead the charge in the Moriarty casting debate. So you're probably wondering which candidate Poposphical endorses. Or maybe not. Maybe you're wondering how silly putty picks shit up off comics. (In which case you are the worst audience to ever watch movies and read this blog!) Anyway, here's the endorsement:
Daniel Day-Lewis, AKA DDL, henceforth known as Diddles. Think about it. He's British; he looks the part; he will drink your milkshake! (Or, in Holmes' case, shoot your cocaine!)
Seriously, Warner Bros. needs to cast someone who looks legitimately threatening to Sherlock and Watson. Lord Blackwood's menace (such as it was) depended entirely on his mysticism. Moriarty must be imposing on his own terms. Go ahead, name someone better. Diddles is the guy who cut out his own eye and sent it to his enemy in the mail. It may not be Moriarty-level genius, and while it's not quite as gruesome as a horse head, it is more effective than a nail-polished toe.
Consider this the official start to the Diddles-Moriarty campaign. I even created a campaign picture myself and am giving everyone free reign to spread it around the internet like a surprise STD. No need to thank me. Just make sure you tell everyone you know, and take regular trips to the clinic. But mostly the telling everyone part.
This isn't an exact figure, merely a rough estimate, but there are about eleventy billion songs in official, recorded existence. Somewhere around 70% fall under the love category: either in-love or out-of-love. A decent 15% are uplifting party-style songs. Approximately 8% are Red Hot Chili Peppers songs. And the remaining 7% are songs dedicated to one's homies. But--I've statistically verified this--an astonishing 0% are songs dedicated to creepers! Sure, there are creepy songs (lookin' at you, Sting), but zero songs dedicated to creepers. So I decided to take a creepy song and alter the lyrics in favor of our underrepresented friends stalkers.
This one's for you, buddy.
Thus, I present: Don't Fear the Creeper
[Guitar Hook]
All of my free time I stalk you online Seasons don’t fear the creeper Nor does the President or your dear mom (but they don’t have facebook) Come on baby (don’t fear the creeper) Accept my friend request (don’t fear the creeper) You can see my pics (don’t fear the creeper) And I’ll see your… bumper stickers I am suuuch a creep I am suuuch a creep
I use all my time To stalk people online I used to do this on myspace But facebook is much easier (used to be on myspace) 40,000 men and women every day (they have no idea) 40,000 men and women every day (they should be scared) Another 40,000 coming every day (have to meet a quota) Come on baby (don’t fear the creeper) Accept my friend request (don’t fear the creeper) You can see my pics (don’t fear the creeper) I can see your drunken-videos-that-your-friends-posted-on-facebook-even-though-you-asked-them-not-to-for-exactly-this-reason I am suuuch a creep I am suuuch a creep
Now I know your name Location, and age I memorized all of your interests Favorite movies, TV shows, and songs Your home phone number and all your deepest fears Just the right words to bring you to tears Hey could we meet for a couple beers? (don’t be afraid) Come on baby (yeah, have no fear) No, don’t run away (actually on second thought…) If you want we can both go and smoke some pot (you should probably be afraid) Come on, take my hand (definitely be afraid) Come on baby (seriously, run)
As Iron Man 2 is currently proving, superhero movies are pretty popular. (So is Robert Downey Jr.) With movie studios focusing more on franchises, superheroes are carving out a permanent place in the future of cinema. Despite the genre's recent success, it's far from perfect. One of the writers over at io9 wrote an interesting article about one major flaw of recent superhero films. I recommend reading the article--it's insightful and interesting. But for those of you who insist on being too lazy to click the link, the gist of the article is that recent superhero films focus on a much too small scale; we need bigger, world-threatening plots.
The article outlines the mini-plots of nearly every superhero movie since the original Superman (the 1966 Batman movie is curiously absent) to show how the entire world just isn't at stake nearly often enough anymore. It also brings up a larger question, which I think is more interesting: What exactly makes a good superhero movie?
Ironically, it's actually not superpowers. No, seriously--what are the two most successful recent superhero franchises? Nolan's Batman series and Favreau's Iron Man: two superheroes who are actually just normal people with abnormal wealth, intelligence, and access to technology. Yes, Spider-Man also deserves mention, but I'm saving him for later. The more super-y superheroes, like the Fantastic Four and Superman himself have been less successful over the past decade or so.
100% of Fantastic Four's financial success is due to Jessica Alba.
This leads to Item #1: People becoming superheroes. Sure, we like to watch Batman kick the crap out of the bad guys, but we enjoy it even more because we've seen his struggle to get to the point where he can kick the crap out of them. He had to travel to Asia, get thrown in prison, and go spelunking before he became a superhero. Same thing for Iron Man: Tony had to get kidnapped, spend weeks playing shop in a cave, and have an obviously-metaphorical change of heart. Fantastic Four? They just had to get hit by "cosmic energy": instant power-up. Superman? Please, there's hardly even any discovery. (The recent Superman Returns takes away all of this interest by starting when he's already an established superhero.) A large part of the first Spider-Man's success was Peter exploring his new-found puberty-powers. Audiences (made almost entirely of normal people) like watching normal people make themselves into something greater. "More than just a man," as it were.
Okay, so you've used your genius-level intelligence and multi-billion dollar inheritance to train yourself and build awesome suits--now what? You need someone to fight, obviously. Item #2: Worthy adversaries. What would Batman be without his rogues gallery? (A brooding eccentric.) As the io9 article points out, the recent trend is to make it someone personal: your mentor (Batman Begins), your best friend's dad (Spider-Man), your mentor (Spider-Man 2), your DA buddy (The Dark Knight), or...uh, your mentor (Iron Man). It seems more personal and more important.
Little-known fact: Lex Luthor taught Superman everything he knows.
I disagree with the article's assertion that this trend puts the films on too small a scale. I agree that it's possible, but not that it's automatically a problem. There should be a balance. To me, it makes sense for early villains to be personal because the hero hasn't yet learned to deal with the whole saving-the-world aspect of his identity. But, once Iron Man's ego is running just as well as his suits, sure--put the world at risk. I would like to point out, however, that some superheroes (e.g. Batman) traditionally exist within the realm of their respective cities, and in such cases, the city can serve as a satisfactory replacement. When Gotham was being overrun with fear toxin in Batman Begins, it was only within the city, but it felt like the world was at stake.
Those cover plot elements, but production is just as important. If you're going to have a successful superhero, you're going to need someone who feels like that supehero. Item #3: A fitting actor. Note that this isn't "a good-looking actor" or even necessarily "a good actor". Obviously you don't want Megan Fox up there as Wonder Woman. But Tobey Maguire felt like the nerdy teenager that Spider-Man has always been. Favreau has talked about his fight to cast Robert Downey Jr. because RDJ had the kind of past that would help him connect to the character in a way that a 20 year-old couldn't (it also helps that RDJ gives Stark-like press conferences). Christian Bale is a generally scary guy--just like Batman! But he also showed Batman-levels of dedication when he gained 100 pounds to fill the Batsuit. Brandon Routh's failure as Superman was that he felt like a supermodel more than a superhero. Superman should look like the embodiment of justice, not just a pretty body. (There was also some unnecessary digital shrinkage.)
Super embarrassing.
So, put this all together and what do you get? Well, it depends--on the director. Item #4: A great director. Sometimes you find someone who gathers the entire crew to screen Blade Runner and tell them that's how they're making Batman. Or someone who will fight passionately for the right actors for the villains and heroes. Other times, you get the guy who directed Taxi. Remember Taxi--the one with Jimmy Fallon and Queen Latifah? (I don't either.) The director has to be right for the film. Brian Singer was great for the X-Men. Superman not so much. Sam Raimi was awesome for two of the Spider-Man films, but took a giant dump on the third. Ang Lee didn't do so well with the Hulk, but Louis Leterrier trimmed it down and made it better (Ed Norton helped).
So how can you tell if the director is right for the job? Well...you can't, really. Sometimes, you should be able to tell (Hint: if the guy directed Daredevil and Ghost Rider, keep him away from your film), otherwise you just have to hope. Maybe we should have expected that the man behind Memento would give us a darker Batman that we had ever imagined. But who expected the awesomeness of Iron Man from the guy who directed Elf? (Marvel Studios, apparently. And don't get me wrong--Elf's funny. But nothing like a superhero movie.)
Maybe this entire article is a really long way of stating the obvious: a good script, a good lead, and a good director will make a good movie. Clearly, those things help. But superhero movies are a little more involved. The script has to balance ridiculous action with serious character emotion (oops, Hulk). The actors aren't just playing characters, they're playing some of the best-known characters of all time. And the directors? They're working with hundreds of millions of dollars. Imagine if someone gave you that much and said, "Make something good." Feel the pressure yet?
A good superhero movie is hard to make. That's the bad news. The good news is that we've got two films with amazing potential slated for 2012: Joss Whedon directing RDJ and a bunch of others in The Avengers, and Christopher Nolan's third Batman film.
PSA: Everyone mark your calendars for awesomeness: July 20, 2010 is Warner Bros. announced date for Christopher Nolan's third Batman movie! Now back to your regularly scheduled post:
College students rarely have the time to sit down and do their Herculean task of assigned reading. Who has time to lounge around and skim the sparknotes for Mrs. Dalloway when there's week-old pizza to eat, TV shows to watch online, and beer pong tournaments to win? But it's finals time, and everything's starting to catch up to you. Once again, Poposophical is here to help. Pop culture covers a lot of what you'll be forced to read in in college courses, so if you find yourself behind in your English, French, or Spanish courses, you're covered. (If you're in the sciences, sorry. You're going to fail.)
Español Were you upset by the lack of chalupas on the midterm? When your professor calls on you in class, do you repeatedly respond, "Yo quiero Taco Bell"? Do you find yourself going to your professor's office hours to request field trips to Chipotle to order carnitas burritos? Is your Spanish vocabulary pretty much limited to food? Well Señor Hambre, I have good news for you. Here's a whole semester's worth of Spanish vocabulary, in easy-to-memorize love song format!
If you've already managed to not fail your first semester of Spanish, or are just looking for extra credit on your final, check out the sequel:
Français Spanish not your thing? Maybe you took French so you could speak to our Canadian neighbors, or just generally act pretentious. You're covered, too. Again, in easy-to-learn music video format, here's roughly a semester's worth of French in Flight of the Conchords' "Foux De FaFa". (Note: This will not teach you all that many French words. It will, however, teach you how to convincingly invent them.)
Literature The bad thing about literature is that it's been around so long, half of it doesn't even sound English. The great thing about it is that it's been around so long, most of it has been adapted in more easily digestible formats by now. Sure, there's always movie adaptations of books, but there are also more creative adaptations, as seen below.
Just about any course on Western Literature is bound to have one of Homer's works on the syllabus. If that work is the Iliad, sucks for you, because you're stuck either reading the book or watching Troy. (Despite the promise of Brad Pitt's ass, I wouldn't recommend the latter.) If you were assigned the Odyssey, though, you're in luck. The same guys who directed The Big Lebowski also directed a movie that's loosely based on Odysseus's journey. According to IMDb, the Coens claim to have never read the original work, which seems a little unlikely if you look at the enormous list of Odyssey references also on IMDb. Too bad the people behind Troy couldn't get Clooney for their movie.
At some point in their collegiate careers, most students will be forced to grapple with Shakespeare. The majority of them will lose. Shakespeare is deceptively inviting because, hey, all his work is either poetry or plays, which can't take more than a few hours to read, right? But then he drops all the ers, wherefores, and exsufflicates, and you feel like you're back in a foreign language class. Fortunately, the majority of books, TV shows, movies--well, pretty much everything--is derived from Shakespeare. West Side Story. She's the Man. The fucking Lion King! I personally recommend 10 Things I Hate about You because of the Heath Ledger and JGL factors. If you're reading (or watching) any of the tragedies, I recommend checking out the Sassy Gay Friend series on youtube. West Side Story was never this good:
Maybe you're reading something more recent. Maybe something more feminine. Maybe something like Jane Austen's Emma. Or maybe you took one look at the novel about a teenage chick playing matchmaker and decided against it. In that case, the alternative isn't much better, because it's movie that epitomized high school valley girls: Clueless. If you're looking for motivation to get through the movie, it has Paul Rudd. Also, the director is the same woman who directed Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which is famous for a naked Phoebe Cates. Otherwise, good luck tolerating one of the worst casting choices in Batman movie history.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century British poetry isn't quite as annoying as Shakespeare, but it's still plenty frustrating, what with its dropped verb and convoluted syntax. That's why we have 80s British metal band Iron Maiden: to take boring poetry and make it rock. Don't want to read Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner? Listen to Maiden's version. sure, it's almost fourteen minutes long, but that's fourteen minutes of awesome. Have absolutely no desire to read "The Charge of the Light Brigade"? Listen to "The Trooper". Better yet, watch the video, which includes actual lines from Tennyson's poem!
Or maybe you're stuck reading more recent fiction. Something written by Philip K. Dick, perhaps. Don't worry, just watch any science fiction movie ever. It's an adaptation of something Dick wrote. Don't believe me?
Blade Runner Total Recall Minority Report Paycheck A Scanner Darkly Next
All Dick's stories. Even Disney's taking a crack at it. Also, they're apparently planning a movie adaptation of Ubik, which turns the word "ambitious" into a severe understatement.
Just look at the cover!
Obviously, this list isn't comprehensive. But it's a damn sight more entertaining than sloughing through Spanish I books or Coleridge. So the next time your professor assigns a book that looks really unappealing, just think: the Coen brothers are probably preparing an Oscar-winning movie adaptation at the very same time that you're slipping a roofie into some hot chick's drink.
As tends to happen, my recent fantasturbation session has led to significant guilt levels, along with the need to justify this blog by posting at least semi-intellectual content. This might be taking things too far in the other direction, but I suppose that's my own dirty-minded fault.
Some number of years ago (I can't find the origin of the comment), Roger Ebert made the assessment that video games are not art, and furthered the statement by commenting that this non-art willnever be art. That's a pretty bold move--these are gamers we're talking about, here. The kinds of people who will perceive even the most innocuous comment as a dig against their mothers. So making any sort of negative remark about video games is essentially the equivalent of passing out steel-toed boots and taking an open, wide-legged stance: you're asking for it.
Remember, by their standards, this is normal human interaction.
I would like to start off by defying anyone, Ebert included, to play Robot Unicorn Attack and call it not-art. The character design. The color pallets. The music! But this leads us to the first (possibly insurmountable) obstacle: defining art. As this argument has developed, a variety of sources have been cited, from Plato to Wikipedia. One of the definitions getting thrown around has to do with arrangements intended to appeal to emotions. This is problematic--when I yell at my dog for snacking on poopsicles mid-winter, I'm arranging my voice and posture to provoke a particular emotion: shame. (And possibly a gagging reflex.) But that doesn't really mean it's art. Ebert wisely points out that we could circle around definitions ad infinitum. I'm of the mind that "art" is far too subjective a term to universally define; rather than trying to see if video games fall into the art section of your local Costco, let's judge Ebert's argument on its logic, and video games on their own merits.
Ebert's latest statement considers a presentation by Kellee Santiago, which can be found here. Her presentation argues that the forms we consider high art started out as simplistic, non-artistic modes of communication. Painting has been around some 30,000 years, which is literally about a thousand times longer than video games. In that context, judging the artistic quality of video games seems like betting on Mike Tyson in a fight against your three year-old--sure, both will use their teeth, but Tyson's probably had years of training/steroids. If little Bobby's been using steroids longer than a year, I'll be surprised. (So will his first girlfriend, but not in a good way.)
A major comparison used by Santiago contrasts video games to other competitive events (e.g. sports, board games). She argues that the latter are not examples of art; Ebert is quick to jump on this to further his interactive-means-not-art theory. Okay, but what about performance art, which involves public interaction and a preponderance of naked people? Conventional? No. But it has "art" in its damn name! That'd be like having a product called Something Crackers and not actually be crackers!
Damn you!
Here's one issue with the debate: other art forms have been studied as art for a very long time, now--long enough to have developed a very specific language about each form. Video games have that language to a smaller extent, but it tends to be more about performance than other qualities: "replay value", "control scheme", "n00bz". And to whatever extent (if any) that video games have been studied as an art form, it is infinitesimal in comparison to the study of video games as entertainment. By contrast, the film medium strikes closer to an equilibrium. So part of the problem is that Ebert has a long history (about 100 years) of film criticism that he can draw on, while gamers are slightly more limited. ("Better than Pong." / "Not as good as Pokemon." / "On approximately the same level as Mario Party 3.")
So there's a lack of developed language. But Mike Tyson can still talk about impressionist paintings without understanding words like "impressionist", or "painting". The problem then becomes what we should talk about. The level design? Controller response? The character's disappointingly small mammary glands?
One of those is never an issue.
Well...yeah! If the problem is that video games are interactive, then we should at least be able to judge what we're interacting with. Again, I'm trying to avoid a conversation about what constitutes art, but I think we can still talk about quality without becoming pretentious. Gamers know when the game being played feels immersive and when it feels cheaply thrown together for promotional purposes. (I'm looking at you, video game adaptations of movies.) Sometimes the elements of games just come together and really make the players feel the world they're inhabiting--and we don't need "artsy" games to do that. Marty O'Donnell's scores for the Halo games are on par with major movie scores; temple designs in the Zelda games feel like they belong in museums; the first time I played the Gamecube port of Resident Evil, I nearly peed my pants in terror and turned off the system before I even encountered my first enemy. How's that for evoking an emotional response? (Focus on that last question, not the preceding statement.) That was possible because creepy-ass soundtracks like this, and creepier-ass settings that look like this:
Yeah. You'd pee your pants too. Er, almost-pee your pants.
The interaction actually contributes to that emotional response. Playing Resident Evil still scares me more than most movies. (Admittedly, most Resident Evil games are better made than most scary movies.) Discounting the entire field because of that interaction is just fallacious. That emotional response--which, granted, is Santiago's definition, not Ebert's--is a form of interaction. Each person will have a different experience with a work of art, just as one playthrough of Ocarina of Time will be different than the next.
I could stretch this out ad nauseam (especially since, at this point, I doubt anyone's still reading), but here's my biggest issue with Ebert's claim: "Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices." If this were true, the entire interpretive aspect of art would be, if not non-existent, at least irrelevant. I encourage Ebert to go back and read some 19th century American literature for two reasons. 1 - Poe's middle name was spelled "Allan". 2 - Hawthorne was all about ambiguity and interpretation. Perhaps Ebert suffers from his bias as a movie critic, but literature is much more about Prufrock's "overwhelming question" than Ebert's inevitable conclusion. Which makes dismissing video games on those grounds a pretty weak argument.
Ebert may be onto something when he questions why gamers should be concerned about video games' status as art. But gamers and game developers have plenty of reason to argue their case. Again, I call for subjectivity, and if I happen to think that holding right on a directional pad to make an anthropomorphic blue hedgehog run through loops constitutes artistry, you don't have to agree with me. You keep on playing Noby Noby Boy, and I'll keep pressing right.
People like to fantasize about things. Some dream about cars they'll never have. Others place their focus on attractive celebrities, supermodels, the like. Still others have football fantasies, and I'm really not sure how that works.
Touchdown! Pnts +6
I prefer to fantasize about things that are even less likely. Like robot takeovers. Or zombie invasions. Or, in this case, a concert made up of all my favorite songs. Played by the original artists. All in one continuous event that would shake the very foundation of rock history! Also of the planet. So I present:
Fantasy Concert I
No time for opening bands, here. I'm talking about almost two full hours of awesome music. Sponsored by Powerthirst.
The crowd chants in anticipation. We want ROCK. We want ROCK. We want ROCK. That's not slang for crack cocaine--they want music that will blast their bones and burst their eardrums. Up on the stage are very regal-looking curtains concealing the set. As the violence escalates into anticipatory mosh pits, the lights start flashing and the cheers go up. Out comes...
Vanessa Carlton.
The regal curtains pull back to reveal a piano and even more regal-looking curtains. The sweet hard-rockin' sounds of her piano reverberate through the stadium as the female population screams and the rest of the crowd falls into general confusion. But that quickly washes away as the smooth sounds of her voice open "Home". And as the crowd is being lulled by her sweet sweet notes, another piano raises its voice as Regina Spektor jumps into the opening keys of "Us". When she finishes, people are already starting to fall into (doomed) love, so it's only appropriate that the next person to come out is Rachael Yamagata, singing "I Want You". All are happy and blissful at the closing lyrics "...until I make you mine." But don't worry, the emotional roller coaster is just starting as the first surprise guest comes out!
NPFH!
Dressed as Dr. Horrible, he duets with Rachael from the Dr. Horrible soundtrack. They cannot believe their eyes, nor can the crowd as the two belt out the rockingly sensitive and slightly tragic song. Then out comes Jenny Lewis in full Pink Ranger regalia, curing the crowd's woes by telling them to "See Fernando". Some of the crowd take her advice literally, and start trippin' on acid, which is a bit expected at a concert of this magnitude. I don't use any, but I certainly feel like I am when out comes Milla Jovovich to sing "Left & Right". The crowd goes wild, or maybe just I do--but no, damnit, this is my fantasy and I say the whole entire crowd goes crazy. And they're so hopped up on acid that they think they see Jack Black come out on stage. Which he does, because Tenacious D is there to play the greatest song in the world! Or at least the "Tribute".
At this point the crowd is writhing on the floor in pleasure and hallucinatory fits. So it's time for a set change. Jack Black has to be dragged off by security and the curtains rustle for the set change. One bathroom break and hit of skittles later, the show is ready for round two. The curtains are ripped down, uncovering a gigantic castle complete with dragons, princesses, and horse-mounted knights. We learn very quickly where those knights are from as Muse opens up "Knights of Cydonia" while the knights fight the giant dragon creatures. The first set of heroes dispatched, it's time for a new song and a familiar guitar riff and tapping solo introduce the most colorful of heroes, the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. Only Jenny Lewis and I know the lyrics beyond the first chorus, but it still rocks. Chris Cornell follows with "You Know My Name," but due to copyright issues, James Bond cannot appear in any of his incarnations. Instead, Bon Jovi shows up and offers an accurate description of Bond: "You Give Love a Bad Name".
A mighty wind blows in heavy thunder and lightning as the concert shifts from rocking hard to rocking like a hurricane. The crowd rejoices, except for one unfortunate soul who picks the wrong time to stagedive and gets hit by lightning. The Scorpions get shoved offstage by what appears to be a plump ten year-old, until we realize the very literal joke that's coming: ACDC plays "Thunderstruck". Don't worry, though. The 80s metal session isn't done yet. Hell's bells ring Brian Johnson offstage--but no. It's actually the opening to Iron Maiden's "Hallowed Be Thy Name"! There is much cheering, shooting-up, and air guitar. But there's bound to be more as everyone realizes the dragons are actually real and they chase Maiden into the castle! What can stop them? Who should defeat them? Only the smooth guitar hook of "Sweet Child O' Mine", and Slash finishes them off with perhaps the greatest solo in music history.
The concert breaks for a set change and carnage cleanup. The crowd is beginning to get anxious when the sounds of guitar strumming silence them. What song is this? Who's playing? None are sure until the most recognizable riff of all time literally blasts the roof off the stadium. The second surprise guest is revealed: Eric Clapton.
The closing notes of "Layla" transition into the melancholy notes of a piano. No, Vanessa Carlton isn't back onstage, it's Epica beginning "Tides of Time"--the song that transcends power ballad the same way atomic bomb transcends spark. The entire crowd falls to tears. (Again, it's my fantasy. And I say everyone cries at Tides of Time only because it's slightly more legitimate than crying at the concert's opening song.) But those tears are blasted off our faces by the powerful vibrations of Evanescence's "Tourniquet". Before anyone can recover--or contemplate the outright depressing meaning of the lyrics--Disturbed runs onstage and tears up the stage with "Torn". Halfway through the epic solo, half the crowd faints. It's up to Cristina Scabbia and the rest of Lacuna coil to revive them with "Spellbound". After the solo and the closing lyrics "I will break this spell you put on me!" the crowd comes back for the last song of the night. Killswitch Engage graces us with "My Last Serenade", and in an explosion of awesomeness, world peace spreads across the globe.
But wait! Encore! the crowd chants. Encore! Encore! One guy shouts "Freebird!" and manages not to get kicked out on account of the world peace thing. But Nightwish comes out of a swirling black vortex of rock and mosh pits form again, pretty much undoing that whole thing. Tarja sings opposite returning guest Neil Patrick fucking Harris for "Phantom of the Opera" and I have run out of words to describe the awesome. Just when the crowd things we can take no more, the final surprise guest appears from the swirling black vortex (yeah, that was literal): zombie Randy Rhoads!
He pretty much looks like regular Randy Rhoads.
Playing "Mr. Crowley", he tears a hole in the fabric of the universe taking us all from this life and transporting us all to rock heaven. Which I imagine looks something like this:
David Shields wrote a book, Reality Hunger, about the death of the novel. It's composed of 618 pseudo-Nietzschean sections, ranging in length from three pages to three words. The sections are organized roughly by themes (A-Z), and are intended to create an overarching argument about the necessity to free words from ownership, and diffuse the dichotomy between fiction and nonfiction. Here's a review. Oh, and another. Oh, and here's a third:
1
You include sections which comment that novels take too long to get to the point. So you provide us with 200+ pages of (mostly other people's) commentary. Metaphor? Perhaps. But you could say it all in a page.
2
To read the book as it was intended, you say, cut out the legally-necessary appendix of sources. Why not the page with the copyright, which gives ownership to you (and only you)?
3
Section 238 of the book: "The contemporary vogue of not tucking in your shirttail (which I dutifully follow): a purposeful confusion of the realms." Citing fashion to critique literature is not the most valid argument, especially not when you're arguing for the sartorial mullet.
4
Richard Hugo said best what you seem to be chasing around in circles: "You owe reality nothing and the truth about your feelings everything."
5
Your book implies that the strong presence of reality TV serves as proof that literature should take the same path. Have you watched reality TV? (If an entire nation jumps off the bridge of intelligence...)
6
A collection of other people's words does not constitute an argument, but a series of declarations: "This man is innocent." Why? "This man is a good man." (That's nice--watch him go to jail.)
7
Your book states repeatedly that novels do not interest [you]. American Idol does not interest me; I watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
8
My favorite parts of this book are the ones you did not write.
9
This book has provided me with a wonderful index of authors and quotations which, because I did not perform your recommended appendectomy, I can now seek out more fully.
This picture is also a metaphor. Guess which car represents you.
The new movie Hot Tube Time Machine is not just a comedy featuring the star of The Office, Craig Robinson. It is actually a metaphor for the current state of Hollywood.
Flashy? Synthetic? Totally Rad?
Hollywood has been using movie remakes as its main source of fuel for a while now. But for whatever reason (laziness? nostalgia? MDMA?), spring and summer releases are especially stacked with movies variously related to the 80s. Let's look into the future to see just how badly movies studios are attached to the past. Just, try to not make out with your parents.
The only thing creepier than incest is sci-fi incest.
First up for April is Warner Brothers' "also in 2D" film, Clash of the Titans. For those of you whose parents weren't that into claymation, this is actually a remake of a film from 1981 that starred Hamlet as Zeus, Professor McGonagall as Thetis, and Honey Ryder as Aphrodite. Oh, and Mick from Rocky's in there too. If you ask me, that's already one of the best casts of all time, and I don't see any reason for this film to be remade. However, the trailers place my expectations firmly in the Awesomely Ridiculous category, below Just Awesome and Ridiculously Awesome, but above Just Ridiculous. I'm glad Warner Bros. decided to repeat casting a former Bond Girl, and having Liam Neeson has never hurt a movie's chances (cf. Taken). [Edit: The remake also stars Bond alumnus Mads Mikkelsen as soldier who doesn't weep blood.]
At the other end of the month is the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street (the original is from 1984). Again, good casting may save this film, as Jackie Earle Haley definitely has the skill to make this a great creep-fest.
Look how hideous! I can't imagine ever wearing that sweater!
Whether or not the production holds up around him is much less certain. But, thanks to KMDb herself, I can provide the fact that Haley himself auditioned for the original. He didn't get the part, but his totally unknown friend ended up getting cast. The friend? Some Johnny No-name. Who went by Johnny Depp.
The next weekend is the release of Iron Man 2. That has no relevance to the rest of this post, but I mention Robert Downey Jr. whenever I damn well feel like it!
A little later comes MacGruber. The connection here should be pretty obvious, if a bit indirect. The source of the parody was a show about a guy with a mullet who was very good with tools in sticky situations, making it the most commercially successful porn series of all time.
"I'm well equipped, with extra thrust power. And I have a rocket."
One week later we've got the new movie Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, based on a video game series that began in 1989. The film looks like it has a decent chance at the title of Best Video Game Movie, which is kind of like winning an award for Best SciFi Channel Original Movie. True, Jake Gyllenhaal looks about as Persian as his name sounds. But just like the Titans remake, this movie also makes use of casting Gemma Arterton, which automatically wins it some points. Mike Newell is directing, and he's had plenty of action experience with one Harry Potter film and, er...Mona Lisa Smile.
June 11th serves up a double-fisted punch of tragedy in the form of an A-Team movie and Will Smith's bastard Karate Kid. The former foolishly tries to cast someone other than Mr. T in a Mr. T role, and the latter does the same by replacing Pat Morita with Jackie Chan. The A-Team movie will have to rely on the magical powers of Liam Neeson, while everyone involved with the new Karate Kid had better hope the ghost of Mr. Miyagi doesn't come back and crane-kick them into oblivion.
Wax off, bitch.
Four excruciatingly long weeks later, we have Predators, a sequel to the 1987 movie starring 80s staples Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers. The film improbably casts Adrien Brody and Topher Grace in what the public can only expect are action roles. Laurence Fishburne and Danny Trejo should be able to hold their own, but the cast will severely miss the presence of Apollo Weathers. Also, the director's name is Nimrod.
Speaking of 80s staples, the definitive return to the polyester age comes in the form of The Expendables. The film is written and directed by, and also stars Sly himself. Just try and fathom the awesomeness of this (partial) cast: Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Danny Trejo, Mickey Rourke, and the scariest man on earth, Dolph "I Must Break You" Lundgren (plus some wrestlers, Jet Li, Jason Statham, and Cordelia from Buffy). I have nothing else to say about it; this is clearly going to be the greatest film since Commando.
It's basically Rambo Balboa versus John McClane versus the Terminator versus Machete versus Dolph Lundgren. Holy shit that sounds awesome.
Well, we went from facebook to Jesse Eisenberg, to Zombieland, to Emma Stone--who is being offered the role of Mary Jane Watson in the new Spider-Man movie. But! We could have just as easily gone from facebook to Andrew Garfield, the new Peter Parker, to Emma Stone. There were options. In any case, we're at Emma Stone and Spider-Man, and these are the things I want to talk about.
