Firearm safety

It's not just for real guns.

You check, re-check, triple-check, and quadruple-check to see if the gun--real, fake, prop, imagined, rubber, plastic, balloon, stick, finger, whatever it is made out of--is not actually loaded if you do not intend to fire a lethal projectile. If it is out of your sight for more than 1 second, you repeat the process. You do not delegate this responsibility, it is always and only yours.

Even if you are an actor, whose job is to fire a prop gun loaded with some kind of prop ammunition, you still do the quadruple checks yourself and make damn sure whatever is in the prop gun is not going to kill someone. When in doubt, just stop, stop, stop. 

Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun on ‘Rust' Set, Killing Crew Member, Injuring Director

Actor Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that killed the cinematographer and injured the director on the set of the movie "Rust" in New Mexico on Thursday, authorities said.

Santa Fe County Sheriff’s officials said Halyna Hutchins, cinematographer for the Western being filmed, and director Joel Souza were shot on the set in the desert on the southern outskirts of Sante Fe.

Hutchins, 42, was airlifted to University of New Mexico Hospital, where she was pronounced dead by medical personnel, according to County Sheriff’s officials.

Souza, 48, was taken by ambulance to Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center to receive treatment for his injuries. Actress Frances Fisher, who's slated to appear in the film, tweeted overnight that Souza had left the hospital.

More recommended tv shows

It's about that time of year where a new season of fall television shows gets rolling, the spring and summer shows have concluded and I have a bit of time to reflect on what I've watched and enjoyed recently.

Everything I watch is available online (via Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, or in rare circumstances, other means); I haven't watched via cable or the airways in several years, so most, if not all of my recommendations shouldn't be too hard to find and watch at your leisure--that probably goes without saying at this point.

A couple things I should note: on occasion I will include shows which are more than a few years old. Most are at least somewhat popular, so apologies if you've already watched them. [I've tried watching many obscure shows and most are disappointing.]


Fargo. Coming from the Coen brothers based on the homonymous film, this is clearly and deservedly a popular show. The first season is better than the second and sticks to a more coherent plot, but both are quite good. Martin Freeman and Billy Bob Thornton have an interesting dynamic and really give the first season the feeling of a quality feature film. It's a graphic, intense, and wild ride.

While I will maintain that the second season is good, it is annoying, especially the end. I won't spoil anything, but the season persists with a pointless distraction--with deus ex machina qualities (metaphor or not, it's really dumb), and a not particularly satisfying or clever ending. Regardless, as with the first season, the performances and several plot points are fantastic. And despite what the show says, it's all fiction. Well worth the watch, if only for the first season.





Westworld. Only three episodes have aired at the time of this writing, and while nothing huge yet has happened, I get the distinct feeling something will soon. The performances and writing are all top notch so far, slowly hinting at and escalating things; it almost feels like we're marinating what we all know will be a wonderfully delicious roast. We just have to wait. Maybe I'm blinded by my own high expectations, but I'm a sucker for good sci-fi and westerns, all the more when they're blended so carefully that they don't clash.

If, like me, you haven't watched the original film, then here's a few things you might want to know: Westworld is pretty much an amusement park for the very wealthy. It takes place decades (I'm guessing) in the future, where rich customers fulfill their fantasies in an Old West setting, among hundreds or thousands of very life-like androids that have all passed the Turing test. The AI is pretty good at conversation and improvisation, keeping the park and web of narratives alive. Of course things aren't so perfect, and you get this constant feeling that the whole thing is about to unravel in a spectacular, bloody failure. But we're not quite there yet.




Stranger Things. Another extremely popular Netflix show. Perhaps owing to the 80s nostalgia and the
near perfect execution, the hype was absurd. I don't think it was as great as most seemed to claim, but still I enjoyed it very much. It's reminiscent of J. J. Abrams' Super 8, the Goonies, and other 80s films with an adolescent cast, but now in episodic form.

It follows a group of D&D playing boys in suburban America, who happen upon a lost girl, and crazy stuff that they have to investigate. Yeah I can't say it's original or unique really. It was just done well. Definitely worth checking out.







Wentworth. So I was about to give Orange is the New Black a try based on a few recommendations, but then I noticed this other show about a women's prison. A comedy inside a women's prison doesn't sound all that appealing to me, so when I read about Wentworth and its more serious tone, I gave it a chance.

I was not disappointed. The first season is pretty damn good. The second season however is incredible. The third and fourth are very good as well, but the second alone is some of the best television I've seen. If you want proof an all female cast (well, virtually all female) can deliver excellence, this is it.

I have a few nitpicks with the setting and its plausibility, but then I have no idea how women's prisons are run in Australia. I mean, if I had to go to a maximum security prison, I'd want to go there (at least as far as amenities and personal freedom are concerned). It's just a little hard to believe sometimes.

Wentworth is an Australian show and it's pretty much just about life inside an Australian women's prison. It tends to focus on the main character, Bea Smith (Danielle Cormack) and her struggles. She grows into a compelling character, as do many others, but so, so much more is weaved in that you end up with this complex richness, and just watching it evolve and adapt gives you a wonderful apprehension. I've probably missed a lot, but the show is great at subtle hints and setting up future plot points, so rarely if ever do you end up scratching your head. The set ups do their job and the subtleties make you smile.

I want to say the writing, directing, and acting are all superlative, but that's like saying the entire show is awesome. And well, it's true. Other than my nitpicks I am at a loss to criticize this show. Highly recommended.

Star Trek: Discovery

I thoroughly enjoyed the last Star Trek movie. It felt like a good TOS episode, keeping the spirit of Trek true to itself. It didn't have to blow up the planet Vulcan, didn't have to threaten Earth. Didn't have Spock become a violent psycho. It wasn't perfect (warning: link contains spoilers). But it was nice. I strongly recommend it.

That being said, after recently re-watching Star Trek Beyond, it got me curious about the planned tv series. I know next to nothing about the planned show; nobody knows much about it, there just isn't much information out at the moment. But it is coming.

From the little I've read, I am both cautiously optimistic and worried. They are taking risks, which is good. But risks are risks--the direction they're taking things might not pay off. And Trekkie fandom could suffer.

Here's what I know: The show is called Star Trek: Discovery and is due to be released in May 2017. It's a CBS show of course, but at this point is not planned to be on television. Rather, it will be released online, on CBS All Access (the premiere will air on television, but after that it's all online). If I may be cynical for a moment, it could mean the suits at CBS aren't very confident in it. But I could be wrong: exclusive online media is the new hotness, so maybe Star Trek will be their flagship online draw. Like Netflix's House of Cards. Maybe.

The setting will take place 10 years before the original series, so they are limiting themselves. It's a Star Trek show so it has to be futuristic and fancy, but it takes place before a show made in the 60s. They'll have to cram a new square peg in that round hole. But that's not too worrying, since the new movies got few complaints there. Which means this exclusively online show will have to look something like those big-budget movies. People are tired of reboots, so I doubt they'll be inventing a new ST universe--which means they can't mess up existing canon (or should painstakingly try to avoid it). Fifty years worth of canon. I hope they pull it off.

And there will be diversity. Diversity in Star Trek is a given, but this time we're talking what will probably be the SJW dream team of diversity. Which is fine. It's the 23rd century. Crewmates can be having gay, transgender, alien, android orgies and marriage ceremonies in their quarters for all I care, but it shouldn't be a focus where we get didactic stories about tolerance, especially arising from conflict among the crew. We don't want or need a Zootopia in space.

Also, apparently the captain of the U.S.S. Discovery will not be the leading character. Like I said, risks.

I want so much to vicariously go to space with the new Star Trek, but I damn sure don't want to be hit over the head with the politics of the last 10 years. Give me the politics of 2250 and Orion slave girls. Give me Vulcans and Klingons and new aliens. Give me violence and give me high-concept sci-fi. Give me Star Trek. Please.

Thought leaders, cool kids, signalling, & the beast

I don't want to talk about this, nor feel obligated to. Yet it nags at my soul. The feeling is like that Somebody is Wrong on the Internet phenomenon only exponentially worse; it's like a cultural/meta-tribal mass signalling ritual gone wrong sort of thing.

It happens everyday. It becomes really pronounced when something big and bad happens. I should note that it's only painfully obvious when you, yourself, aren't instinctively compelled to mimic or repeat what are increasingly the culturally sanctioned memes. When you are on the outside looking in.

I'm talking about the verbalization or other use of such memes.

There's the pleasant and harmless variety:

• "Please" and "Thank you"
• "Good morning/afternoon/evening"
• "Have a nice day" 

There's the questionably sincere and/or thoughtless variety:

• "My thoughts and prayers are with you."
• "Bless you"
• "I'm sorry for your loss"

There's the ignorant political variety (these tend to be thematic and narrative-based):

• "America's guns/assault weapons/culture of violence is the problem."
• "Muslims/immigrants are the problem"
• "Democrats hate the wealthy"
• "Republicans are bigots"
• "Liberals are pussies"
• "Conservatives are idiots"
• "Libertarians are selfish"

Not to forget the image variety, often found on facebook, twitter, instagram, etc, showcasing how normal/awesome/fun that person is.

These aren't all bad. A good many are probably good. We are social animals (most of us) after all, and I think all of us engage in some kinds of social signalling rather frequently. A lot of it is unthinking instinctive stuff we learned in order to smooth out our interactions within the cultural landscape.

Some of it is status/reputation building/maintenance (hereafter referred to as "status-bullshit"). Some of the status-bullshit really bothers me. I'm not sure why. It comes across as phony, even unnaturally forced at times. (I even find myself questioning why phonyism bothers me as much as it does. I have some theories, but don't want to get too far off track.) But even most status-bullshit is harmless.

The big issue I have is with this fuzzy, trickle-down, meme-based, in-group status signalling. It's like fashion, only it's pseudo-intellectual and all ego. You signal your peers: you are with the cool kids, therefore you are not of the uncool; you are better. If this sounds like high school bullshit, that's because it is; status-bullshit is high school bullshit, which is collective animal behavior. We are stupid social animals who really have to hurt our brains to not be, and rarely does it pay off.


Create a Meme, Master the Universe

For a long time I assumed most people weren't particularly influenced by "thought leaders." For a long time I thought that Mr. Famous News Editor had virtually zero impact on anybody's choices. It was all at the margins--only a few on the fence might be swayed. Well, I now think that I was both right and wrong at the same time. I still think a "thought leader" has virtually zero impact on any one person. But now I believe many "thought leaders" have a significant impact on a large number of people over time.

The key parts: many and over time. I used the term 'fashion' earlier, and for lack of energy I'll use it again, in a shitty analogy:

Think of fashion being the direction of a raging river. The masses are that river. They follow the fashion. In a perfect natural world, the raging river forges its own direction as allowed by the environment--that is, the masses choose the fashion where possible. While a few drops might escape now and then, the vast majority of the water follows along, reinforcing the fashion.

But what could one idealistic droplet do to change the course of the river? Practically nothing. What can many idealistic droplets do over a long period of time? Well, they can slowly direct a few more, and a few more, and a few more in another direction. Carve out some trenches here, fill in some sand there, and after a while, you've got more water going in your desired direction than in the old.

Forgive allusions to social engineering, since I know that's a bad word and the idea muddies the water (I don't like easy puns, but wrote it--almost memetically--before I caught it) doesn't help discussion.

That, I think, is what is going on. I won't and probably can't prove the who/what/when/where/why behind the intellectual culture shift--the broad, laymen & academic alike, kind of intellectual culture. But I think the sheer likelihood of information having a not insignificant effect on culture is too much and too obvious to deny. The only slightly controversial claim I make, is that it tends to go in more or less a certain direction, as opposed to any other direction if all else being equal.

Most right-of-center bloggers will say "Duh, what the hell do you think we've been pointing out for the last 15 years?" or "Welcome to the culture wars Captain Obvious McBornyesterday." I'm sorry if this sounds too much like me praising the awesomeness and practicality of the wheel, but I'm going somewhere and attempting to spit out the nuance on it I have in my head.

It's more than political, more innocent than "culture war" implies, and I think ultimately, more dangerous. I mean innocent and dangerous in the way a child with a gun is both of those things.


The Joneses

What the hell is it, where is it going, and why, you ask? While there probably is some relatively small-time colluding, bias, and other activist "journalism" being perpetrated, I seriously doubt there exists a large Illuminati style mass-media conspiracy to manipulate the public.

What I think is happening is a lot of status-bullshit stuck in a positive feedback loop, equipped with a megaphone. There is an intelligence to it, and a sort of purposeful direction. But probably not the way you think. I mean there's an intelligence guiding the general direction the way a superorganism does things, on purpose. Like an ant colony, or even coral. Many argue that the human species, or at least modern society is a superorganism, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a subgroup in a subgroup driving a species where individualism, disagreement, and critical thought are things that really matter.

I'm talking about pretty much anyone who works in the media industry. Directly or indirectly, those in the industry are exposed to the masses. That's their job. No exposure equals no job. Because of this, they want to appear sophisticated--who wouldn't want to appear sophisticated in front of the masses? Sophistication means many things, but it typically means intelligence, education, respectable fashion, and holding ideas that aren't widely considered to be bad.

With feedback loops it's easy to shrug it off as a chicken or egg thing and not think about it. My problem with chicken and egg thinking regarding social issues is that it tends to imply revolutions or massive shocks to the system to "reboot" things, and overturn the chicken and egg cycle. I'm not sure that's necessary. In any case, putting on airs to appear sophisticated is probably something we're all guilty of, especially in the presence of a lot of people. Most of us will study and rehearse before public speaking, put on a suit/dress or something "respectable," and avoid spouting our more unpopular opinions. We signal our inness with the cool kids, consciously or not. We call people who don't do this, "crazy." Bam, reinforcement.

Our kids, our students, our peers see this. They learn, they mimic what appears to be "success." This is human nature. This is all fine; except when it's not. I would call this a potential shortcoming innate to humans and most social animals. Everybody is keeping up with the Joneses, but what happens when the Joneses drive off a cliff? A lot of people will be fucked. Thankfully, we're not literally mind-controlled drones and are fairly diverse, but sometimes the herd-like stuff is scary.


Aliens

So what specifically are you talking about, you ask? Like I said, it's kind of fuzzy. To me, right now, at least it seems kind of fuzzy. It may seem like I'm dancing around something without pointing out what I'm really talking about, and that's partly because I'm not quite 100% sure on what it is. I agree, that's lazy and weaselly, so I'll attempt to get specific.

Let's take Fox News and Drudge Report for example. I feel so refreshed naming such specific shit. You're welcome. These two organizations are both media giants in their own ways. They have a lot of influence, not so much as telling people what decisions to make (although that is probably something), but influence in what actually makes the news and what people are talking to each other about. You may have heard a lot about "gatekeeping" with respect to news organizations. Well that's a thing, it by necessity exists, and for good or ill it shapes conversations around the world and in other newsrooms. They have a butterfly effect, merely by putting text on a screen or words through television speakers. Let's pretend they made something up, really bad, very scandalous about President Obama. Drudge says one thing and Fox says something similar. Totally made up. Well, fake or not we are going to be talking about it for days at least. The White House will probably make some kind of a statement denying things, other news orgs will have to at least discuss it. People around the world will be talking about it. Ideas are exchanged, information repeated, billions of times. That shit has an effect.

That was nothing. That was small time shit. Let's say there's a new thing that happened. One few people have even thought about. Aliens sent a package to Lima, Peru, detailing methods to make the best coffee mugs in the galaxy. First contact, and it's about coffee mugs. Before the leaders of the world can put out statements, editors and columnists are already working on their articles and how their take on things is what really matters here:

• Peru's curious alien relationship and why the international community should permanently establish a headquarters in Lima and take the lead in coffee mug design. -Washington Post

• Quality mugs bode well for a peaceful coexistence, but what about the Coffee Mugs Union of North America and the EU's Artisans de Tasses à Café? -New York Times

• The Top 10 Reasons Alien Coffee Mugs are Really Signs of Invasion. -Buzzfeed

• Why Peru Should Disseminate All Coffee Mug Designs Freely Over the Internet, and What That Means for the Future of Open Source. -TechCrunch

One or two of something along those lines will in large part be the discussion. Sure, we'd talk about how cool/scary/weird first contact is and all that, but we'd also be talking about fucking unions, open source, or prepping for a global invasion. And coffee mugs.

"Are you pro-coffee mug? Yeah, I used to think that too, but now with everything going on, and you know things have changed, man. I've learned that, over the years, I've really come to understand the other side, and never really thought about it until recently. It just kinda seems like the right thing to do. Oh crap, gotta go. Game of Thrones is on, whooo!"

"#NoCoffeeNoProblems"

"#MugsRthugs"

"Senator Smith was found disheveled in his home today with an arsenal of Peruvian coffee mugs. He is scheduled to give a statement later today; sources expect him to announce his resignation."


Sharing is Caring

Perhaps my made up examples got out of hand. I don't watch tv, and haven't read newspapers in a long while, so a bunch of it I honestly can't point to. Still, a lot seeps through to the internet. Well, now the internet is usually the first stop for meme-sharing. I don't socialize very much at all, so yeah, I think that's why it's both super easy for me to pick up on this, but also fuzzy to see how it spreads.

On twitter for example, one of the few social things I engage in--and I use it mostly to follow gaming news--I seem to end up staring at what often turns into a hyper-liberal clique. WTF does gaming have to do with politics? Very little.

I casually paid attention to the Gamergate thing. My impression was that gamers were more often than not, indifferent to feminist critiques of games and against bullshit journalism. Today, I find my gaming-specific twitter feed to be mostly comprised of gaming news with a good dose of lefty mantras. After something like the terrorist attack in Orlando, the politics come out in force. Lately it's been dressed up as "not about politics, just common sense," which of course inevitably calls for something rabidly partisan. I'm not telling them to shut up, I'm not saying stop talking politics, I'm not even complaining about my oddly political gaming news feed. I'm just saying this is what it looks like.

In my mind, much of the twitter politics is virtue signalling. What do I mean by virtue signalling? Well, on twitter you cannot really go into detail, nor explain any opinion beyond the equivalent of monkeys throwing poo at each other. So twitter is not for debating. It is not for engaging people and changing minds. It is not there to better understand one another. It is there to share bite-sized info and memes.

If you aren't very knowledgeable, but really, really want to shout your tidbits of political genius at your enemies, then twitter is the place for you. If you aren't one for confrontation, and still want to share your political genius, my friend, twitter is the place for you as well. My liberal game developers and various other gaming personalities I follow usually don't follow anyone not liberal. In my feed, there are two kinds of political opinions: the ones on the left, and the ones not spoken. So what good is it to share a political opinion (which by definition is at least a little divisive) with people who all agree with you? To remind them that they are like them. "Yo peeps, almost didn't get to my phone in time to tweet that I am, in fact, still a progressive, in the wake of this horrible tragedy." "We still cool?"

I don't think they are consciously thinking "hey, I need to keep saying stuff like this to appear thoughtful and cool," I think it's mostly unthinking. Maybe they spent a few minutes or even a few days thinking about some of their political beliefs years ago, then they just retweet Mr. Super Popular Liberal's political tweet, or repeat some old lefty meme. Whether they agree with what they tweet and retweet is one thing, but it has the added benefit of signalling to others in their circle that they are with the cool kids. People signal back. "Hey man, saw your tweet. Totes agree, I hate coffee mugs too."

The gaming industry is part of the media industry. The old media industry is and was largely comprised of left-leaning people. These people interact with one another frequently. Networking is a powerful thing. Would you want to alienate yourself with most of your potentially lucrative network? If you're human and not dumb and want to keep working, you won't start sharing your pro-coffee mug opinions all over the internet. You want to stay all chummy with your liberal friends. Sooner or later, you're surrounded by apparently like-minded people all singing the same tune. Kumbaya.


A Big Fat Phony!

Go ahead and regurgitate Noam Chomsky, or Thomas Sowell, retweet that celebrity who just wants some common sense. Don't spend the hours it takes to actually study the intricacies of politics, or why the Democrats voted against subsidized coffee mugs, or why Republicans voted to increase Peruvian tariffs. It's far easier to appear smart and assume your political rivals are evil.

It's not just politics. Like I said, it's more, it's innocent, and it's dangerous. I watched the Warcraft movie the other day. I loved it. As a fan of the games and the lore, it was heaven for 2 hours. The movie doesn't suck. It's got some pretty neat stuff in it. I'm obviously biased here, as a fantasy genre fan and Warcraft fan, I am in double jeopardy territory. But if I can give my worst, but still honest, critical opinion of the film, leaving no flaw unpunished. I would still rate it on par with, if not above, most blockbusters in recent memory. It felt a little bit rushed and a little bit jumbled at times. But I felt very entertained both times I saw it, satisfied with the story, satisfied with the acting, very satisfied with the scenery and CGI. It was a solid, competent movie. The international box office earnings show that.

But the American critics have a stick up their ass and few of them can find any love for it. I know, opinions, especially on artwork, are matters of taste. Maybe many of them genuinely didn't like it. But damn they were excessively harsh, and I can't take them seriously anymore. Maybe they thought it was supposed to be a one-and-done story, beginning, middle, end. But that's not really what it is. It's an introduction to Warcraft. An introduction to the world, the saga, the characters. It's a story within a story. The marketing here was bad, sure, but I thought it was fairly obvious the movie was an intro to something bigger.

A big dumb action video game movie it is not, and yet that's how critics and many noncritics treat it. What I'm trying to get at here is that the movie did somewhat poorly in the U.S. on opening weekend, and several of the gaming tweeters and youtubers I follow gave lukewarm reviews at best. Anecdotes are worthless I know, but that shit bothered me. These were guys and girls who were in the same fandom as I, yet they could barely crack a smile when discussing the movie. And what really bothered me the most, was that here they were, goofballs suddenly putting on their glasses, getting all hyper analytical, and upping their vocabulary just to piss on a movie that was made for them. They said they liked it as a fan, and would give it a 9/10, but if they were "to be objective about it" they'd "rate it a 4.5/10." Okay smart guy, even though you really liked Transformers 3, thanks for taking the cue from all your smart friends and giving us an objective rating.

Seriously, go see Warcraft. If you like fantasy, magic, stunning visuals, or something different from typical Hollywood, you will probably enjoy it.

Most of you probably don't care about Warcraft, so thanks for putting up with my barely-related anecdote. The interesting thing about it is the disparity between the international markets and the U.S., and between the foreign critics and the American. It's so big, that there obviously is something going on. We watched the same movie. We just happened to feel differently about it, because America.
 
It's not just movies that reveal these odd disparities with the wider Western world. It's politics--and I mean that in like, the nonobvious stuff, but politics you think we'd more closely agree with. Like abortion, immigration, even taxation. I'm too tired to get into it here, but it's like how America as a whole is further to the right than most of Europe. Yet on many issues we are further left. Even in the Democratic party, they are further left than many European leftist parties on various issues. Republicans are further left than many rightist parties, and some leftist parties on certain issues in Europe. Generally speaking, the Republican platform is rather centrist compared to European rightist parties. Some of that is situational--political stances forged by global pressures, but some of it is still philosophy. We do not neatly fit in a political philosophy to the right of Europe.

So what's with these odd differences? You think I'm going to say it's a culture thing? Or do you think I'm going to say it's a phony/status-bullshit thing? It's both. I think what is happening, to a certain extent, is that we're in our own little (maybe big) bubble. And it's exacerbated by the media status-bullshit feedback loop.

Ace of Spades talked about the bias inherent in media and academic institutions a lot. Wish I could find some of his more salient posts, but they are buried deep in his archives and my searching skills aren't that great. But he has chipped away at the chicken or egg thing, explaining why such institutions are like that. The gist of it is pretty damn plausible, if not very likely: Academics and journalists are self selected. It takes a certain kind of person to want and succeed in those positions. While there are no apparent political quotas, it's easier in life to get along, to sync with your network and colleagues. At some point in the past, the political and cultural leanings of a critical mass of the academics and journalists on some level synced. It probably wasn't hard. Roughly half the country belongs to either one major party or the other. I mean, just by random chance roughly half of an industry will lean one way, and it won't be perfectly symmetrical.

Throw in some time, memesharing, mimicking success, and you have a feedback loop. Soon it's not roughly symmetrical, it's wildly asymmetrical. It's important to remember, it's not about politics, even if it started out that way (perhaps it didn't). It's about appearing sophisticated. Keeping up appearances, gelling with your network, colleagues, peers, those you look up to, and those you want to impress. While there maybe tens of thousands of different companies, schools, and people all with their own goals, they collectively become this superorganism thanks to this feedback loop. And it sort of pushes them, and directs all of us one way.

But the academy and media hold a special place in our culture. And it's a really powerful place.


The Anti-Climax

It's should be perfectly okay to disagree, and publicly without jeopardizing your professional or social life. Just not with me. Because I will screenshot your pro-coffee mug opinion and share it with your employer, and shame you all over cyberspace. Nah, I'm not that rude. I, myself used to be pro-coffee mug, but I changed my position when it was fashionable to; you know, right before the President did (we've all changed positions, I'm making fun of myself here).

I guess my biggest concern is not that we're being pushed in a certain direction, or that by and large, the media and academy are all culturally and politically monotone (those things still really suck), but that it has a chilling effect. What's really insidious, is that the chilling effect only feeds the monster, which makes the chilling worse.... feedback loop. Now I'm venturing eerily close to advocating revolution, or a shock to the system, but I don't think that's necessary. Not yet. Because this beast isn't controlled by some sinister Illuminati, it's got a mind of its own, and one day it will go where the "thought leaders" don't want it to. It may not be good for us either, but when it happens it will shake things up.

You may have got the impression that I think this is a liberal beast heading us in a leftward direction. I think that's only partially true. It just happens to be a left-leaning beast, that happens to be heading us in what appears to be a leftward direction. But it could've easily been a right-leaning beast heading us in a rightward direction. It may yet still. But it's a beast, and it's controlling our direction. That's the part I don't like. That's what is dangerous.

Humans tend to do bad things. Groups of humans tend to do worse things. Superorganisms however, are amoral, and we've given this thing the keys to our future.

Image credit: JeffChangArt

Now is where I fail at creativity and fully embody weaksauce, advocating unoriginal shit that probably won't work. Solutions are hard. But if we can perhaps dig a trench here, fill in some sand there, maybe one day, we can change a thing or two.

• Stop the unthinking memes. Maybe once in a while, think about something before repeating the standard phrase. Come up with something sincere, thoughtful. Maybe you won't come up with anything, but at least you thought about it.
• Respectfully disagree. Diversity in thought is interesting. It leads to innovation. Conflict sometimes, but can we not be civil? 
• Support someone's right to do something you really despise. Coffee mugs aren't so bad, even alien-inspired Peruvian ones.
• Read, and try to understand the other side, whatever it is. Maybe come up with your own "side."
• Assume, at least sometimes, your rivals aren't evil or stupid. 

I'm not talking about stuff like flat-earthers, Nazis, or total racists. But stuff that is perhaps on the other side of the mainstream, and perhaps a tad outside of the mainstream. Some of that crazy stuff at least makes for good reading.

Couch Potato Suggestions

Not counting the samey-same day-to-day stuff, my life has little routine: in fact I have failed to identify a monthly or yearly routine. I don't have a meta-routine. One year, I'll read 25 books or so and the next I might not even read a newspaper. Some months, I'll watch hundreds of hours of tv shows (online mostly), and others months I'll just read blogs. Then sometimes I start playing video games to the exclusion of almost everything else. Hell, 7 or 8 years ago I used to blog voraciously, but now I can't be asked.

My brain is like a small child: it will want to play with a new toy for days on end, but after a while when it loses interest, it tosses the toy aside and gets all whiny upon finding there isn't a new, more interesting toy to play with. And just as I'm about to crawl back to crossword puzzles (or the entertainment equivalent in a Youtube video) in despair, the heavens open, and a new Netflix show gloriously descends, lights up our screens and whiny brains everywhere rejoice.

If you're anything like me, you really want to know about the good shows out there, to rekindle that high of watching high quality, well-written, cathartic stories. But desperately wanting to avoid all the mediocre let-downs, or worse, into your precious time. It's hard to do that, even if you read a lot of reviews. And reviews are usually bad anyway; they're either way off or so spot on they spoil it.

That's partly why I don't do reviews. I do minimally informative suggestions (or cautions if it's bad). I like to think that I have high standards when it comes to tv shows, so even if you disagree with my suggestion, you might be able to at least appreciate the level of craftsmanship that went into such a show.

To make all this rambling resemble some coherency, the point is that my spoiled brat brain doesn't tolerate low quality entertainment when it realizes it is consuming low quality entertainment in a shiny new wrapper--despite creators' attempts to hook you with character/story development by the time the shine wears off. (Some shows are deceptive. E.g., LOST, which was a bad story* but a great show, and it worked well until the ending--imagine if LOST was low budget with poor acting, the story wouldn't have been enough to carry it) My spoiled brat brain does however, become addicted to the good stuff, usually until the good stuff runs out.

So, without further wall of text, I present my strongly encouraged shows to watch:

Halt and Catch Fire.

 

 
Wow. It's been a while since I last watched this, but it does have staying power--I can't wait for the next season to start. I want to say Lee Pace carries that show because his performance is just superlative, but I shouldn't because it's a damn good show on its own.

Halt and Catch Fire is like the 80s dramatic version of HBO's Silicon Valley. A good dose of nostalgia for 70s and 80s kids but that's just the icing. Once you get into the cake that is the twists and turns of cutting edge 1980 PC technology/culture and the dynamic between Lee Pace and Scoot McNairy's characters, you know you've hit couch potato gold.


 



Speaking of Silicon Valley...

Hilarious show that doesn't sacrifice good drama for comedy nor vice versa. Every episode tends to feel like it topped the last one in entertainment value. There's the occasional bit of ribaldry type stuff in there, but it's woven so flawlessly into the dialogue and mood that it works well, and is actually funny--it's not just there for shock value.

Silicon Valley is the funnier more dramatic version of what I imagine life is like inside a somewhat promising tech startup in Silicon Valley. One of the show's creators is none other than Mike Judge, so you get that fun kind of comedy that pushes and crosses the boundaries of political correctness that only he can provide. Only 8-10 episodes per season (2 so far) and each is just 30 minutes long (which really is too short for good shows) so it won't swallow up too much time. Definitely worth a look if you haven't already.




Better Call Saul.

Well, I was wrong. This is good. There's something about it, maybe it has to do with being in the Breaking Bad universe, but I just cant put my finger on it. It starts slow, and I mean slow. If memory serves, it takes at least 3 episodes to get things moving. I mean really the whole first season is pretty much just exposition--setting up the character that is Saul, and getting a glimpse of the bigger story. That sounds terribly boring, but there is just the right amount of bread crumbs and just the right amount of pay-offs without going too far. It's serious but tastefully sprinkled with humor. You can't help but like Saul Goodman. I feel like we've just barely covered the first page of the first chapter that is the thick book of Saul, in a good way.

If you haven't seen Breaking Bad, well, Saul Goodman is a sleazebag lawyer helping criminals of every income bracket, and himself, to beat the system. But he sure didn't start out that way--and that's what you'll be watching in this show. Whether it's early Saul or later Saul, he's always a wisecrack. I still can't wait to see the next episode.


Peaky Blinders.

Yet another British-made period drama that takes place in Britain. Heh, but seriously, the Brits must have so much practice at this by now that they can't help but make great period dramas, and that's what they did with the Peaky Blinders. Imagine Sam Neill. Okay, now imagine Sam Neill as a bad guy. Intrigued? I was. But it gets better. The bad guys (members of the Peaky Blinders) are actually the good guys--at least that's who you sympathize with--and the good guys (the cops) are well, not necessarily bad, but the chief cop Neill plays definitely is not a good guy.

There's really nothing new here--a show about gangsters from their point-of-view set in 1919 --but it's so well scripted and acted that the only thing I could really complain about is the soundtrack (some of it really sounds like dive-bar rock bands, but the actual main theme works well). The music is only occasionally distracting, but you either get used to it, or they eventually started using a lot less of it--I'm not sure which. What I've written about it isn't very compelling, but the show is. This show is up there with the best of them, or I wouldn't have included it. It's almost as good as...


Narcos.

Handy Netflix Link

Who would want to watch a show about a drug dealer? I didn't think I did, but then I watched Breaking Bad and fell in love. But surely a show about a scumbag terrorist drug trafficker from Colombia would be off the table, right? I gave this show a chance, feeling skeptical, ready to stop the moment it got boring. It never did, and I watched all the episodes made so far in short order. Just amazing, captivating, graphic, and it's pretty much a dramatized documentary. Don't get me wrong, it feels like a normal fictional tv show. It's just that, you know.

The bad guy is a truly bad guy, and the good guys are sometimes bad, but usually good. But the way this show, the story is told is different. And you don't even notice it! There is well-written narration from the perspective of a DEA agent, but most of the show is from the Drug Lord's perspective. So you kind of sympathize with the bad guy, but not completely, because he's a really really bad guy. You also sympathize with the good guys, but also not completely, because they're not really so good. How does a show like that keep your interest? It just does, compellingly.


Rick and Morty.

Yes, a cartoon. And it's awesome. A crazy fun sci-fi cartoon that doesn't take itself too seriously, nor does it insult your intelligence. It explores sci-fi concepts and general wackiness without getting bogged down, nor failing to deliver the laughs.

The show follows the adventures of Rick, an uninhibited alcoholic mad-scientist type grandpa and Morty, the slightly under-achieving naive moral compass teenager and their family. The show isn't for kids. Lets just say Morty's conventional moral compass often gets them into trouble, followed by lots of gore and/or risqué dialogue. Just the same, Rick's total lack of a moral compass also leads them into hilarious troubles, but I don't want to spoil anything.

Rick's got a sharp tongue, and the way Morty interprets it is just gold. Every show is an adventure, a quickly-paced joyride, and it's a damn shame the next season isn't coming for like a year or more.


*Shows are about stories. The characters are a part of the story, not THE story--even if it's a story about one person. Right around the time LOST was coming to an end, I distinctly remember the creators spinning it as a show about the characters--which is just another way of saying the LOST story sucked and they couldn't fix it.

Quickie review of The Interview

Better than expected, which is not saying much, but still not completely terrible. I enjoyed it, and laughed a few times (the cringe-inducing teenage ribaldry was there, but sparse). However, if this movie took place in a vacuum with no other context, it would be among the many mildly entertaining comedies which were utterly forgotten.

Yet, as is obvious, it was more than that. Not only was it an international political jab at a terrible regime, which approvingly* depicted a current dictator's assassination (I don't think that has been done from these high echelons in Hollywood since Hitler--and even then I'm not sure), but brought the ire of some (maybe North Korean) hackers leaking sensitive info and making 9/11 style threats.

Which in turn made the headlines and now our president and government got involved.

Who would've thought Seth Rogen and James Franco would have played a significant role in global politics, or what might be the opening of a major cyber front in the technically ongoing Korean War?

So, I guess this mildly entertaining comedy will be remembered. And despite the crude humor, that's a good thing. I hope the controversy around this movie enlightens a few million more people as to the ridiculousness that is the North Korean government. And perhaps its other, more subtle point, that international politics are ridiculous as well (and I almost think the world is reflexively trying to prove the movie right).

The movie is available everywhere online and some theaters. Even right here:



*There's a tiny bit of nuance and a bit of a plot twist they can hide behind there, but I would be spoiling the movie if I explained why.

Now I just want to see The Interview

Since Sony canceled it.

I never read nor cared much about the hacking and various leaks. From what I understand, it paints Sony leadership in a very bad light. I still don't care.

But I do like the idea of having movie companies able to operate without fear of some douchebag dictator, much less without fear of getting people blown up. Even if it's making awful turd sandwiches like what The Interview appears to be.

A month or so ago I watched the trailer and I was mildly intrigued. There aren't many movies about North Korea you know. But after watching the red band trailer it became painfully obvious that the movie relies far too heavily on idiotic teenage ribaldry. No thanks.

Then the #GOP (Guardians of Peace)--not to be confused with the GOP (Republican party), or the GOP (Gross Old People), or the oft underrated GOP (Grizzly Owl People)--threatened violence on the scale of 9/11 over a stupid movie.

This whole thing is either an elaborate and cruel prank, or the workings of a highly sensitive, self-absorbed, narcissistic douchebag. It is difficult to tell which.

Maybe Sony really went there and portrayed a petty dictator as a petty dictator. Or maybe it's just a red herring or convenient excuse for the hackers to hurt Sony. Or maybe Sony's got the most convoluted marketing campaign ever! Whatever it is, it kind of makes me want to see the movie now.

Content Warning: Strong Language

New Interstellar trailer. And why I dislike many "space movies"

Matthew McConaughey and Michael Caine together in a big budget sci-fi, directed by Chris Nolan... What could go wrong?

From the looks of the trailer, it surprisingly seems to be fairly balanced between a character-driven story and one driven by events or the environment.

Although space travel obviously plays a crucial role here, as a sci-fi fan of the Trekkie persuasion--and from what little I can glean out of this--it seems that space, and space travel won't receive the attention it should. Traveling through a wormhole and speeding through space I fear will be an afterthought, compared to the characters and the story (of course the characters and story should come first, but the space aspect should be emphasized, else why bother?). Like space isn't interesting, except as a way to draw in crowds--as if it's a troublesome hurdle to be quickly overcome and forgotten.
 
Oh yeah, and I'm sure it will be a great thriller movie. Because all space movies have to be psychological thrillers, can't have any awestruck adventure with a focus on sci-fi concepts now. I am sick of that Hollywood rule. Because apparently space isn't the fantastical vast sea of beautiful, mysterious, and mind-bending things it truly is. It's a backdrop. It's the thing between point A and point B--no need to explore. Spend a couple minutes in a spaceship and throw some CGI nebulae in the window. Remember Prometheus? Alien? Hell, even the new Star Trek movies have no sense of adventure. Don't have time for space, must kill bad guys.

Why can't we just have a space adventure film? I know I'm probably in the minority on this (likely because I spent way too much time reading Heinlein and watching classic Trek), but I'm tired of space movies that don't care about space. If you can replace outer space with say, the ground, a cruise ship, or a magic portal without affecting the main story, then it's a horrible "space movie." It's just a story that happens to be in space.

I hope I'm wrong. It's clear this movie isn't about space, and that's fine. It's about saving humanity or something, characters maturing. But the name is Interstellar, there better be a lot of time and emphasis devoted to space/space travel and how freaking awesome that is.

Dawn of the sequel of the planet of the apes of the San Franciscan tropical jungle

Why is San Fransisco covered in vines and turning into a rainforest? Is it from the virus? Does it make apes and plants grow smarter and stronger? Or is it global warming?

I bet it's both.

Still, this new trailer makes me want to see it. It looks mind-numbingly predictable, but the whole intelligent ape society draws me in. A lot they could do with that. A whole lot they could do with that, and much better than the original, especially the awful 2001 film.

Gotham, sans Batman: the TV series. This is a thing now.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the coolest, most interesting thing about the whole Batman universe, was, um, Batman.

Granted, there are other, cool things going on in the Batman universe besides Batman, but he's like the whole point of the thing. Not anymore it seems.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: My assumption has been that the reason this TV show can be done — rights-wise — is because Batman himself is not in it. That way, it doesn’t overlap with any films. Is that correct?

BRUNO HELLER: Certainly from Warner Bros. and DC’s business point of view, that’s why it can be done. For me, if they said, “Do Batman,” I would have said, “No.” I would have not been interested at all. I don’t think Batman works very well on TV — to have people behind masks. Frankly, all those superhero stories I’ve seen, I always love them until they get into the costume. And then it’s, “Oh, okay, they’ve ascended, they’ve stopped becoming humans.” It’s their apotheosis. They go to heaven and they’re Superman. There have been so many great versions of it. This is a version of something else entirely.

Those were sort of my first thoughts too, upon seeing the trailer--that Batman is too big for TV, and it probably has something to do with the rights. But after the wow-they're-really-doing-this-thing shock/interest wore off, I started imagining Batman movies without Batman. And all the potential coolness I initially hoped for, vanished.

Perhaps I just lack imagination. Maybe they'll pull it off:

When reading your script, I kept thinking how difficult this must have been to write — there’s so many tough decisions that need to be made, so many ways to do this idea wrong. How did you decide the tone, how realistic vs. comic, which villains you would use? Can you talk me through the creative process?

The first thing was starting with Jim Gordon, who is the most human and real and normal person in the DC pantheon. What would the city of Gotham look like to a young rookie cop coming into this world? And that’s where we calibrated. This is a world that’s going to become that familiar world of Batman, but it’s not there yet. It’s an embryo. A lot of the work was reverse engineering the story to look at what these characters were like when they younger. Penguin, for instance, is not a powerful gang leader, he’s a gofer for a gangster. It’s about giving the world room to grow, but at the same time giving the fun and pleasure and drama of that heightened world. One of the great things about the Batman world is [the characters] have no super powers. Nobody flies or leaps over buildings. You start with psychology and that’s where we build from.

So it's going to be a cop show in Gotham city. That's either good, or really bad.

If it's Gotham City: The Wire, hell yeah! It would make my day to watch Jim Gordon and his rag-tag group of mostly straight cops navigating the corrupt waters of the system, whilst trying to take out bad guys, not infrequently bumping into future Batman villains.

If it's Law and Order: Gotham, no thanks, I've got to keep a sharp eye on my Florida paint drying and my Death Valley grass growing.

Link via Ace, who warns: "Coming soon: Jimmy Olsen, Boy Reporter."
I hope not.

 

CBS's Sherlock Holmes comes out. Also fights "right-wing" extremists.

In last night's episode of CBS's Elementary, "No Lack of Void", Sherlock Holmes all but says he is gay, while mourning the loss of his friend and former lover, Alistair. This takes place during the Hollywood cookie-cutter plot of battling "right-wing" terrorists.

First, let's get the obvious out of the way: This is not edgy. This is not original. This might have been edgy and/or original 10, 15+ years ago.

Second, disclaimer time: I don't like this episode and I don't like where Elementary is going. This is NOT because Sherlock is gay (well, bisexual), NOT because Dr. Watson is now Joan Watson, NOT because it's a modern interpretation, and NOT because it takes place in New York. It's because the show is getting lazy, and now it's just insulting.

I suppose I'll begin in earnest with what bothered me first about this episode (and, if you haven't guessed by now, expect SPOILERS):

The episode begins with a guy who dies from anthrax poisoning. After some investigation, it is revealed that a group of potential terrorists are making large amounts of the chemical, conspiring to poison possibly hundreds of congressmen. Taking a page out of Law and Order and countless other shows, the bad guys aren't motivated by Islamist propaganda, nor are they just crazy for crazy's sake. But they are ideologically motivated "right-wing" extremists, hell-bent on hurting the government. Transcribed from the episode:

Eugene [the prime suspect] did 3 years in prison for assaulting a census worker. . . . He's associated with a gang of extremists called the Sovereign Army. These guys hate the government, including the NYPD, but they're big fans of violence and the 2nd Amendment. [emphasis mine]

Let's see: a canard, false stereotypes, and a paramilitary-ish name. Remember that census worker who was killed 4 and a half years ago? Well, at the time it was all over the news, and it looked like an anti-government motivated crime. But he actually staged it and killed himself. It must have seemed easy and plausible to blame right-wingers. Unfortunately, people and tv shows still do. (If I wanted to take the time, I could link several incidents of premature and wrongful suspicion for crimes, repeated by the media no less, on "right-wingers").

I used to be a right-wing conservative. Now, I'm very libertarian (there is a big difference). But when I was a conservative I learned, became sensitive to, and started noticing with increasing frequency these cookie-cutter television plots where the bad guy often was some blundering, chauvinistic right-wing stereotype. Whether it was a greedy businessman, corporation, a bloodthirsty military man, crazy pro-lifer, or of the more recent variety: the gun-toting, anti-government militiaman. I still notice them, and even though I no longer feel like they're insulting me, I still feel that they falsely and negatively portray huge swaths of good, decent, law-abiding people. It's cheap, and it's pathetic.

And don't forget the often disproved stereotype that 2nd Amendment fans are both violent and hate the government. Well, they're not, and they don't. But lets not let that get in the way of a good narrative; the media loves this prevarication, and Hollywood plays along.

But wait, there's more! So, after fighting and interrogating these "right-wing" stereotypes, it turns out that it wasn't about ideology after all. The prime suspect and his brother conned the extremists into funding anthrax production, killed the guy who made the anthrax, gave fake anthrax to the extremists (who they later would presumably kill or anonymously turn in to the police), all in order to poison their dairy cows so they could collect insurance money. All that, for insurance fraud. It was greed all along! What a compelling twist.

Oh and the uncompelling and forgettable subplot: Sherlock is gay.

You know what, in the 20th episode of the 2nd season, in what was supposed to be an unconventional, modern version of Sherlock Holmes, after the character has already been so well established, and was revealed previously to have on more than one occasion, heterosexual orientation--this comes off as desperate. And it's kind of insulting to people who wanted a different Sherlock. Why couldn't such important character development be revealed, perhaps executed carefully over a number of episodes--rather than dumped in all at once--in the first season?

The writers of the show must have wanted to do something different and infuse some energy into the show, since lately it started feeling flat and uninspired. It would've been nice if they used some of that effort to try to write a better detective story, rather than invent a whole new side to the main character. Because the primary impetus behind any Sherlock Holmes story is the mystery, and then it's the man himself. The crime, the investigation, the mystery of the day is always first. The mystery of the day is the vehicle by which we learn, little by little, about Sherlock the man.

I'm a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, loved Jeremy Brett's Sherlock, kind of a fan of BBC's Sherlock, and so you could argue that I'm a big Sherlock Holmes fanboy. But I'm quickly losing interest in Elementary.

A gay Sherlock would've probably worked from the start. Many of us fans suspect his sexuality is hardly in the mainstream (I always thought of him as asexual, with "The Woman," Irene Adler, being the exception). A female Dr. Watson has been great so far. Lucy Lui often steals the show (I often think it tries to be a show more about her, than him). Modern is great, New York is fine, being a drug addict is both fine and is sort of from the original stories. All of that would've been fine, great even, if the show didn't feel like every other cop drama. There's way too much reliance on the NYPD aspect. Might as well deputize Holmes and Watson, because they're almost always at the station or hanging around a police detective.

It's way too similar to every cop show ever made: A serious crime happens, they find suspect(s), plot twists occur, a connection is made, perp goes to jail. Sprinkle character development to taste. Repeat ad nauseam.

Now I must admit, even Doyle's original works have much of that, but in his defense he did come before all those cop dramas after all. Yet, contrary to today's cop dramas, Doyle didn't have Sherlock conversing daily with police, he was often engaged in some crazy undercover ploy, experimenting with or observing some obscure but fascinating phenomena, taking cases from seemingly mundane clients--only to uncover the complete opposite. Sherlock Holmes was never so brooding, nor so emotional as he is in Elementary. And when Holmes solved a mystery, he lets you know that he solved it about half-way through the story, if not much earlier. And then he tells you exactly how he did and why he let it go on so long. That's unlike any show on television today, although BBC's Sherlock comes close at times.

Elementary could be much better. But it has no excuse. It takes cookie-cutter cop drama plots, and sprinkles in their new and improved main characters. But their cookie-cutter plots aren't that great, and the characters have been wasted. It's far too late to reinvent them. Especially in such cheap, insulting ways.

Godzilla Trailer

I guess it's movie day here at the Daily (haha, more like Quarterly) Mud.

I am cautiously optimistic that this will be a good movie. I don't think it's technically a remake, in the sense they will sort of follow any of the old Godzilla scripts, but yea it pretty much is one, whatever they do (short of making him a friendly sidekick to a troubled kid in a coming of age film).

In that sense, it is going to be somewhat predictable. Godzilla destroys things, threatens cities, perhaps destroys a city or three. The military gets involved. People eventually win the day. Except that today we can't just have standalone films, we have to have sequels, and trilogies. So maybe Godzilla will win this round. None of that matters too much because that's exactly why we people (not me necessarily) want to see a Godzilla/King Kong/Gigantic Monster movie.

Rampant, colossal destruction, followed by a victorious feeling. And maybe a little nostalgia.

If it's done right, including whatever other story is thrown in is both plausible and meaningful, your inordinately cynical blogger may even give it a favorable review.

I saw Captain America 2

And I thought it was just meh.

Maybe I'm too jaded on perfectly choreographed fight scenes, comically implausible situations, repeated survival of fatal injuries, and performing the physically impossible as if it were a walk through the park. I know, I KNOW these things all happen in the wonderfully fantastic fictional universes of superheroes and stuff, but enough already. I'm suspending my disbelief quite enough by accepting the already implausible existence of super humans, flying and hovering aircraft carriers, a guy without a face but a red skull, extremely intelligent and nefarious aliens, et cetera.

So I watch Captain America dive out of a helicopter at 1000 feet--give or take--straight into the ocean sans parachute, jump on a ship to single-handedly take out dozens of armed men with only his fists and a magic shield. That's all perfectly well, but **SPOILER ALERT** when one of those bad guys has a metal arm, Captain America just can't handle it. "Let's take these terrorists out! Oh wait, never mind, that one has a metal arm. We should probably call Tony Stark."

But they can't call Tony Stark because suddenly they can't trust anyone! Except that one guy Rogers barely knows who he jogs with in the morning. Turns out he has a jet pack that is extremely powerful, highly agile, and has wings... like a bird, which are retractable. And it looks like they rushed the CGI.

Other than that, I guess it was an okay movie. I just didn't like it. I didn't like Ironman 3 either (But I mostly loved Ironman 1, and thought the Avengers was decent).

New RoboCop Movie Trailer

I have to admit, my extremely low expectations of this remake/reboot/regurgitation were raised. Slightly.

YMMV:

In defense of Video Games & Hollywood

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Played by millions. Surprisingly, pixelated bullets have not caused an epidemic of murderous sociopaths pillaging their way accross rivers of blood.

The blaming of violence on video games (particulary violent, first person shooter games), and violent hollywood films is getting ridiculous.

This is coming from the left and the right, and although it tends to get political, it's actually less about politics and more about ignorance.

Who you ask is pointing the finger at games and film? Old people. Stupid old people who don't know what MMORPG means, are no longer entertained by violent films, and couldn't figure out how to turn on an Xbox to save their life.

If this sounds mind-numbingly familiar to you, it's because we've all had this discussion before. Remember the outrage and controversy over the game Grand Theft Auto? Yeah, it turned out that it was just a video game, not a mass-recruitment for MS13.

There has been an explosion of video games, especially violent video games just in the last decade. And thanks to improving technology, these games are looking more realistic every day.  You would think, even if the violent video games flooding American homes in the last decade had a shred of influence on physical violence, our crime rate would reflect that. After all, millions of kids and adults alike, play these games on a daily basis. But no, violent crime is going down.

There are even benefits from playing video games.



Movies. We all love movies. Except for some (old) people.

Apparently movies, just like video games, are turning our kids' brains to mush, except the part where it turns them into highly efficient killing machines. You would think with such rhetoric being repeated ad nauseam, Hollywood does a better job of training soldiers than our own military. I don't really want to test that theory, but if killing needs to be done, I'm still pretty sure professional soldiers would do a better job of it.

[You are getting sleepy, very sleepy. Now you must go buy lots of guns and indiscriminately shoot people]

I agree violence can be done poorly in movies. Gratuitous, excessive violence is really just poor film-making especially when it doesn't advance the plot. But it can be done well; even disgusting, bloody, horrific violence can be tasteful in the right context.  And it serves a valuable purpose.  There is not only the action to get one's attention, but emotion, suspense, and consequences that tell a part of a larger story; many times without the violence it would make the film a lot less interesting.

Imagine Saving Private Ryan, only nobody gets shot. D-Day happened of course, but it was summarized by narration. Or maybe people get shot, but there's no blood, and nobody gets blown to pieces. Now there's a lot less suspense, and while the consequences are technically the same, they are significantly less dramatic. In the end you get a crappier, less realistic movie.

But there is no real, hard proof that violence in media increases violence in society. I mean, television, film, games, especially violence in media really didn't take off until say, the 80s (that's when it was ubiquitious). And now there's the internet with more free media violence available than ever before.

Yet global violence is down, even warfare.

Unfortunately, stupid old people run the government, and they like to make rules for the rest of us, even if those rules have no scientific basis, or a snowflake's chance in hell of working. But hey, if it makes a few old people feel better, we all should be grateful to suffer for them. Or we can tell them to stop fucking with our freedom.

European sophistication

France Counts 1,193 Cars Torched on New Year's Eve

I was just going to link to that saying something like "Why am I not surprised", or "C'est la vie", but that got me thinking about how many Europeans and Americans want America to be more like Europe, as if Europe is somehow more sophisticated, cultured, and enlightened.

Which then got me thinking about a new BBC comedy I decided to try. I went in expecting something clever, something one might expect from a British comedy, and wow was I so very, very wrong.

Mrs. Brown's Boys is comedy for people who think gratuitous swearing and dirty one-liners are funny.  Maybe there is something inherently funny about an elderly grandmother type spitting out sex jokes and F-words, but that shtick gets old fast. If I had to describe Mrs. Brown's Boys in one word: unsophisticated.

The Euro-fetishists will point to Jersey Shore or Kim Kardashian, and of course, to our "gun-violence". But the truth is Europe has awful crap just like we do, and our crime rate is comparable if not much better than Europe's.

New Tron Legacy trailer

The (hopefully good) sequel to another Bridges film with a cult following. Can't wait for the Bigger Lebowski.

Apparently, they're going to digitally clone Jeff Bridges and make him younger. It looks like both the old and young Bridges will appear together:



via Geekosystem

New Ironman II trailer

Here at Muddy we like to cover all things awesome, and frankly, all things slightly more interesting than drying paint. And I don't got much else today.

Hopefully this will be at least half as good as the first:



via Gabe @ Ace of Spades.

Another Hollywood Remake

First Nightmare on Elm Street, then Police Academy, they're even remaking True Grit--but I guess that one doesn't count since the original was made over a generation ago. Now, on with Karate Kid: