At last, I got to see Scott Pilgrim vs The World! I only say "at last" because in a normal world, I would've been at the midnight show. Probably would've seen it twice opening weekend, too, in that normal world. I saw it Sunday, and again Tuesday night. I want to see it more, but no one wants to hire me so I don't have money.
This'll be spoiler-free, too. Scott Pilgrim isn't like Inception where you have to know how it ends to have a legit conversation.
Barely negative first:
Ramona can come off a tad cold. It's a stark contrast to her jokey/flirty graphic novel counterpart. I don't get the feeling she's really into Scott until Ex #3. Maybe a bit before, actually. Which makes me question why he's fighting all these guys for a girl that's only showing mild interest. Really, I want more time for these two. We, the audience, deserve to see them fall for each other. It's cliché, but it raises the stakes. And everyone loves a cutesy montage of time spent together, amiright? No? Just me? Whatever. More screen time would've alleviated this fan's minor hang-up. Emphasis on minor (I didn't want to put it in caps because then it looks MAJOR, which it isn't).
The graphic novels take place over the course of a year or so. The movie, around a month. The way we tell is Ramona's hair (she changes the color every week and a half; that revelation leads to a hilarious over-reaction by Scott). It's easy to follow. Except in one instance: I have no idea how much time passes between the battle of Exes 5 & 6 and the final showdown. Maybe after another viewing it'll be clear. But this is a nitpick, not a problem like Super Mario 2 being a dream. Editor's/Writer's Note: After the second viewing, still confused about the time. Once again, minor issue.
Something's clicked in the last year or so. Michael Cera went from being funny, to good, to tolerable, to annoying. For me, it's complicated. I love him as George Michael on Arrested Development and Superbad is one of the best comedies of the 2000s. But there's a stigma that's been following him around. His range, it seems, is limited to awkward, nervous guy. Which Scott Pilgrim can be. But reading the graphic novels, it also felt like there was a force-field around Scott—it either drew you in, like Knives Chau, or repelled you, like Julie Powers. It lent itself to him being self-absorbed. And I didn't get that from the Michael Cera-Scott Pilgrim. (The force-field, I mean. He did self-absorbed very well.) Maybe it's because he's such a small physical presence. It might come off as an odd gripe, but he looks really young/small. Especially next to Chris Evans and Brandon Routh. Even next to Jason Schwartzman. Hell, I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead has wider shoulders than him. It irks me and at times, distracted me. But he plays Scott well—he really does. Parts of my brain are still battling each other over this. Mind you, it's certainly possible that I've missed a crucial element: Scott Pilgrim is supposed to be physically unimposing. But I don't get that feeling because it's never mentioned. Or even hinted at. Ahh! (Real Monsters!) I just don't know how to feel about it, even after viewing numero 2.
Finally, and this is a bitchy point: The trailers revealed too many jokes. Way too many. This isn't a mark against the movie, really. I'm just a fan of "less is more" when releasing a trailer.
Now the good!
As folks ought to know by now, video games and comics are the heavy influences here. Comics are like the gateway visual to the harder, video game visuals. Best of all, friends, it works! The screen splits into panels. We see character names and tidbits (Name: Scott Pilgrim, Age: 22, Rating: Awesome). Silver Age sound effects come out of combat (Bam! Pow! Thwack! etc). Sound gets squiggly lines. It's good stuff. But Scott Pilgrim vs The World pulled the most from video games. Points appear after Scott defeats enemies or does something heroic. He grabs a 1-Up. Enemies leave behind coins after defeat. Bars measure remaining life, or bladder levels. Combos, KOs, team-ups, etc. all get accurate graphics. Undeniably genius. It's integrated to the point where you don't notice it after the first big fight (there is a period of adjustment. This is NOT a typical movie). Coming from a gaming background, I loved it (couldn't tell?). It makes me want to pull out the old Nintendo, which Cindy has down in Austin. Sad face x 10. The creativity shown here is stunning.
Not everything is super in-your-face. A lot is, and I'm really glad Edgar Wright did NOT do the 3-D conversion (3-D is not a future of film I'm excited about). Subtlety abounds and those paying attention will get extra laughs. But I'll give you some things to look for: Wallace has his initials embroidered on shirts and cuffs. Watch Scott's head anytime his hair is mentioned. At one point, Scott's bass explodes. Chuckle at it's reappearance. Ramona's clothes and bag will match her hair. During a conversation, the characters can go through 3+ locations. It's flawless really, and it might even go unnoticed if you aren't looking for it. Also, when on the bus with Ramona, the streetlights on her side are heart-shaped. It's hard to spot, but if you have a keen eye, you can pick it out. I'm looking forward to wearing out my pause and rewind buttons. Editor's/Writer's Note: Pay attention to the opening credits. Each actor's name is accompanied by drawings relating to their character. Neat!
The soundtrack is incredible: Beck stands in as Sex Bob-Omb, Metric as The Clash at Demonhead, and Broken Social Scene as Crash and the Boys. Brillance! Seriously, The Clash at Demonhead scene...It makes me want to buy a ticket for their concert. It scares me that the original script didn't have any music scenes in me, because it became almost as integral a part of the story as comics and video games. Sex Bob-Omb has the charm of your above-average garage band (Another Day, anyone?) and a catchy sound despite ridiculous lyrics. Crash and the Boys, well, I don't want to spoil anything about them, so the less said, the better (get it?!). We've got a horribly appropriate Rolling Stones song thrown in for good measure, too. The score is littered with 8-bit era sounds and shout-outs to games of yore. It's rich and funny: There are send-ups of action movie music (shoelaces have never been so compelling) and a particular sitcom, too. I make no guarantees since I'm broke, but this is the type of music I'd go out of my to buy.
In one of the short behind-the-scenes features from the interactive trailer, Edgar Wright mentioned that the fight scenes were like dance numbers in musicals—for 3 minutes, everyone is involved in this giant routine, and when it's done, no one questions how everyone knew the dance steps and lyrics. That in mind, Scott Pilgrim vs The World fits into the musical mold (along with the comic book mold and video game mold—naming a genre for this movie will be a bitch). Just like in the graphic novels, the fights were as normal as blowing in a Nintendo cartridge. Treating them without any sort of mystique makes it easier for the audience to accept them. The fights are more than just battles, too; they're stories themselves. We learn about the person Ramona was, and how resourceful/ingenious/lucky Scott can be. They move the plot forward and give us the best scenes between Ramona and Scott. They're also badass. They had two of the best fight choreographers on set and it shows. There's moments where Michael Cera looks surprised at where a hit is coming from and that helps keep things looking super staged. Each fight had a distinct feel and they each stand out. That's no easy feat. Can you tell the difference between any of Rocky's fights, without relying on his opponent? No? You can here. (OK, that's a mostly unfair comparison, since boxing is, well, boxing. But you get the point.)
I've mentioned a lot about Scott and Ramona. Michael Cera is an effective Scott. Mary Elizabeth Winstead wears Ramona well, even if I want more. The story may be about them, but they are far from all there is. There's all 7 of the Evil Exes. There's Wallace, and Stacey, and Stephen Stills and Kim, Knives and Young Neil. With the exception of the twins, the Exes chew up scenery like a T-Rex on Donald Gennaro (65,000,000 points for getting the reference. Another 65,000,000 points for getting the points reference. But only the first points. If you add the two, it's just a really big number with no significance). Chris Evans was obviously having a blast. He was also doing his best Batman impression with that voice. Same with Brandon Routh (it looked like they shot him so he didn't tower over everyone else). He played grammatically challenged very convincingly. These two guys turned it up to 11. Arrested Development fans will get a kick out of watching Ann (her?) kick the crap out of George Michael. Her exit is something to behold, too. Satya Bhabha played Matthew Patel with such absurdity. You need to see his entire routine to believe it. Ellen Wong as Knives—this poor girl. Infatuation must be second nature to her (or maybe she's just...acting!). The bandmates were spittin' images of their graphic novel counterparts. Mark Webber as Stephen Stills carried the neuroticism and one-track mind humorously and without getting annoying. Kim was a bit more dead-pan than I expected, but it works. You see a lot under the surface, and I wish they had been given time to really explore her and Scott's history, because it's complicated and helps develop both characters. Kieran Culkin (Wallace) stole his scenes. He took them from Michael Cera and refused to let go, until he disappeared in the third act (mostly). Jason Schwartzman was so smarmy, you wanted to punch him in the face and be him, but not at the same time. He secreted douche bag with every little thing he did. Amazing job. It's so rare that everyone in a giant ensemble pulls their weight, but it happened here.
Some of the reviews I've read, well, they missed something. A bunch of critics mentioned Scott being a jerk. They say this in a bad way, asking why he's the hero and why we should root for him. That's the point. At least part of it. Scott's an asshole. Scott broke Kim's heart and Knives' heart, and probably other hearts. He did this without really thinking about the girls or their feelings. Each of us has been there (replace girls with boys when appropriate, unless you lady readers had a "sexy phase"). He's sometimes oblivious and self-absorbed. To say that you have never achieved either of those statuses would be denial. Scott reflects his audience. He makes the mistakes of a 22-year-old. And I think the audience appreciates that. We like flaws. A flawed character has a more satisfying redemption than the clean cut guy. Look at how popular Wolverine and Batman have become the last few years, especially in comparison to the last Superman movie (which I like and own!). At the moment, the not-so-hero has become the hero. Scott isn't a Superman. But we're never led to believe he is. Instead, he's human, with all the messy intricacies that entails.
As Ramona accurately states, "We all have baggage." That's the other point of the movie. In some way or another, we all struggle with the past. We carry it around with us (that's why it's called baggage!) and sometimes we drop it at the feet of a significant other, and sometimes they rifle through it. Sometimes it forms a League of Evil Exes and tries to control your love life and keep you from dating anyone. Our response is what matters in these instances. Jealousy is a hard thing to overcome. A Dave Eggers short, Quiet, deals with a past creeping in on the present, and it was super convenient that I read that before seeing the movie. It can be dangerous. Physically so in Scott Pilgrim vs The World. If one were so inclined, one could write a theory about how the fights were just hallucinations on Scott's part, daydreams to deal with the revelations. Or Scott may just be insane, thus the visuals. Either way, the heart of the movie tells us that we have to deal with it and move on. The past can be left behind. That's encouraging.
I'm already looking forward to the DVD release. The movie itself is reason enough to get it upon its release, but the extras have my attention. There's so much to learn about this movie and I want to soak it all up. Edgar Wright is a baller, through and through. He assembled as close to perfect a cast as you could get for an epic of epic epicness, and his crew had to have been outstanding. It's visually arresting, will leave you laughing, and never gets carried away with excess. It speaks to a generation of 20-somethings, regardless of whether or not they played video games or read comics. Really, I can't say enough good about it. So go see it, multiple times. Buy the soundtrack and the score. Tell your friends, or better yet, drag your friends to see it. Then go to Memory Lane Comics in Wilmington, NC and buy all six volumes. Edgar Wright borrows graciously from the source material: Entire chunks of dialogue, action pieces, designs, etc. It's cool to take a look at a page and then see it on the big screen.
The long, drawn-out point here is that Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a great movie. It's quirky and unique and has a visual style all it's own. If you go in with an open mind and no bias against video games, you'll have fun. A lot of it. Probably too much fun.
Final Score: 10 out of 11
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Ran-Dum-Dum-Dugan Thoughts
— Star Wars fans can be divided into two groups: those who prefer 1-3 over 4-6, and those with taste. It's the exact opposite for Lost fans.
— Rachel Maddow is as wonderful as she is intelligent and witty.
— I've done my best to read up on the Google/Verizon proposal, and see things from their side. But I can't. It seems wrong to partition the internet into different, tiered internets. I bet the same was said about TV and cable.
— New York Comic Con looks bodacious, through and through.
— It's nearly Sunday, and I still haven't seen Scott Pilgrim vs The World. :(
— While some stranger inherited my one-way ticket to Oakdale, I just came into what amounts to a round-trip ticket. For those keeping track, MTA/LIRR: 1, JOEY: 1
— I hope the rumors about MARVEL Studios and Jon Favreau are just that.
— One of the more boggling aspects of politics in the last few years has been the degradation of intelligence as some form of elitism, and the rise of ignorance as some kind of virtue. We can blame former-President Bush and former-Governor Palin and numerous talking heads for this.
— It's good to have Futurama back.
— Keeping my chops even has become infinitely easier now that there's a beard trimmer around.
— Can you name a better SNL sketch than Celebrity Jeopardy?
— Jon Stewart with or without goatee? With.
— What lies in the shadow of the statue, Lebowski?
— The Half-Penny is like Blue Post, if you could actually talk to the bartenders on a busy night, eat popcorn, and watch movies.
— Is there a point when creation no longer belongs to creator? That's a conversation I want to have with George Lucas.
— Speaking of, read this article. Things will make sense (Ewoks!).
— Something like 3 people have told me they've posted comments, but they haven't stuck. I haven't deleted any! So, post it to facebook. I promise I'll respond and we can chat about things. It'll be fuuun.
— I could really stand a haircut.
— An explanation of the title.
— I need your help: What should I blog about? New ideas that aren't me bitching about things I enjoy (Lost, Star Wars, comics, the United States) are hard to come by. I'm open to ideas.
— Rachel Maddow is as wonderful as she is intelligent and witty.
— I've done my best to read up on the Google/Verizon proposal, and see things from their side. But I can't. It seems wrong to partition the internet into different, tiered internets. I bet the same was said about TV and cable.
— New York Comic Con looks bodacious, through and through.
— It's nearly Sunday, and I still haven't seen Scott Pilgrim vs The World. :(
— While some stranger inherited my one-way ticket to Oakdale, I just came into what amounts to a round-trip ticket. For those keeping track, MTA/LIRR: 1, JOEY: 1
— I hope the rumors about MARVEL Studios and Jon Favreau are just that.
— One of the more boggling aspects of politics in the last few years has been the degradation of intelligence as some form of elitism, and the rise of ignorance as some kind of virtue. We can blame former-President Bush and former-Governor Palin and numerous talking heads for this.
— It's good to have Futurama back.
— Keeping my chops even has become infinitely easier now that there's a beard trimmer around.
— Can you name a better SNL sketch than Celebrity Jeopardy?
— Jon Stewart with or without goatee? With.
— What lies in the shadow of the statue, Lebowski?
— The Half-Penny is like Blue Post, if you could actually talk to the bartenders on a busy night, eat popcorn, and watch movies.
— Is there a point when creation no longer belongs to creator? That's a conversation I want to have with George Lucas.
— Speaking of, read this article. Things will make sense (Ewoks!).
— Something like 3 people have told me they've posted comments, but they haven't stuck. I haven't deleted any! So, post it to facebook. I promise I'll respond and we can chat about things. It'll be fuuun.
— I could really stand a haircut.
— An explanation of the title.
— I need your help: What should I blog about? New ideas that aren't me bitching about things I enjoy (Lost, Star Wars, comics, the United States) are hard to come by. I'm open to ideas.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Lost about L O S T
Before I start, I will be discussing Lost spoilers. If you plan on watching it, stop reading, because I'd feel like a right ass if I ruined it for you.
I finished Lost about 2 weeks ago. I haven't said anything much about it because I wanted to let it marinate. All 6 seasons in about a month. That's a ton of TV: 121 episodes at about 42 minutes each. There was good and bad to watching Lost like this. I could recall things that happened in prior seasons pretty easily. But I didn't give myself time to fully process each episode with a week's worth of reflection. This kept me from forming too many of my own theories; instead, I just processed what I saw. Now, that's not to say I didn't wonder about mysteries and twists. I just figured there was a master plan. How naive!
I'm going to flashback now, to a time when I was new to UNCW and Creative Writing. I was sitting in CRW 207, Intro to Fiction. On the first day, the TA, Tim, gave us a couple of rules: No killing, no dreams. The latter was about the cheesy/cliche/horrible/misleading/amateur "it was all a dream" trash. Just for emphasis, I'm going to repeat a few things. On my FIRST day of INTRO to Fiction, I was taught not to deceive my audience. Before I even put pen to paper for my first story, this is what I heard. Flash forward to a day or so after I finished. Imagine my dismay, after I got over the emotional high of the finale, when I realized what Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse had done. If I had followed the series from the start, I'd have been angry. Because what they did equates to waking up at the end of it all, and everything being OK. It's one of the cheapest tactics in storytelling. But they did it masterfully. Up until the reveal of what was actually going on at the church, Cuse and Lindelof were manipulating our emotions by showing us what these lives could've been if they hadn't crashed over the island. That first mega-episode of season 6 broke my heart. A lot. It hurt me to see John Locke again, but confined to that damn wheelchair. And that's what a lot of the flash sideways was, but never again to the same effect as that first episode. I wish I had recognized what they were doing while it was happening, but alas.
What gets me about the way it ended, was the way Cuse and Lindelof handled it. How did they handle it? Like dicks. They were smug about the lack of answers, about the mysteries left wide open. They implied the fans were stupid to have expected reveals. Excuse me? I was stupid for thinking that after you spent an entire season talking about how special Walt was that you might tell us what that was all about? We had some crazy guy screaming at Claire that she was the only one who could raise her baby. And then it's promptly forgotten a few seasons later. It just doesn't seem right to me to introduce mystery after mystery after mystery, and then scoff when the audience expects answers. And I don't need concrete explanations. I don't want things spelled out. That's one of the reasons I loved Inception: Chris Nolan didn't have to explain why certain rules existed, or why they could be broken, or how different levels worked. He gave us just enough to let us know that he knew. But these guys threw twist after twist after surprise after surprise with no real plan or over-arching theme or anything that resembles how you should go about something this intricate. Ever since I got over how rad lightsabers are, this has been my major critique of every last Star Wars movie: Lucas never planned things out. He made it up as he went, and Lost followed suit. Difference being, Lost's creators saw the nerd-rage focused at George once we wised up to the fact that he's a terrible writer and storyteller. And the thing is, they had time to figure all this out. By the middle of season 3, they'd been given an end date. They knew how many more shows they had left. But instead of looking back at the past seasons, at all the things they introduced, and seeing how they tie in together, and what ought to be explained and what left a mystery, they just kept on making it up as they went. (Oh, I don't in any way buy that they planned out the bodies in the cave. Especially since when Jack finds them in season 1, he says the decay on the clothes is somewhere around 40-50 years. When they flashback to that episode in season 6, they conveniently left that dialogue out.)
Good, I got the super-negative out of the way first. Mostly, anyways. I can't guarantee I won't spin-off into a long-winded rant about Jacob being an idiot without a plan or Ben being a better character without Jacob existing, or about how they just threw the whole science vs. faith out there, with nothing to really say about it, or how Sun told Claire a mother would never leave her child and promptly LEAVES HER CHILD and instead of knocking sense into her husband so he raises their daughter, lets him die with her. Ahem. For the first bunch of seasons, I want to say 1-3, character was ballin'. Between Sun and Jin's developments, Locke vs. Jack, the development of the Others, there was a ton to be excited about. Season 4 did some cool things, and had one of the greatest episodes in The Constant.
Season 5 introduced time travel, and I thought they handled it well. Daniel Faraday explained the rules to us, without going into the mystery of how the island was doing it, and it worked. The island all over time was rad, even if why it moved didn't fit with that (or why Jin was somehow within range but the helicopter wasn't). What confused me about it, though, was why Hurley thought to "fix" The Empire Strikes Back. Of all the movies needing improvement, that is one at the bottom of my list. If anything, fix Return of the Jedi. Regardless, they handled it well, and the idea that hopping through the timestream could kill you was a nice touch.
Obviously, I've got problems with the mystery aspect of the show. I stand by that I don't need my hand held, or everything explained. That sort of thing would've ruined the show. Just like too few answers ruined the show. It hurts to type that. But that's just the truth. The way the series ended keeps it from being great. I want to love the intrigue. I want to wonder about the mystery. But the ending said none of that matters. The ending said this is a show about characters, when in fact, only one character developed past where we met them. Sawyer in season 6 may as well have been Sawyer in season 1. Not necessarily a bad thing, until you remember the character he was in season 5. Kate was never allowed to be anything more than a reason for Jack and Sawyer to fight. Sayid just killed people, and loved Nadia (don't get me started on Shannon being with Sayid in the church). It's frustrating.
That one word describes my feelings on Lost: frustrating. It wouldn't have taken much. Every time these guys got together to plan out a season, come up with a few explanations. They don't need to be in the show, but knowing them informs your writing. But they didn't, and the show ended how it did. To hide their problems, they used the emotional pull of a reunion. And it worked. I cried. I was so glad to see everyone together again, even if it didn't make sense. When I stopped to look back at it, there were too many glaring problems. I want to love the show, and I think I can love about half of it. When I rewatch it, it'll be with a smarter eye and lowered expectations.
I finished Lost about 2 weeks ago. I haven't said anything much about it because I wanted to let it marinate. All 6 seasons in about a month. That's a ton of TV: 121 episodes at about 42 minutes each. There was good and bad to watching Lost like this. I could recall things that happened in prior seasons pretty easily. But I didn't give myself time to fully process each episode with a week's worth of reflection. This kept me from forming too many of my own theories; instead, I just processed what I saw. Now, that's not to say I didn't wonder about mysteries and twists. I just figured there was a master plan. How naive!
I'm going to flashback now, to a time when I was new to UNCW and Creative Writing. I was sitting in CRW 207, Intro to Fiction. On the first day, the TA, Tim, gave us a couple of rules: No killing, no dreams. The latter was about the cheesy/cliche/horrible/misleading/amateur "it was all a dream" trash. Just for emphasis, I'm going to repeat a few things. On my FIRST day of INTRO to Fiction, I was taught not to deceive my audience. Before I even put pen to paper for my first story, this is what I heard. Flash forward to a day or so after I finished. Imagine my dismay, after I got over the emotional high of the finale, when I realized what Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse had done. If I had followed the series from the start, I'd have been angry. Because what they did equates to waking up at the end of it all, and everything being OK. It's one of the cheapest tactics in storytelling. But they did it masterfully. Up until the reveal of what was actually going on at the church, Cuse and Lindelof were manipulating our emotions by showing us what these lives could've been if they hadn't crashed over the island. That first mega-episode of season 6 broke my heart. A lot. It hurt me to see John Locke again, but confined to that damn wheelchair. And that's what a lot of the flash sideways was, but never again to the same effect as that first episode. I wish I had recognized what they were doing while it was happening, but alas.
What gets me about the way it ended, was the way Cuse and Lindelof handled it. How did they handle it? Like dicks. They were smug about the lack of answers, about the mysteries left wide open. They implied the fans were stupid to have expected reveals. Excuse me? I was stupid for thinking that after you spent an entire season talking about how special Walt was that you might tell us what that was all about? We had some crazy guy screaming at Claire that she was the only one who could raise her baby. And then it's promptly forgotten a few seasons later. It just doesn't seem right to me to introduce mystery after mystery after mystery, and then scoff when the audience expects answers. And I don't need concrete explanations. I don't want things spelled out. That's one of the reasons I loved Inception: Chris Nolan didn't have to explain why certain rules existed, or why they could be broken, or how different levels worked. He gave us just enough to let us know that he knew. But these guys threw twist after twist after surprise after surprise with no real plan or over-arching theme or anything that resembles how you should go about something this intricate. Ever since I got over how rad lightsabers are, this has been my major critique of every last Star Wars movie: Lucas never planned things out. He made it up as he went, and Lost followed suit. Difference being, Lost's creators saw the nerd-rage focused at George once we wised up to the fact that he's a terrible writer and storyteller. And the thing is, they had time to figure all this out. By the middle of season 3, they'd been given an end date. They knew how many more shows they had left. But instead of looking back at the past seasons, at all the things they introduced, and seeing how they tie in together, and what ought to be explained and what left a mystery, they just kept on making it up as they went. (Oh, I don't in any way buy that they planned out the bodies in the cave. Especially since when Jack finds them in season 1, he says the decay on the clothes is somewhere around 40-50 years. When they flashback to that episode in season 6, they conveniently left that dialogue out.)
Good, I got the super-negative out of the way first. Mostly, anyways. I can't guarantee I won't spin-off into a long-winded rant about Jacob being an idiot without a plan or Ben being a better character without Jacob existing, or about how they just threw the whole science vs. faith out there, with nothing to really say about it, or how Sun told Claire a mother would never leave her child and promptly LEAVES HER CHILD and instead of knocking sense into her husband so he raises their daughter, lets him die with her. Ahem. For the first bunch of seasons, I want to say 1-3, character was ballin'. Between Sun and Jin's developments, Locke vs. Jack, the development of the Others, there was a ton to be excited about. Season 4 did some cool things, and had one of the greatest episodes in The Constant.
Season 5 introduced time travel, and I thought they handled it well. Daniel Faraday explained the rules to us, without going into the mystery of how the island was doing it, and it worked. The island all over time was rad, even if why it moved didn't fit with that (or why Jin was somehow within range but the helicopter wasn't). What confused me about it, though, was why Hurley thought to "fix" The Empire Strikes Back. Of all the movies needing improvement, that is one at the bottom of my list. If anything, fix Return of the Jedi. Regardless, they handled it well, and the idea that hopping through the timestream could kill you was a nice touch.
Obviously, I've got problems with the mystery aspect of the show. I stand by that I don't need my hand held, or everything explained. That sort of thing would've ruined the show. Just like too few answers ruined the show. It hurts to type that. But that's just the truth. The way the series ended keeps it from being great. I want to love the intrigue. I want to wonder about the mystery. But the ending said none of that matters. The ending said this is a show about characters, when in fact, only one character developed past where we met them. Sawyer in season 6 may as well have been Sawyer in season 1. Not necessarily a bad thing, until you remember the character he was in season 5. Kate was never allowed to be anything more than a reason for Jack and Sawyer to fight. Sayid just killed people, and loved Nadia (don't get me started on Shannon being with Sayid in the church). It's frustrating.
That one word describes my feelings on Lost: frustrating. It wouldn't have taken much. Every time these guys got together to plan out a season, come up with a few explanations. They don't need to be in the show, but knowing them informs your writing. But they didn't, and the show ended how it did. To hide their problems, they used the emotional pull of a reunion. And it worked. I cried. I was so glad to see everyone together again, even if it didn't make sense. When I stopped to look back at it, there were too many glaring problems. I want to love the show, and I think I can love about half of it. When I rewatch it, it'll be with a smarter eye and lowered expectations.
Friday, August 6, 2010
A Fool's Hope
If you ignore the 9/11 Responders heath care bill getting shot down, Google's and Verizon's shenanigans, and a whole bunch of other terrible political things, the past few days have been substantial steps forward. I'd say it even started a week or so ago, in California. Here's what you should know about me before going forward: I'm a registered Democrat, but I don't buy into every little thing they do. I have no problem dissenting from the party line. But I'm still a liberal. Mostly, because I also believe in a smaller government and less spending.
Proposition 19 will be on the California statewide ballot come November. What is Prop. 19? By golly, it's the Regulation, Control, and Taxation of Marijuana Act. It's about time a state put this up for a vote. California, along with the rest of the United States, is horribly in debt. That's no secret. But no one wants to pay more taxes. Legalizing pot is a way to produce revenue. If the rest of the country is anything like my group of friends, alcohol sales are enormous. But I know plenty of people who would much rather smoke a blunt, watch a movie, and talk then get hammered and vomit. I'm one of those people. It would mean revenue. It would mean more jobs, because someone has to farm it and sell it. It's a stimulated economy. On top of that, if marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels in Mexico start losing their power. Hopefully, that means less massacres along the border towns. But, it'd still be illegal under Federal law. Then it becomes a states' rights issue, and gets real attention. The key, though, is getting it passed in November. The joke is stoners are lazy and forgetful. Young too. But my age came out in full force to elect Barack Obama. When motivated, when the issue matters, we'll show up. And then we'll head to the local Mary Jane shop and spend our money on something that won't kill our livers or lungs.
Next up, New York City approved the building of an Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero. This in spite of politicians and people on both sides of the political divide coming out in opposition. The reasons given were varied: it'd be an insult to everyone who died in the attacks, we need to protect this country from the takeover of Muslims, it's too soon, etc. A friend has suggested that it'll be attacked by some crazies who believe in a different god. I agree with him, but I don't think that's reason enough to refuse it. Yes, there's a good chance some insane zealot will do something stupid and tragic. But are we really willing to deny freedom of religion for security? We've lost a ton of freedoms already under the guise of being more secure, but I don't buy it. Just because something MIGHT happen isn't enough. I stand by education as the way around a lot of these issues white Christians have with brown Muslims. The problem resides in the face that ignorance is paraded around by "politicians" and talking heads as something admirable. It's not, and the ignorant are bringing this country down by the head. No, Muslims have every right to build their community center wherever they want. Especially if the man behind it has a history of reaching out to people of other faiths in the spirit of bridging gaps. Frankly, for a country of immigrants, this shouldn't have been a big deal. Opponents are grouping nearly 1 billion people in with the extremists. As if Muslims didn't die in the attacks, which they did. More than 20 did, which is about .6%, which is about how many Americans identify as Muslim.
Back to California, a judge overturned Proposition 8, which barred same-sex couples from legally wedding. Nice, says I! Despite the United States' claim to equality and all the rest, it's always a struggle when a minority wants equal rights. It doesn't click though. There's no sense to it. The white majority likes to forget that whites weren't always the majority here. That once upon a time, we were immigrants, we were invaders to someone else's land. That 'Murica is made up of more than just white, straight, Christians men. And every once in a while, when another group wants to be treated the same, that majority gets in a tizzy. Watching pundits talk about it, it's gross. They take a moral high-ground, or say the courts are interfering, that marriage is a church thing, blah, blah, blah. It's all crap to hide bigotry, methinks. That may be generalizing, but what else am I to think? Gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the other, the alien, the different. They're not "normal," even though homosexuality shows up in nature, making it NATURAL. These are the same arguments made against interracial marriage. They just replace one minority with another. Which is, I suppose, how bigotry works. But slowly, as per the usual, this new minority is getting equal rights. And that's awesome.
It's a fool's hope to think that things are getting better. Gay marriage will soon find itself in front of a conservative Supreme Court. California may find itself at odds with the federal government. And who knows what some sick individual will do to the Muslim community center (but I bet no one will call them a terrorist because they're white and God-fearing). But for right now, at least, things look better than they did last week.
Proposition 19 will be on the California statewide ballot come November. What is Prop. 19? By golly, it's the Regulation, Control, and Taxation of Marijuana Act. It's about time a state put this up for a vote. California, along with the rest of the United States, is horribly in debt. That's no secret. But no one wants to pay more taxes. Legalizing pot is a way to produce revenue. If the rest of the country is anything like my group of friends, alcohol sales are enormous. But I know plenty of people who would much rather smoke a blunt, watch a movie, and talk then get hammered and vomit. I'm one of those people. It would mean revenue. It would mean more jobs, because someone has to farm it and sell it. It's a stimulated economy. On top of that, if marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels in Mexico start losing their power. Hopefully, that means less massacres along the border towns. But, it'd still be illegal under Federal law. Then it becomes a states' rights issue, and gets real attention. The key, though, is getting it passed in November. The joke is stoners are lazy and forgetful. Young too. But my age came out in full force to elect Barack Obama. When motivated, when the issue matters, we'll show up. And then we'll head to the local Mary Jane shop and spend our money on something that won't kill our livers or lungs.
Next up, New York City approved the building of an Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero. This in spite of politicians and people on both sides of the political divide coming out in opposition. The reasons given were varied: it'd be an insult to everyone who died in the attacks, we need to protect this country from the takeover of Muslims, it's too soon, etc. A friend has suggested that it'll be attacked by some crazies who believe in a different god. I agree with him, but I don't think that's reason enough to refuse it. Yes, there's a good chance some insane zealot will do something stupid and tragic. But are we really willing to deny freedom of religion for security? We've lost a ton of freedoms already under the guise of being more secure, but I don't buy it. Just because something MIGHT happen isn't enough. I stand by education as the way around a lot of these issues white Christians have with brown Muslims. The problem resides in the face that ignorance is paraded around by "politicians" and talking heads as something admirable. It's not, and the ignorant are bringing this country down by the head. No, Muslims have every right to build their community center wherever they want. Especially if the man behind it has a history of reaching out to people of other faiths in the spirit of bridging gaps. Frankly, for a country of immigrants, this shouldn't have been a big deal. Opponents are grouping nearly 1 billion people in with the extremists. As if Muslims didn't die in the attacks, which they did. More than 20 did, which is about .6%, which is about how many Americans identify as Muslim.
Back to California, a judge overturned Proposition 8, which barred same-sex couples from legally wedding. Nice, says I! Despite the United States' claim to equality and all the rest, it's always a struggle when a minority wants equal rights. It doesn't click though. There's no sense to it. The white majority likes to forget that whites weren't always the majority here. That once upon a time, we were immigrants, we were invaders to someone else's land. That 'Murica is made up of more than just white, straight, Christians men. And every once in a while, when another group wants to be treated the same, that majority gets in a tizzy. Watching pundits talk about it, it's gross. They take a moral high-ground, or say the courts are interfering, that marriage is a church thing, blah, blah, blah. It's all crap to hide bigotry, methinks. That may be generalizing, but what else am I to think? Gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the other, the alien, the different. They're not "normal," even though homosexuality shows up in nature, making it NATURAL. These are the same arguments made against interracial marriage. They just replace one minority with another. Which is, I suppose, how bigotry works. But slowly, as per the usual, this new minority is getting equal rights. And that's awesome.
It's a fool's hope to think that things are getting better. Gay marriage will soon find itself in front of a conservative Supreme Court. California may find itself at odds with the federal government. And who knows what some sick individual will do to the Muslim community center (but I bet no one will call them a terrorist because they're white and God-fearing). But for right now, at least, things look better than they did last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)