You know that bit at the beginning of all the Marvel movies where you see all the snippets of comics rushing by as the word “MARVEL” fades in? That's pretty much how it seems like they made Spiderman 3. Most of the characters had no more than a minute or two each to do all of their soul searching and growth, so rather than slowly coming around to a new world view, people just sort of made a pensive face for a moment and then switched sides.

It did make me want to read the comics, as there seemed to be lots of interesting material whizzing by.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

So I'm about a third of the way through iWoz, and while some of the stories are certainly interesting I found myself getting irritated as I read it and tried to figure out why. At some level it's perhaps all his commentary on how great a lot of the stuff he did was, but mostly that doesn't bother me so much. Clearly, a lot of the stuff he did was in fact really cool, and clearly he is really smart, so that seems reasonable (even if he could have perhaps spend a little less time drawing attention to just how great he is).

But I realized that what really bothers me that it's that he's not very honest about himself. An illustrative example, starting with a passage from the beginning of the book about how his childhood shaped him:

[...] my dad believed in honesty. Extreme honesty. Extreme ethics, really. That's the biggest thing he taught me. He used to tell me that it was worse to lie about doing something bad under oath than it was to actually do something bad [...] That really sunk in. I never lie, even to this day. Not even a little.

Then later, this passage from when he and The Other Steve are approached (completely coincidentally, although he didn't yet know it) by police officers just after making illegal Blue Box calls from a pay phone:

But then the cop turned back to us and patted us down. He felt my Blue Box and I pulled it out of my pocket and showed it to him. We knew we were caught. The cop asked me what it was. I was not about to say “Oh, this is a Blue Box for making free telephone calls.” So for some reason I said it was an electronic music synthesizer.

And then after convincing them of the above:

The internal joy I felt when the cop believed our story about the Blue Box being the Moog synthesizer is almost indescribable. Not only were we not arrested for making illegal calls with or owning a Blue Box, but these supposedly intelligent cops had bought our B.S.

Um, what? Someone who gloats to himself (and now an audience of millions) about how cool it was to lie to the police to avoid the consequences of doing something he knew to be illegal at the time is not a practitioner of “extreme ethics”, and I'm pretty sure that lying to the police isn't consistent with never lying “even a little”. And it's not just the dishonesty, but the sense that he's taking something away from others—yes, he's clearly a gifted engineer, so talking about that is fine. But there are people out there who genuinely are extremely ethical, and this just feels to me like he's robbing them of something in order to claim a virtue that he doesn't really seem to posses, rather than being satisfied with the (remarkable) things that he legitimately did accomplish.

I guess what it comes down to is that I can respect pride, but when it crosses into unfounded ego it's not so respectable.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

I went up to the city to see 2001, with the idea that it might be better on the big screen. Basically though, it's bigger, louder (painfully so), but still just as mind-numbingly boring; I jokingly suggested that I should go home and watch Blade Runner (director's cut) since it might actually be tolerable in comparison. I'm also tempted to make an edited version: all the important content, but about 1/10th the length. I think it could be a pretty good short.

Yes, I dislike both Blade Runner and 2001. Sometimes I'm a bad nerd.

The evening wasn't a total loss though. I saw the Castro district for the first time, which was interesting. I also saw a shirt which amused me greatly: “Feelings are boring. Kissing is awesome.” It came as no surprise when I learned that it's merchandise from the deeply bizarre but often humorous Dinosaur Comics.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

Laura and I saw Serenity this weekend, and it was very good. Since we both loved Firefly when we watched the whole (criminally short-lived) series on DVD, our expectations were high. Joss Whedon certainly did not disappoint (which was by no means certain). I tore through seven seasons of Buffy DVDs because of his masterful ability to convey all kinds of ideas, feelings, and emotions in a very direct and moving way through his characters, and his willingness to look hard at anything and everything, without pulling his punches. I loved Firefly for the same reason. Serenity was that same approach distilled down into two intense hours.

I definitely recommend watching the series first, since character-driven stories are more powerful the better you know the characters and you simply can't get the same level of connection in two hours as you can in the longer exposure of the series. That said, I was impressed by the way he introduced everyone and their relationships quickly but without feeling rushed, so I have no doubt that it would stand alone quite well. It's Whedon at his best.

The only downside was that it brought a sense of closure that the aborted series never had, which severely dampened that small glimmer of hope that someday, somehow, Firefly would return to be the many-season show it so richly deserved to be.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

In what is now becoming almost a tradition, Laura, Josh, and I sunk several hours last night into a spectacularly unfulfilling movie. Our list now consists of Johnny English (not nearly as funny as hoped), The Aviator (some interesting scenes strung together by hours of essentially pointless filler), and now The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. All three of us had the feeling we must have been missing something—something deep and vital that would have given meaning to the whole film. We have no clue what that something might be though, and without that something the movie made no sense, and was only barely entertaining for a handful of minutes.

I really liked Lost in Translation, so it's not that I don't have the capacity to enjoy Bill Murray in somewhat strange films. And lots of other people seem to have liked Life Aquatic, so presumably there was something redeeming in it. Yet somehow the film and I never managed to connect.

If you know the secret that makes it worthwhile, do tell.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

Movie roundup for the week (movies I happened to see this week, not movies that are new this week):

The Good: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I wasn't expecting this to be very good (I was afraid that like Being John Malkovich it would never make any discernible point), but got it on a lark, and found it to be excellent. It was very thought-provoking in its exploration of the bittersweet aspects of relationships, but with a subtly that I find lacking (and aggravatingly so) in so many stories that try to make a point. I can't stand movies and books where you can practically hear the author shouting: “Now I am going to talk about topic X! Here is what I think about topic X. In case you missed that, I think this about topic X. Really! Lets go over that one more time—you stand right there, and I'll beat you over the head with my views. Great! Now back to the movie.”

Eternal Sunshine certainly had its share of really bizarre scenes that made no sense at the time, but by the end in most cases I could see how it fit in to the story being woven, and how its presence enhanced (again, subtly) the ideas.

Two thumbs up.

The Bad: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. Bad does not even come close here—we borrowed it from the library, for free, and I still feel robbed. 106 minutes of my life are gone and I dearly want them back.

The theory that Laura and I have is that this sequel is the universe's way of balancing itself out. We got the original expecting it to be awful, and instead found it to be an entertaining, humorously campy experience. We got the second expecting another fun fluff movie, and instead had our very low expectations for the original realized this time around. Apparently the distinction between “campy” and “mind-bogglingly stupid” was lost on the scriptwriters/producers/directors.

I do not have enough thumbs to put down.

The ‘Meh’: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I actually saw this about a week and a half ago, but “The Good, The Bad, And I Didn't See A Third Movie” just didn't have the same ring. I wouldn't recommend Hitchhiker's to anyone, but I wouldn't actively dissuade anyone from seeing it either—that's about the best I can say about it. I know that The Man himself did a fair amount of the screen adaptation for this version, but I think some serious damage must have been done afterward. I simply can't believe that removing most of the funny dialog was his idea—presumably someone had to cut brutally to make room for important additions like the totally pointless dolphin scene at the beginning. On the bright side, there were sufficient amusing moments that I wanted neither my time nor my money back when I left the theater.

I guess my feeling is that if you already have two excellent adaptations (in the forms of the book and the radio show), making a significantly inferior third adaptation isn't a terribly good idea. But maybe I just miss Peter Jones.

Two thumbs that can't really be bothered to vote one way or the other.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

Laura and I just got back from seeing Hero, and, as the title of this entry implies, I thought it was phenomenal. The artistry was incredible, and although it was so intense it was almost palpable, it didn't get in the way of the story at all. Quite the opposite: the feeling it gave me was that it set an elaborate scene in order to invite me to discover the story on my own. I felt volumes of unspoken dialog in nearly every scene, and the meanings poured themselves out effortlessly. At the same time, although the film made me feel as if I understood things instinctively, I was aware of even more depth and texture and nuance of meaning that I couldn't yet identify or draw out.

I plan to buy it as soon as possible, and watch it many many times. I plan to learn about the symbolism of the five Chinese elements, the symbolism of each color, and anything else that occurs to me, and then look for one theme or repeated element at a time. I plan to discover as much of what the film has to offer as possible.

Watching most movies feels to me like the intellectual equivalent of gorging myself on gummi-worms. Watching Hero felt more like meditating.

Category: A & E

Comments (3)

Laura and I went to a free Shakespeare In The Park presentation of Twelfth Night tonight in the park next to our apartment complex, and enjoyed it immensely. I thought the acting was excellent, and found it very easy to get into the story and the emotions despite being unfamiliar with the play. In fact, just the fact that I was able to follow it without having read it in advance, and even to catch many of the jokes and wordplays, is a testament to the quality of the production. The set, costumes, props, and blocking were extremely creative, and were at the same time almost jarring in contrast to the overall Shakespearean feel and yet very right. The entire presentation surprised and delighted in unexpected ways, but felt true to the spirit of the play in every way. If you happen to be in Cupertino tomorrow or next weekend, I highly recommend it.

I really enjoy theater, and whenever I go to a play I'm always a bit sad that my days of technical theater are getting to be so long gone. Some part of me is always wanting to have the insider feel again, and thinking about things like how much work it must have been for the sound guy to work with such a strangely shaped, un-acoustic, outside setup. I sometimes find myself mentally adjusting mic levels as actors approach each other, or wondering which light could be repositioned to cover a hole.

But my life is very different now than it was in high-school, and the time commitments of theater are not trivial. Even if I could find a way to get back into lighting and sound without being a union professional, it's not the sort of thing I can do or not do as life or mood dictates. And so I'll continue to sit in the audience, aware of the lighting and sound equipment, and the back of the set, and the time allowed for quick costume changes. But I'll also be aware of which side of the curtain I am on.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

I love dancing. I love actually doing it, and, as a general rule, I love watching it. But what I absolutely can't stand is watching people dance when they have no apparent interest in dancing. I'm not talking about the guy whose girlfriend dragged him to a dance lesson; I'm talking about people who dance competitively or in performances, but look bored... or worse, totally emotionless. Why are you there? Why are you forcing innocent people to watch you "dance"? We have even less interest in watching you than you appear to have in dancing, if such a thing is possible. This is why I've disliked every Argentine Tango demonstration I've seen. All the people I've seen seem to think that it's good to look bored and/or asleep while dancing it.

So for everyone's sake, learn to enjoy dancing—if you can't bear dance, we can't bear to watch. If that's too much to ask, then for crying out load, at least plaster a semi-realistic expression of some kind on your face. If you can learn complicated step, surely you can at least try to have an attitude of some kind.

And no, swishing your skirt (ladies) or wearing a loud shirt (gentlemen), does not magically give you attitude. The shirt just makes you look stupid.

Category: A & E

Comments (3)

Wow.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

I've finished Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and one the thing that caught my attention the most was the editing out of British-isms... or rather, the almost total lack thereof. This book was significantly less Americanized than the last four, and although I was mostly able to figure things out by context, there were times I had no idea what someone was saying.

At first, I assumed that this was hasty editing, in an attempt to get it out the door and into the hands of the impatient masses as soon as possible. The more I think about it, though, the more convinced I am that it's a sinister plot. Think about it... the Brits have a totally unprecedented chance to get vast amounts of British slang into American usage, even more so than at the height of Beetle-mania, since many readers are impressionable children, and the books are way more language-intensive than song lyrics. So they're leaving as much British English as possible in the books, well aware that every word will be branded into the memories of the millions of Harry/Ron/Hermione wannabes. Finally they have a chance to fight back against our perversion of English, and they are seizing it. It's brilliant. It's insidious.

I suppose I should be outraged... but frankly, I'm not all that fussed.

Category: A & E

Comments (1)

I finally have Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I'll be returning to the world of the living in a few days.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

I've just finished reading Dan Simmons' Hyperion series, and enjoyed it very much. He is good at imagining and describing both bizarre alien races and cultures, and believable social evolution of humanity in a variety of situations. I was also impressed by his ability to weave large plot-arcs, revealed piecemiel, without the story being hard to follow. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good science fiction series.

My one complaint is the end of the series. I found several of the "mysteries" revealed at the very end of the last book to have been painfully obvious (the Observer and the father, for those that have already read it). As I'm not exactly known for my ability to see ends of books/movies coming, it's a pretty good bet that if I thought it was obvious, the hero should have had a clue. So I found the last half of the last book slightly grating, since every time the hero struggles with emotional issues surrounding the mysteries, I had to roll my eyes and say, "Yes yes, poor Raul still hasn't figured it out." I'm not sure if Simmons intended it that way, so that the reader can feel clever, or if it was supposed to be a mystery to all. Either way, my patience with thick-headed heroes is limited, so that frustrated me.

But overall, the real substance of the plot and the ending were open and interesting enough that the above was only a minor annoyance in an otherwise great read, and in no way spoiled my enjoyment of the series.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

O is a good example of "dark" done right. It stands to reason that Daredevil wouldn't have sucked if:

• The producers/directors had been different
• The script had been based on a work of Shakespeare
• Julia Stiles had been cast as Electra

Ok, so that last one might not have helped the film much... but on the other hand, more movies with Julia Stiles can only be an improvement.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

The only good thing I can say about Daredevil is that it made Two Towers seem a whole lot better. I went in knowing that the reviews were bad, but I was totally unprepared for the level of garbage I was exposed to.

I'm pretty sure that they were going for "dark", but all they accomplished was "insanely violent". And while it wasn't really gory, it was very graphic. Basically, the script writers didn't seem to realize that in order for a story to be dark, it has to be both disturbing and (at least somewhat) powerful. All they managed to pull off was unpleasant.

They were far too enamored with fight scenes (I'd conservatively estimate that two thirds of the movie was fighting) and bad CGI. That unfortunately left almost no time for other things like, say, character development. I think that Ben Afleck tried to convey the whole tortured soul thing that is vital to it being a good story. Unfortunately, except for a scene where he trashes his apartment, he didn't really have much chance.

They did save time for trite one-line "insights" into his soul: "I set out to save the city, but with Electra's help, I saved myself." And that's their idea of character development? And no, putting him on the edge of a building looking out over the city each time he delivers one of these gems does not offset the fact that there was no build up and magically make it a good line.

Oh, and for crying out loud don't use CGI, badly, for no reason. If you want to drop a rose onto the ground in slow motion just do it. It's hard to be moved by the symbolism when all I can think is "Wow that rose looks fake as it bounces off the concrete without deforming."

Category: A & E

Comments (0)

I finally saw Two Towers last weekend, and one question has been really bothering me since then: Why was there no rioting? Why didn't a torch-and-pitchfork-carrying mob descend on the studio, and wreak havoc?

As near as I can tell, the people in charge of the move sat around one day, and one said, "So are we going to mostly stick to the story, like we did for the first movie, thus ensuring that we'll have a good movie?" To which, someone responded, "Heck no! That's been done, so we can't just do it again! What a stupid idea!" The first guy slapped his forehead and said, "You're right; silly me! Lets give the story to amateurs and have them rewrite it to be nothing like the original story instead." Everyone agreed that that would be best, and so they did.

So then the script-writers got together and brainstormed, and came up with all of the following ideas:

• "First, instead of just editing for time, let's also modify basically every event in the book just for kicks. Then, people who have read the books won't know what's going on, and it will be new for everyone!"
• "Lets make all of the characters one-dimensional. Gimli? Why have waste him as a character when he can just be the butt of midget jokes? Eowyn? A strong shield-maiden of Rohan? But she's much more effective doing nothing but wandering around and staring longingly at Aragorn! Faramir? Honorable and courageous? Only the heroes should have virtues, so lets make him a total schmuck instead. Oh, and let's emasculate the King of Rohan, so he makes Aragorn look cooler."
• "Expanding Arwen's role totally out of proportion in the first movie worked well, so this time, let's not only write her into the story, but also add elves lots of other places, for no real reason."

When, at the end of their brainstorming, they sat down and read their list of changes, they couldn't decide which ones to cut. So they said, "What the heck, we'll just use all of them." Frankly, Dave Barry's version of the script would have been far better.

At least, as Laura pointed out, the movie wasn't a total waste. It was an excellent tourism advertisement for New Zealand.

Category: A & E

Comments (1)

I don't understand why movies (and TV shows) seem to enjoy setting up situations so wildly inconsistent that no matter how hard you try to suspend disbelief, the script just keeps beating you over the head with incongruities.

Intangible people are one of my pet peeves, because it shouldn't be that hard to do them right, but they so often suck, badly. Usually intangible people physics is as follows:

1. Intangible people pass through other people, walls, objects they would like to pick up, etc.
2. Intangible people can walk/run on the ground, fall onto the ground and have it break their fall, slide into walls and be stopped, take stairs and elevators, and ride in moving vehicles.
3. Intangible people can both sit in chairs, and walk through them.

As a side note, 2 leads to the interesting question: could you trap someone by putting them in a really big bowl, with sides that gradually sloped up to near-vertical? If not, at what angle exactly would they be able to pass through the bowl?

But basically, intangible people only perceive things as solid when it's convenient for the purposes of blocking the scene, which is just a huge cop-out. Sure, there's the argument that it looks like the floor is solid and they are walking on it only because that's how the person is used to thinking of themselves moving. But they aren't used to thinking of themselves walking through walls, and yet they manage that just fine. My favorite scene to illustrate this type of painfully jarring inconsistency: in Ghost, the dead guy makes a running leap through the wall of a subway car, lands hard on the floor of the subway, then takes a minute to regain his balance, being rocked around by the motion of the subway. Huh? A very close second is when he is thrown across a subway car, slides through the (closed) door so that he is between cars, then stops sliding because he hits the door into the next car. Again, what the heck? For the believers of the self-perception theory mentioned above I challenge you to explain how, while sliding backward, he is deciding which doors/walls it makes sense for him to slide through.

I say, if you want ghosts or out-of-phase Star Trek characters or whatever, make a reasonably self-consistent system (like, they float around by thinking) and spring for a few more special effects so you can pull it off. I can suspend disbelief, but I can't suspend my observations about gargantuan inconsistencies in the way the world (even a fantasy world) works any more than those poor babies that researchers made cry by making blocks and puppets disobey the laws of physics.

Category: A & E

Comments (0)