Eff you, Samuel Clemens

A common staple of The Internet, especially from the nerd-sector, those proud members of NetGen is the Nerd/Geek/Gamer Webcomic. Love them, hate them, argue over them, people have their faves, their disses and there's an entire subculture built around this.

It has reached the point where you click a link, an advert and then think 'Oh great, another one'. This crossed my mind when I first saw Homebr00d. And to be honest, it really is just Fanboys, but not quite as endearing (or professional, lol) and without a decent female character. But I read the entire archive (there aren't that many, it's pretty new), and I walked away with a conclusion.

It does not MATTER how original a webcomic is. Well, it does. Obviously you don't want clones. But I would never tell an aspiring writer/artist to not give it a shot simply because the idea "has been done before". For one thing, most of the ones I'm referring to are just doing this as a side project. They have other lives, jobs, so they don't need to take themselves so seriously here.

I've often wondered what Gabe and Tycho think about being the standard. Virtually any comic you read will reference them in some way and will DEFINITELY be compared. I don't think this bothers them, nor do I think they feel remotely threatened. They're freaking Penny Arcade, no one is going to usurp their position, they occupy the highest echelon of webcomic greatness.

It would be like Tolkein being offended for every fantasy story that ever comes out.
How many of us have read a book, especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre and thought 'well I've read that idea before'? Sure, it may bother us sometimes, especially if it's just a carbon copy but we accept that there are certain norms that will probably pop out a lot and that is okay. You know why? Because we LIKE them. Homeb00d didn't offer a lot I didn't already know (though there were a few thought provokers that I'd never considered before) but I'm glad I read it, and will probably keep reading it because 1) I want to be supportive and 2) it's still funny. And more importantly, relatable. That's what we read these for right? There's something kind of perversely pleasurable in reading a joke you know many people wouldn't get. It's a community experience, it makes you feel special and part of something at the same time. Plus it says that out there, people experience and think about the same things you do: Arguments about PiratesVNinjas, RROD, DCMA laws and so on.

So 1) stop being elitist about webcomics, let the guys do their thing and if you don't want to read it then don't, and 2) feel free to go out and make some of your own! Who cares if maybe it's been done before? You would have to go out and read every single comic ever to be sure that a joke, a story, a plot HADN'T been done before and good luck with that. Samuel Clemens said that originality is dead. Well, if that was the case then, the flies have landed and the maggots have left the corpse.
So be free! Do it because you want to.

Movie Review+Redux

Bestest thing about weekends?

Rock Band with all your friends
plus
Movies with someone you love watching movies with
plus
Boomer's Milkshakes
plus
Not reading that book for class even though you know you should
plus
Care package of food from grandparents so you don't starve to death during finals
plus
Sleeping FOREVER.

I won't go into RB details since most of you were there, but I thought I'd talk about some of the movies I watched, and include a bit of a re-review. A review squared? Whatev.

First there was Valkyrie. As most of you know (or don't), Mr.Cruise is not a fave of mine. I like, maybe...movies of his (let's see, Legend, Top Gun, A Few Good Men, oh and Last Samurai, so four) and was hoping for wowage this time around.
To be honest, wowage did not happen. Not that he didn't do a fine job but with the eyepatch, there needed to be more compensation in voice and facial expressions.

I suppose the best thing about this movie is how fast it is, at least from my perspective. It almost goes too fast, leaving not a lot of development. There was certainly a feeling that more could have been done, but at least it didn't drag.

EVERYONE was in this movie. I was constantly going 'Wait, that guy is in this too?'
It was somewhat gratifying to see Bill Nighy as someone who is NOT in control of the situation, he played off the nervousness quite well. Kenneth Branaugh was, as expected, quite good, I wish he'd been in more of the movie.

Though I'm sure some may find it difficult o accept this movie about Germans when there is only one German actor in the whole thing, I submit that they set up suspension of disbelief quite early and in what I felt was an extremely artistic way, so that it never really bothered me (and this is one of those things that usually aggravates me). The only real problem with this movie is many many times you felt that this scene was going to be one of those BIG DEALS, where Hitler was going to give this brilliant soliloquy or there was going to be an emotionally charged moment...and then that just didn't happen. So it wasn't so much that it was bad, it just felt like there was a lot of unfulfilled potential. /is trying hard not to make a Bryan Singer/X-Men joke

In conclusion: This movie is a good rental, definitely worth seeing once, though on one of those quiet days.

Immediately after, there was Frost/Nixon. Talk about flipping the coin, this movie was nothing BUT BIG DEAL moments, with a little bit of dragging. Nixon was brilliant, he stole every scene. The movie is a mix of documentary and classic cinema, which gives a definite story-focus. The downside was that in some ways, it felt very chopped together, it didn't have a nice smooth flow. The script was great, however, and there is a monologue by Nixon that will leave you going "...k..." with very wide eyes.
Michael Sheen as Frost probably did an accurate representation but between the two, it was obvious Nixon walked all over him, which unfortunately made Frost-in-the-movie seem like a weak acting job, when really that was how it actually went.

So if you're interested in history, journalism or politics, this is another good one-time rental. If not, you'll probably not get too much out of it.

And finally, another look at Star Trek. I'm really happy that from what I've seen, The Internet has reacted favorably. Even people who were not so into the canon change admitted that it was a good movie and they enjoyed it. I was a bit surprised it got bumped from number one at the box office so quickly, because there's so much rewatchability (speaking of which, still open to seeing it again :D). This time, I tried to focus on some technical aspects over content, which was my focus last time.

I was really blown away by the music. Besides having the greatest use of a Beastie Boys song ever, the whole soundtrack is just really solid, epic in some places, delicate in others. Any fan of John Williams will tell you that Sci-Fi movies offer the greatest opportunities for composers because you just don't have many other conduits to do really uplifting, big band, classic orchestra numbers.

Little tidbits, homages to other films (I promise there is a Star Wars reference in there) stuck out more as well, and I walked away more impressed with Spock, Bones and Uhura. Sadly, Kirk is still the weakest character for me, but he had to do a lot in not-a-lot-of-time, and I am more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to any subsequent sequels.

Like I said, some people didn't like the canon change, but there is one scene that to me acts like a giant disclaimer. They literally say: Our destiny has changed, things aren't going to be like they could have been (IE, the way the show was)and we don't know what will happen. Yes, as a long time fan, this can be really disconcerting but remember what it is that people REALLY like about the series: The characters. THOSE don't change. Yeah, Kirk and Spock didn't get along in this movie, but it made total sense in context and it was clear that the relationship would be built up. Other than that, and a few other dynamics being a little bit different, everything you liked about the old characters are here, just in a new situation.
To me, that is better than if they'd kept the STORY but changed the characters, and I think the fans would have responded way differently.
Now of course, the challenge is to maintain the inertia, bring us something else that's epic, while maintaining the intimate character dynamics, especially in our jaded consumer market.
I realized I had a problem with the trailer for Transformers 2, complete with Michael Bay explosions was shrug worthy. A few years ago, I would have been blown away, and now, it's passe'. So, Mr.Abrams...feel free to wow us some more.

A Note on Art

Art is a transcendental concept, I think. It rises above nationality, creed or religion, above social class and circumstances. Art is transitory, amorphous as a child of Nereus and just as desirable.

Most of all, art is universal.

There is, I personally believe, an understood, though frequently unconsidered agreement between the Artist and the Public. But first, a few terms.

Art, in this case, refers to anything the Public deems it is. This means that what is considered art now, will not be art later, and what was scoffed at in its creation is now lauded as classic. This will be readdressed later. Art can include anything visual, auditory, tactile...anything the individual experiences sensually (as in, through the senses).

The Public is exactly what it sounds like, the people, the general consensus, thems that talk. In this way, art is incredibly democratic, for good or ill, though with many, many revolts and revolutions.

I think Art is such a sticky and amalgous (no, that's not a word) subject because its very nature changes when its status changes.

I will give an example to explain my point.
Recently, I was reading the blog of the great Neil Gaiman who was answering a reader's question about whether his blogging on his life and writing process made him more accountable to the Public who now had easier access to him. He (the reader) cited George RR Martin who seemed to be doing [everything in his power to avoid writing this novel and doesn't he owe it to his Public to finish this?] (paraphrased) to which Mr.Gaiman had the single greatest reply I have ever heard come from an Artist:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

~~

This is something of an unfortunate side-effect of the information/net age, though I think the entitlement mindset was always there. The Public feels the Artists are obligated to feed their insatiable hunger for Art. What they don't apparently remember is that Artists are People too (sounds like a button slogan) and in actuality owe them NOTHING. The contract is between the Artist and the Editor/Gallery Owner/Commissioner/Record Label...not you. It is their (the artist's) prerogative if and when you get their work.

Which brings us to Form 1 of Art. As long as he/she is working on it, the Art belongs to the Artist. No one else has the right to judge, critique or interfere with it while it is in this Form/Stage. They can change it, destroy it or put it out.
Should they take the third option, Art takes on Form 2.

Any Art that is PUT OUT THERE, that is, made available for mass consumption (published, hung in a gallery, recorded on a record) it belongs to the PUBLIC. The Artist is still credited, still respected but how their art is received/perceived is up to the Public. This is why the status of Art can change from era to era, because though the Art piece is the same, the Public changes.

This leads me to several conclusions.

1) If Art belongs to the People...if it is there for them to critique, love, be affected by...then they are allowed to do what they want with it. This is why people getting up in arms about musicians who do cover songs aggravates me. If the original musician did not want their work covered, they should not have recorded it and made it available for others. In a similar way, if you are only writing 'for yourself', don't expect to get published. The strongest way I can think of putting this is: The Artist has no rights. This may seem cruel, if not downright blasphemous, but I believe it is necessary for Art to reach its ubiquitous state. It's like the essence has to be released into the aether.
That being said, we are totally allowed to blast an artist for a terrible cover, but you do that based on the merit of the cover itself and if it sucks, not on the fact the cover exists.

Likewise, think about movies. I understand that Alan Moore is understandably full of hate considering the treatment of his work in Hollywood. But I also think he's got too tight a hold on it. It's Out. Yes, it should absolutely be treated with respect and I wish more had, but the fact that someone makes a movie of it? That is their right as a member of the Public.

And Art is open to interpretation. What the artist intended, what they meant when they created the piece...does not HAVE to match what the Public receives as the meaning. This is why Art can be so personal to the individual. Which leads to my second conclusion.

2) The Bible should not be considered a Work of Art.
Yes, it has some beautiful poetry, marvelous imagery. But if you are going to make the argument that it is the Word of God, and that it holds actual Truths...that is, NOT being open to interpretation...then this is not Art. It is a message, just like this blog is a message, or a text is a message. From Sender to Receiver. Yes, every single person is a Receiver and yes there WILL be interpretation which is actually a good thing in some cases, I think. If you believe all the Bible is open to interpretation, that it is up to each individual how they take it, then feel free to call it Art. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

This doesn't mean that Art can't contain truths, simply that it has more to do with the Public's perception of truth, and not the Artist's intention.

Any thoughts from the studio audience?

Metablogging

Recently, a friend of mine asked why I talk about politics so much. I had to stop and think for a while, because 1) I never thought about it in terms of talking about politics and 2) that's not what the purpose of this blog is. After some discussion, it was determined that we simply approached the subject differently, but it made me consider what and why I write. Though I'm sure this will be quite apparent to all of you, I thought I should address it anyway.

I'm going to deal with the second question first, because it is the simplest. Blogging, like most role-playing games and joint stories, is inherently selfish, bordering on vain. You want to have your words read and considered and usually care more about that than reading others, usually simply because of time. I think it is a sign of maturity of the circle of bloggers I read and read me that this is less of an issue and we all are quite faithful readers. This is also why I consider blogging a perfectly valid expression of thoughts, because while there is certainly stupid people out there, if you find a good group, it can be a way to have mature discussions.

I've talked about a lot of things on this blog, usually something I'm passionate about, which is why it's somewhat limited to books, faith, music, nerdom, and what my friend identified as politics. All of these tend to be viewed through a philosophical lens, because that's how I approach things. The potential downside of course is that this means I am not REPORTING, I am INTERPRETING, which of course means that someone else could interpret the same set of "facts" differently. This can make discussion seem rather irrelevant because neither of us HAVE to be "wrong", we simply think about it differently. So it seems to have a "Why bother" element. I admit, I haven't got a great answer to this, so maybe some of you have thoughts on the matter. I don't want to just be spewing my opinion as if it is more important than anyone else's, which is why I'm always encouraging discussion.

I keep this blog because writing something down means you have to take ownership of it. It allows me to analyze my own thoughts and opinions and also not to have to repeat myself countless times when someone asks me what I think. I just direct them here. Though, I admit, most of you have to hear me talk about it beforehand anyway since I'm sorting my thoughts out loud. So, uh...apologies for all the repeats.

~~~

Now, for the other, slightly stickier question.

I do not think I talk about politics. I talk about people. If I was going to talk about politics, if I gave two hoots about it, I would watch the news. But I don't. I watch pundits and commentators. Why? Because I care less about what has happened and more about what people THINK about what's happening. And then I comment about what I think about what they think. I'm like a pundit to pundits. That's one reason that I see them all as a giant sitcom, because really, it is all so satirical.

For example, I absolutely do not CARE what Glenn Beck believes. What I care about is HOW he expresses himself (which as far as I can tell is the rudest, most moronic way possible) and how he talks to, about and with other people. It's the HOW and WHY more than the WHAT.

It interests me more when people, not parties, not political branches, but PEOPLE are being hypocritical, or holding double standards or being just plain stupid. It's true, I pick on the Republicans more for this, but that is for two reasons.
1) I was raised Republican and though I don't identify with either political party (again with the not caring about politics), it offends me that the way I was raised, the things I believe are being so twisted by people who claim to believe the same thing, yet fail to act like it at every turn.
2) At least in recent days, the party is so lost that one can't help but oscillate between pity and fury at their unending BS and stupidity and all around douchebaggery.
For example, Dick Cheney (the most aptly named man ever, I maintain) said he would much rather take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
Colin Powell's great sin of course was endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain. For this, he's been blasted, called a traitor and been told he should just go to the Democrats. Let's review. Colin Powell is a highly decorated general who has served our country with distinction. Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air who spews hatred from his smoking nostrils for three hours a day, who couldn't cut it on television and thus is consigned to radio. Colin Powell gave good, well-thought out reasons for why he was following Obama. Both Cheney and Limbaugh ignored them all and just chalked it up to race. In response, Powell said, very reasonably and without much emotion, "Well, that's unfortunate". If anyone attacks Limbaugh, he verbally shreds them, their family and any housepets. Even people who HATE the previous administration really respect General Powell, he was liked by both parties (not always, but a decent amount, more than many others) and even now, he is an eloquent, reasonable voice in a time of confusion, where being loud is more important than being right.
Yet, Cheney thinks the Republicans need Limbaugh more than Powell? Srsly, WTF? He is seriously out of touch, if that's the case. Even more so, apparently anyone who disagrees, or who doesn't 1000% follow the party line is a heretic, and that's a surefire way for any party to get blasted to bits because they are so stuck in their ways, they're incapable of adapting or seeing past their own prejudice.

But see...I've said nothing about policies, practices or other aspects of politics. I'm talking about people being dumb.

Now, it is a valid point that it is pretty much impossible to disentangle the people from the politics. That's what they talk about, that's what people will know them for. I understand this, and like I said, I didn't disagree with the person I was talking to. I simply mean that I don't THINK about it in terms of politics. I'm looking at the why's, not the what's.

One last point. I was asked if it bothered me that so many people get their news from these commentators who seem to be deities dictating what the flock of sheep should believe. And yes, it does, but I don't blame the commentators for that. I don't think pundits get their jobs because they want to be the Metatron. Sure, it can evolve to such, but I don't think that was the original intent. Like me, they are just people who are attempting to interpret the events around them. It is up to the public to either listen or not, to act on that opinion or not, and it is ESPECIALLY up to them to do their own research, to consider critically what is being said.

It is so much easier to confirm "facts" these days, with all the information on the internet, and things being recorded as to be double checked. That's why people have to take ownership of what they say.
What is harder to nail down is truth. The truth comes from the why, the interpretation, the philosophy behind. That's more of what people argue about and that's one reason it's so hard to come to a compromise and conclusion on it. There are just so many considerations and so much has to be viewed from the individual's point of view that it's nigh impossible to take the perspective of others.

It is easy to despair under all of this. Easy to fall into the Why Bother. But I think the act of talking about it in itself is a worthy enough endeavor, and it doesn't matter if we ever come to a conclusion. I don't think it would be necessary. Just the fact the discussion is there is enough for me. But that's just me and my personality, and everyone is different.

I hope that this cleared up any questions, whether vocalized or not. Hit me up with more!

~C

A few responses

I meant to get around to doing this a while back but between a very busy week and my internet going down, I had been unable to get to it.

The subject for this week are: The Correspondents Dinner and this whole Miss California nonsense. I may or may not start talking about the whole CIA VS Pelosi goofiness as well, depending on how much steam I have by the end.

I always look forward to the Press Corp dinner, ever since Stephen Colbert let former President Bush have it with both barrels. I don't know what they were thinking when they invited him, but he obviously had guts. So Miss Wanda Sykes had a lot to live up to. I considered her an intriguing choice for this year's dinner considering her race and sexuality, both undoubtedly taken into consideration and I was skeptical she would be able to perform at the same level, mostly because I'm not all that familiar with her work.

Before we get to that though, I'd like to say that I was quite impressed with President Obama. We already knew he was likable and the fact that he could also be funny by being self-deprecating and yet 'ballsy' enough to poke fun at those who those who criticize him made me that much more appreciative. When Bush did it last time I watched, he gave me the impression of a bully and while I still chuckled every now and again, it was not nearly as enjoyable. I won't go into details because I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I appreciated the President's humor.

I DID laugh at Wanda Sykes, so did the people with me. Sometimes just out of amused shock, sometimes because she was truly clever.
"Governor Palin was supposed to be here but she pulled out last second. Someone should really tell her that's not how abstinence works" was one of my favorite lines (and the aforementioned governor will come up later as well).

But of course, there was the great controversy: What she said about Rush Limbaugh.
First...like Keith Olbermann, I disagree with her and her use of those jokes. 9/11 is something that is never joked about, and I think she realized that right after she spoke. It doesn't matter who you're talking about, you simply do NOT joke about the Towers. I know people want to make this big deal about the President smiling but I don't think he agreed with it. He's in a public situation, the pressure is on, and I know *I* laughed the first time, mostly out of shock. I just don't think too much should be read into that.

I gotta admit, I thought it was really funny when she said: "I hope America fails, I hope his kidney's fail, how about that?"

Do I think that's an appropriate thing to say? No, and I feel kind of bad for acquiescing with it. Making personal attacks like that are just not good ideas.
Do I think he deserved it? HECK, yes. I cannot imagine how many Christians can listen to such a hateful man. He completely has attacks like these coming, considering how much he attacks others. This is the guy who called THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "Barack the Magic Negro".

This makes me so angry. I can understand disagreeing with those in power, in fact, I encourage it, I think it shows what a great country I live in that you are ALLOWED to do that. I can even understand going so far as to call someone stupid or immoral, that makes you sound like a moron, but it's okay.
But RACE comments? I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility with me. Attacking someone's character with real, valid proof, that's fine. But being racist and hateful to get ratings...makes apparently a well listened to monster.

So I think she definitely stepped out of line, but part of me is sympathetic because he's been out of line for awhile. I'm pretty sure he couldn't even see the line with a telescope at this point. His following still baffles me.

So that's the dinner. All in all, I think it was cool, but I agree with those who felt some of it was ruined by inappropriate comments.

Then there's this Miss California thing. /sigh I can't believe this is even news worthy.

Okay, first of all: I think Carrie's critics are not attacking her 'anti gay marriage' message. I'm sure there are those who disagree, but that is not what the issue is. I can't really speak for them though, so I will try to just say what I think.
Saying what she thought of gay marriage was not a big deal to me.
What IS aggravating is her going on and on about how she was punished for speaking her mind and how dare people step on her First Amendment right.

First of all...She broke the contest rules, she had surgery before the pageant and she joined a political organization after, all of which is against the rules. If she's punished, it would be for that. But she WASN'T. She gets to KEEP being Miss California, so nothing happened to her.
Second of all: The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. The First Amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT can't stop her from saying things. But the government didn't, her EMPLOYERS did...and they are well within their legal right to do so.
Which brings us back to...Miss Palin. Yes, I'm so glad she's sticking up for the blonde. But seriously...this is why I didn't want McCain to win. I did not want that woman within two hundred yards of executive power. Besides being just as corrupt as the 'far left' that she liked to lambaste...but she also likes to sound incredibly stupid. Again bringing in this non-existing First Amendment issue...

On the other side, we have...David Shuster. As most of you are aware...I do not like him. For all sorts of reasons, his voice is annoying, he is not good at hiding the 'reading off the teleprompter' issue and...well, he did not handle this story well in my opinion. He was incredibly emotional and just unprofessional. I wanted to tell him 'You know, I bet Fox is hiring, because you sound like one of them'.

But in the end what this all comes down to is: Who really cares what Miss California says? Yes, this is a shallow pageant, no it is not going to go away. Get over it.

~~

Now for this whole thing about Speaker Pelosi. I do not know a lot about this case, so I cannot speak definitely. But first they said she was debriefed...which she'd already said, and which they couldn't contradict.

Do I think Speaker Pelosi is lying? Probably to some extent, I have little faith in any politician. But do I think they said 'Hey, Nancy, we're waterboarding people, is that cool?' and she said 'Oh yeah, no problem'? No, I don't think so. I admit it's...disconcerting how she keeps saying 'Oh yeah...um...' and then changes her story so that it doesn't contradict but adds more details. I want to know why she didn't just say all this to begin with. On the other hand, there are some things she can't tell us and I don't think that says she's hiding something. It would be illegal for her to disclose all information, that's why you have to sign all these papers swearing you won't talk about it. So perhaps that played a part.
What aggravates me is that even if her story isn't lining up, the evidence against her is questionable at best because most of it is being given by the CIA....which is the organization she is accusing of lying. Yes, they should definitely defend themselves, but if it is just going to be a game of 'he said, she said'...I gotta admit, I'm not really convinced by either party.

Most of all, what bothers me is how partisan this all seems to be. The way the whole issue got brought up was the Reps saying 'But wait, SHE knew about it too, that makes it okay!'.
In Keith's words: "This is NOT about party. This is about the rape of our ideals. And if a Democrat is equally culpable...then they can go to hell, too."
I don't care what party those involved were in. Torture is NEVER okay. Just because someone in the Dems party MAY have known about it does not make the Reps who were in charge (IE, Bush, Cheney and them) any less responsible. This all seems like a way to divert attention and it aggravates me. But hopefully it all works out soon.

Any thoughts, fellow philosophers?

Why I Am A Snob

We all have it. Something we are elitist about. And I am one of the worst kinds of hypocrites, because I actually despise elitism. But we all have something.

I have two things. Hot Topic wannabe vampires. Screw you all, I've been doing this since I was two, at least.

And poser nerds.

Now of course, one of the benefits of having a Star Trek reboot is it makes lots of new fans. I don't mind that, I don't consider myself better than them, though I've been watching for so long.

Wanting to get in Zack Quinto's pants does not make you a nerd.
Wanting to sleep with Spock makes you a nerd. A pathetic nerd, but a nerd nonetheless.

Discussing for ten minutes who was hot and who was not does not make you a nerd.
Discussing how it compared to the original makes you a nerd.

Anytime someone brings up a content focused issue, cutting them off with "I don't care, he's hot" does not make you a nerd.

I could go on. Please understand my rage. And forgive my snobbish elitism.

Nerd Weekend Rockout!

As I sit on my bed, munching away at what I think are meant to be Cookie Dough bites from the theater, I consider the two films I have seen in as many days.

Summer is certainly starting off well for the geek in all of us and I look forward to seeing if Terminator will complete the trifecta of fandom.

In the meantime, here are my thoughts on Star Trek and Wolverine. Please note that while I strive ever to be spoiler-free, there are some items which simply can't be avoided. I try to keep these to fairly well-known tidbits of information, but if you have not read or hear ANYTHING about either of these movies, if you have been locked in a cave and not even a rumor has made it to your ears...or if you just don't care to read reviews (I know most of the time I don't), then feel free to wait for our next Review-ridden segment.

I went into Star Trek with very high expectations and into Wolverine with very low expectations and both probably helped serve me.

First, to space...the final frontier...

The very first scene has some pretty mind blowing action, all the things we liked about the Star Wars prequels without any of the stuff we DIDN'T like about the Star Wars prequels (so basically, lasers, fighting, explosions, that fun stuff). The special effects were solid and I'm not even going to lie, guys, in the first ten minutes, I was holding back tears.

The premise of the movie through me off just a bit, because it greatly involves alternate realities, time-space paradoxes and the like and those just hurt me simple lady mind. In some ways, I felt like this was a cop out so they did not have to work within the constraints of the original universe but I realized by the end that there was SO much respect for the source material and that they were simply being ambitious and setting up for future movies. This is literally a reboot in the purest sense of the word.

Script, as you know, is extremely important to me, and this did not disappoint. While it wasn't shot full of punchy one-liners, there were a few memorable lines and the story never dragged.

Of course, what everyone is concerned about is: How was the acting? How do you recreate the magic that held so many enthralled, and obviously continues to do so after over forty years? I think the director and the producers had a good formula. The cast was a mix of veteran actors, not only of "respectable" (/snarl) films, but sci-fi goodness as well...along with some relative new comers. Because this was such an ensemble cast, it never felt like 'Oh he was just stuck in there because he's a known name', it was apparent that the casting was done based on ability, physical appearance and character dynamics (also known as chemistry).

Kirk, obviously, has to carry much of the movie, but like most animes, he was not my main focus, though he was certainly strong. My only qualm is not so much of a problem, simply a hope that in the following films he has matured a bit, at least to the point where he appears more compassionate to his crew. Star Trek wouldn't be the same if Kirk didn't seem to have the concern he had in the show, but as this was an origins story, and one where the rules were completely knocked "out of orbit" (ha...haha.../sigh), those relationships hadn't developed yet. My favorite thing about Kirk is how well he pulled the lovable manwhore off. He chased soooo much tail, but it was still kind of endearing, and almost always hilarious.

The relationship between Kirk and Bones was what I was most concerned about, as it was always one of my favorite dynamics in the show, and in this, I was blown out of the water. Their scenes were perfect, they played off and complimented each other well and had some of the best dialogue. Karl Urban has officially been forgiven for the vomit-inducing Pathfinder.

Spock is the other side of the equation, as he plays such a prominent role. I think that Zack Quintus (whose name I totally just butchered I think) did a remarkable job showing the conflict between the human and Vulcan halves, though I admit, it is easier to not sound like an automaton when you have Leonord Nimoy's resonating voice. Still, his was probably the most difficult role to pull off, and he did so admirably. His dynamic with Kirk was not the most ideal for me but again...this was because of the way the story was structured and it wasn't enough to ruin it for me.

Uhura was competent as well as witty and gave off that 'girl everybody likes' vibe, which was great because that was always one of her characteristics. She may or may not have been a bit OP'd at her job...>.>...but I certainly didn't mind.

I honestly think they went out and found the cutest kid they could to be Chekov. He had mile long eyelashes and his accent was giggle worthy. At first I thought maybe he would make the movie too silly, but it became apparent quickly that he was a necessary figure. He filled a much needed space as the innocent.

Finally, there was Scotty. And the problem with Scotty is...HE DOES NOT GET ENOUGH SCREENTIME. Seriously. However, when he's there, he delivers some great lines.

With all these characters, there was a bit of caricature involved. The impression I got was that as they got older, they mellowed a bit and what you saw as streaks in their characters from the show are demonstrated in full hormonal bloom in this movie. Kirk is MORE impetuous, Scotty is MORE of a joker, Bones is MORE of a paranoid "Dear God, man!" spouting ball of aggravated angst.

The villain was done, I thought, quite well by Eric Bana. He is not seen too much in the film, which gives the impression he is not well developed but I think that's not quite accurate. The underlying premise of his character is simple and doesn't require a lot of backstory or character build-up. What IS impressive is how sympathetic he is without you losing sight of the fact that HE IS THE BADGUY.

The Starfleet uniforms were more in keeping with Next Gen then the original series, which is good on lots of different levels.

The most important thing about this movie is FANSERVICE. There is a Red shirt. He is obviously a Red Shirt. You see it coming a mile away and it is quite rewarding. There are lots of moments of irony (Bones says the first time they meet Spock, "I don't know who he is, but I like him") and numerous connections made to the original films, especially 2 and 3. We see how Kirk beats the Kobayashi Maru dilemma, and the list goes on and on. The point is that if you've never seen any Star Trek, you're going to appreciate this movie as a solid film and if you HAVE, you're going to be blown away at how well they balanced new and old.

My only problem with this movie was that relationships between the crew as a whole and especially between certain key characters was not as developed as I'd like but that's what sequels are for. ^.^

The problem with Wolverine is that I saw it AFTER Star Trek, and now all summer movies are going to have to compete with that. We saw this last year (or was it the year before) where Iron Man was just dominating...until Dark Knight came out. Like those two films, these two have very different roles and push very different buttons.

When you go to see Wolverine (and I would encourage you to do so), remember that you're seeing a comic book movie and all that goes with it. Dark Knight does not count :P. Think about the classic Batman, Superman, heck, even Spiderman movies. Go in there, don't think, don't question the physics, just enjoy people doing crazy stunts and pulling off physically impossible feats because THEY CAN.

From what I'd read of the Wolverine Origins comic, the movie follows it pretty faithfully, though there are gaps in my knowledge that I'm sure Ardent Sluggard or Holden could fill in for me. The link between Wolverine and Sabretooth that is postulated is not one I'm familiar with but one I think all kids reading X-Men thought of at some point.

And no, "Wade" (Ryan Reynolds) was not totally nerfed. The first time you see him, the first scene he is in, he has nothing but hilarious lines. You don't see him again almost for the entire movie, so it wasn't like he was there but not doing anything. He just wasn't there. When he comes back and is "muzzled", it's okay because he's KICKING ASS. I was like 'Holy crap, he's OP'd'.
This movie was also fanservice, but mostly to the ladies. I think Hugh Jackman spends at least 47% of the film with his shirt off. There were a few funny lines and to be honest, the script was smarter than I thought it'd be.
There were also super cliche'd moments where you were going "What? really?" but I actually found these strangely comforting. It was nice to get back to basics. Special effects were fairly consistent, only a few where you were like 'that probably should have been thought out better'. Gambit was cool but his accent wasn't nearly thick enough. Like there was a lot of obvious potential, I don't think there was anything wrong with the casting, but he didn't say a single french word the whole time.

The fight scenes were good, which was important for a movie like this. I really liked the Deadpool fight scene, it was like watching the Duel of Fates in Episode I all over again. Although, saying that makes me think of music.

The music in Star Trek was definitely better, I mean one of the first songs they play is "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys and it fits so well that you've barely started and already want to rock out in your seat. The rest of the music was quite moving, very epic, and fit quite well (those who had issues with the musical choices in Watchment, myself not being one of them, will not have that problem with this movie). Wolverine's music was just sort of...there. It wasn't bad, but none of it was particularly memorable.

I'm really looking forward to the Deadpool spin off, I think they've set down some great groundwork and have some good material to work off of.
Yes, Wolverine was cheesy, yes, there were stereotypical moments we'd all forgotten about in our bliss of originality (isn't it funny when comic book movies are the ones being original?), but it was FUN, and I'm glad I went.

So...I went in with high hopes to Star Trek and it exceeded them, which makes me happy inside and out. I went into Wolverine with low expectations and was quite pleasantly surprised. I hope this review will inspire you to go out and decide for yourselves. <.<...And...if anyone is thinking of seeing Star Trek anytime soon...>.>...can I come?

~CiS

The Wisdom of Kerbouchard: Restarting Installment

Insert usual 'sorry I took so long' stuff here.

Today's subject is: Poverty and the Charity of Women (AKA 'The Ladies')

This installment is brought to you by Chapter Forty-Three

"Evil comes often to a man with money; tyranny comes surely to him without it.
I say this, who am Mathurin Kerbouchard, a homeless wanderer upon the earth's far roads. I speak as one who has known hunger and feast, poverty and riches, the glory of the sword and the humility of the defenseless....
Hunger inspires no talent, and carried too far, it deadens the faculties and destroys initiative, and I was hungry, although not yet starving.
Women have treated me well, bless their souls, and it has occurred to me that a man need know but two sentences to survive. The first is to ask for food, the second to tell a woman he loves her. If he must dispense with one of the other, by all means let it be the first. For surely, if you tell a woman you love her, she will feed you.
At least, such has been my limited experience.
Yet such a solution was beyond me, for my rags lacked gallantry and rags without firm exciting flesh beneath them excite little compassion and no passion. A woman who will gather a stray dog into her arms will cal the watch if approached by a stray man, unless he is very handsome, but not often even then, for there remains an occasional feminine mind of such a caliber that she might suspect him of more interest in her money than more intimate possibilities...Around me were wealth, luxury and decadence. The two former I did not share, but decadence is the one attribute of the very rich to which the poor have equal access.
Decadence is available to all; only with the rich it is better fed, better clothed, better bedded.
Cities were built for conquest, and I, a vagabond, must conquer this one with what weapons experience had provided.
To a man without money, for I could not cal myself a poor man, the obvious way to riches was theft. Thievery, however, is a crime only for the very ignorant, in which only the most stupid would indulge. There is a crass vulgarity in theft, an indication that one lacks wit, and the penalties far outweigh the possible gain.

{Mathurin considers what he can do in the new city considering his many talents. He decides against acrobat, magician mercenary and physician.}

A storyteller, perhaps? A weaver of tales? Thus far my flights of fancy had been reserved for the ears of women, for long since I had observed that masculine beauty as an enticer of the female is overrated. Women are led to the boudoir by the ears. For one who talks well, with a little but not too much wit, it is no problem.
Where women are concerned it is the sound of the voice, the words that are spoke and the skill with which they are said, especially when combined with a little, but not too much, humility."

Thoughts, fP's?