Essays « Unfiltered Smoke

Archive for the ‘Essays’ Category

04
Feb
2010

“Which one’s Pink?” – The folly of company executives in creative industries

by Matt Jones

In the first Futurama comeback movie, Bender’s Big Score, one of the best jokes is the recurring gag item, Torgo’s Executive Powder. A thinly veiled jab at Fox for its perceived mismanagement of Futurama, Torgo’s is made of ground-up executives, and is said to have “a-million-and-one uses.” That may be a-million-and-one more than non-ground-up executives.

What is an executive, anyway? We hear the term thrown around a lot, but all too often executive, producer and many other titles are all thrown together. Let’s agree on this: an executive is a management member of a company assigned to watch over a certain sector of said company. The lower executives answer to the chief executive officer (CEO), who is one of the highest authorities above the other executives.

Now, let’s not get bogged down with stereotypes and ignorance. There are probably many executives who are very well-suited to the work they do. There are probably many who do genuinely good work and reap positive results for both their superiors and their staff. But we never hear about those executives. Beyond a company newsletter, you’ll never see the headline, “Executive does great work.” What you will see are headlines about how executives, through their effect on creative talents, cause difficulties in the entertainment industry. And that is our focus today: executives in the entertainment and creative industries.

The biggest problem is this: executives care most and almost only about the bottom line; they care about how much money is being made. Being creative and artistic does not necessarily improve that bottom line, and similarly, focusing on the bottom line does not necessarily result in interesting or exciting art. An executive’s directive to alter creative work to make it more profitable can have disastrous effects.

NBC, The Tonight Show and the greatest comedy duo of all time, Zucker and Ebersol

Ostensibly, NBC’s current problems are a result of low ratings for both Conan O’Brien’s The Tonight Show and Jay Leno’s prime time show — particularly Leno’s, which was hurting the lead-ins for local news shows. The executive solution: move Leno back to late night and move O’Brien back to late, late night. What the executives didn’t foresee, or didn’t care about, was that O’Brien would see this move as cutting the legs off The Tonight Show franchise, and he would not stand for it (so to speak). NBC and O’Brien have reached a settlement, and Leno is expected to return to The Tonight Show after the Olympics.

Dick Ebersol, NBC executive since time immemorial and currently in charge of sports, has been very vocal about O’Brien’s poor ratings, describing him as an “astounding failure.” Ebersol further declared that he had personally offered to help O’Brien increase his ratings, but was rebuked.

Can O’Brien really be blamed for not taking advice from Dick Ebersol?

Ebersol was one of the original creators of Saturday Night Live (SNL), but after Lorne Michaels left in 1980, the program entered into what some fans refer to as the Dark Ages of SNL. Ebersol soon took over the show and attempted to salvage it. After consistently low ratings and clashes with writers and cast members over the tone Ebersol wanted for the show, as well as accusations that he did not understand comedy (particularly the type of comedy that SNL produced), Michaels was brought back to save the franchise.

Ebersol has also been heavily criticized for his approach to Olympic Games coverage, and he presided over a period where NBC lost the rights to broadcast the NFL, MLB and NBA, among others. And, to top that off, he was also one of the driving forces behind the disastrous XFL, which produced record low ratings.

So in what way, precisely, is Dick Ebersol an expert on comedy or high ratings?

Ebersol’s comments did serve to take some of the heat off NBC CEO and President Jeff Zucker. The same Zucker who went to Harvard at the same time as O’Brien, and was the butt of numerous O’Brien-led Harvard Lampoon pranks. The same Zucker who has the final word at NBC.

Zucker, Ebersol and the rest of NBC’s executives appear to be consciously choosing to ignore the growing pains that come with any new show. It takes time to cultivate an audience, particularly when it’s going head-to-head with a seasoned competitor such as David Letterman (and especially so when that competitor is in the midst of a sex scandal that will draw eyes to his program). Let’s not forget that Letterman also trounced Leno in the ratings until Leno was able to capitalize on Hugh Grant’s 1995 adventure in previously unexplored Ugly Hookerland to pull ahead.

NBC had a problem where it had two shows with ratings that were less than it desired. Its solution has resulted in the departure of Conan O’Brien, reams of bad press for the network, and the vilification of Jay Leno. Accurate or not, Leno is now seen as a greedy attention whore who could not allow someone else to take the spotlight. This does not bode well for his ratings when he returns.

(As an aside, it’s interesting to note that NBC almost O’Brien-ed Leno back in 1992. There was a time after it had made its decision to go with Leno over Letterman that the network considered changing its mind and bringing back Letterman. So if nothing else, NBC has been consistent. Repugnantly so, but consistent.)

From pepperoni to piledrivers: the terrible tale of Jim Herd

The thing is, executives are all too often given too much power over subjects on which they may have only the most tenuous grasp. That’s what happened in the terrifying tale of Jim Herd. Yes, this example is from wrestling, but it’s a good one.

Herd was the manager of a St. Louis television station that aired National Wrestling Alliance shows. He then went on to serve in an executive capacity for Pizza Hut, which led to him getting a job with Turner Broadcasting. Since he had once managed a TV station that aired wrestling shows, it was decided that Jim Herd was the ideal person to run Turner’s World Championship Wrestling (WCW). If you think about it, that’s like Conrad Black becoming commissioner of the NBA because his newspapers covered basketball games.

It was a complete debacle. Herd had no understanding of the wrestling business, and made decisions that led to a series of high-profile catastrophes. Most notably, he drove out the company’s best-known performer (Ric Flair), which led to WCW events plagued with chants of “We want Flair!” from the audience. Wrestling legend Dusty Rhodes would (allegedly) go on to describe Herd as, “the most untalented motherfucker in the entire world.” Rhodes had, apparently, never met Dick Ebersol.

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.” – Hunter S. Thompson

Unfortunately, Jim Herd is far from the only executive to have been given authority over things beyond his grasp. The Pink Floyd song, Have a Cigar, decries this, recounting the typical, two-faced bull that spews out of record company executives. Being asked “Which one’s Pink?” by executives who thought that Pink Floyd was the name of the band’s front man, showed that those who had so much power over the band’s future really didn’t know anything about them.

Currently, the music industry is in flux. Giant music companies still wield considerable power and are able to properly position, package and promote artists for success. However, the advent of the Internet has changed things. While some artists and labels are attempting to develop ways of doing business using the Internet (Radiohead, for example), most companies have simply dug in their heels and are attempting to shut down file-sharing websites. As with any industry, those in charge (that would be the executives) are used to a certain way of doing things, and the idea of venturing into the unknown is terrifying.

Follow the leader: why tread your own path when you could just follow the ass of another lemming?

One of the biggest problems in every industry, but particularly in entertainment, is executive-follow-the-leader. It’s not hard to see the patterns.

In 1991, Nirvana shot to the top of the music charts, surprising record industry executives everywhere. In response, executives offered contracts to nearly every band that could play three chords and wear plaid flannel, regardless of talent, in an effort to find the next Nirvana (reports that several lumberjacks were mistaken for grunge rockers and offered contracts are unsubstantiated — but probably true).

Around that same time, television’s Seinfeld became a surprise hit, and would eventually go down as one of the most popular shows of all time. However, as a result of that popularity, television became plagued with programs about clever people who sat around and said clever things. As network executives searched for the next Seinfeld, original programming became increasingly rare.

This trend continues today. The massive success of The Dark Knight has apparently inspired Warner Brothers executives in all the wrong ways:

“[Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff] Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as The Dark Knight. Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.’ DC properties. ‘We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,’ he says. ‘That goes for the company’s Superman franchise as well.’”

It’s a very narrow mind that sees the darkness of The Dark Knight as the reason it succeeded. Batman and the characters in his world are inherently dark; that tone suited them perfectly. Superman is not a dark character. Nor is Captain Marvel, who was set for an action-comedy treatment before this new dark (in both senses) initiative.

Making a dark Captain Marvel film is completely unnecessary, and a betrayal of the character. It would be comparable to making a James Bond movie into a road-trip comedy, or making Saw VI a love story with Sandra Bullock. It’s an affront to everything the characters stand for. Warner Brothers would have a better chance of replicating The Dark Knight’s success by murdering their supporting actors to try and recreate a Heath Ledger situation than by forcing characters to be “dark.”

Of course, Warner Brothers executives haven’t necessarily always been in touch with their DC Comics properties, as Kevin Smith will tell you.

Fox Television: Where promising shows go to never really live in the first place

The most obvious victims of Fox have been the animated shows, Futurama and Family Guy. Obviously, we can only assume that the goal of Fox Broadcasting, as a television company, is to profit from its programs. As a result, it becomes difficult to understand the reasoning behind the way that both shows were treated, particularly in light of The Simpsons’ status as Fox’s certified merchandising cash cow.

Both Futurama and Family Guy were unveiled to much fanfare, but quickly found themselves without a regular timeslot and little advertising to promote those new slots as they came up. As a result, ratings suffered and both shows were cancelled. Clearly, these decisions did not reflect what the audience wanted, as both shows managed to resurrect themselves due to popular demand, DVD sales and high ratings for syndication.

Fox had two properties that have proven themselves to be so popular that they have escaped the grave, which is all but unheard of in television. It’s hard to understand why the shows were never given the support they deserved, particularly given the popularity of the lucrative Simpsons franchise, which proved the power of an animated property. Of course, Fox’s problems aren’t limited to animated programs.

Television has shown that while there are runaway smash hits, sometimes a show needs time to grow (Seinfeld, for example floundered for three seasons before becoming a monster). Fox has seen both of these phenomena first hand. While both The Simpsons and That 70’s Show were popular from the start, another long-running Fox hit, The X-Files, started as a poorly rated cult favourite before rising in the ratings and becoming a mainstream success.

The X-Files may be the only exception to a depressing and disheartening trend: Fox simply does not allow new shows time to increase their audience . Fox has cancelled a plethora of shows with great potential before they had a chance to become successful.

Another property that Fox has been accused of mismanaging is Arrested Development. Critically acclaimed, the show never gained a huge following, and was canceled after three seasons. However, producer Mitch Hurwitz has since said that, “I had taken it as far as I felt I could as a series. I told the story I wanted to tell, and we were getting to a point where I think a lot of the actors were ready to move on.”

Hurwitz’s comments raise an interesting point. It’s easy to point a finger at executives for bungling their management of a creative property. Sometimes, though, there simply isn’t a big enough audience to justify further investment. Arrested Development may be too smart for a mass audience, and the rabid fans who did love the show can rewatch them on DVDs and wait anxiously for the anticipated film version.

The office would like a word with you.…

General Electric CEO Jack Welch once said, “An overburdened, overstretched executive is the best executive, because he or she doesn’t have the time to meddle, to deal in trivia, to bother people.” And he may be right. He may be very right. Oh, hell, he is right!

But the fact is, we are a consumer society focused heavily on our entertainment. We tend to be very passionate about it, whether it is a band, show, film series, or anything else. Because of this, the interference of executives in the creative process is something at which we lash out. “How dare those brainless executives mess with the creative vision of (insert creative type here)?”

Certainly, there have been some (a few. Maybe.) good executive decisions made over the years, but there have been many more bad ones made by executives with an extremely limited knowledge of the projects for which they were responsible. They are never held accountable for the loss of culture and creativity, so we get less of both with each decision they make. They are held accountable only for the loss of revenue, which means that when they take no risks, they lose no revenue. Balls the size of peas seldom motivate anyone to take a chance on quality.

In 1209, Simon IV de Montfort, captain-general of the French forces in the Albigensian Crusade, was active at the siege of Beziers, where the entire population of 20,000 Cathars (heretics) and Catholics (the faithful) were slaughtered. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of those unfortunates sought refuge in two cathedrals. Those in one cathedral were burned alive when it was set on fire. When Montfort’s Crusaders wondered how to tell the difference between the heretics and the faithful in the other cathedral, the Cistercian abbot, Arnald-Amalric, responded, “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.” Those in the second cathedral were subsequently butchered, man, woman, child, and presumably pet, just in case. In the Vietnam War, Arnald-Amalric’s words were paraphrased by some anonymous soldier as, “Kill ‘em all. Let God sort ‘em out.”

“Kill them all. God will recognize his own.” Or, “Kill ‘em all. Let God sort ‘em out.” Whether your tastes run to the 13th-century philosophy or the less elegant 20th-century variety, it seems eminently reasonable to adopt one or the other where entertainment industry executives are concerned (sorry, Mitch Hurwitz). Their few creative successes are so thoroughly outweighed by their multitude of dreck and cannibalistic re-offerings that a thorough housecleaning could have nothing but benefits. And we’d have more risks like Arrested Development and fewer safe, bottom-liners like Everybody Loves Raymond.

And that could be bad, how, exactly?

(Special thanks to Augustine Funnell)

Tags: arrested development, batman, cartoons, ceo, conan o'brien, creativity, dark knight, executive, executives, fox, jay leno, jeff zucker, matt jones, mitch hurwitz, Music, nbc, nirvana, pink floyd, tonight show, wcw, wrestling
Posted in Essays, Op-Ed

01
Feb
2010

Science Fantasy

1 Comment

an essay by Matthew Payne

I’ve always been in love with science. I read science magazines when I was a kid and I am always thrilled by new discoveries or new technologies. But I only started reading science-fiction a couple years ago, because most popular science fiction has very little to do with real science or scientific ideas. Don’t get me wrong, I love Star Trek and Star Wars, but there’s very little in the way of real science there. I love them because they’re good stories with compelling characters, not because the science is stimulating. So they didn’t compel me to seek out more “science fiction.”

When I finally did start reading science fiction, I saw that the best stuff was not made of what we understand the genre to be. We tend to think of science-fiction as a story set in the future, but real sci-fi fans know better. I want to do something now to clarify the differences and maybe open up some new ground for curious book-lovers. I want to show you the mind-bending glories of a plot based on a scientific idea; the curiosity and paranoia of speculative fiction which can bring current issues and age-old questions into the light of a different context; and also the dizzying aesthetic panoramas of a regular good story set in the future. But mostly, I want to show curious readers that there is so much more to science fiction than just spaceships and lasers.

So I will try to show some examples from some sub-genres of sci-fi. These aren’t my categories: they already exist, and I’ve heard different ideas about what constitutes each pseudo-sub-genre. I’ll describe them as I see them, with examples that will often amount to a miniature book-review. There are spoilers in here, and I might ruin some good books for you, so be careful.

I’ll start with my favorite, and the most rare style of sci-fi: the plot based on a scientific idea. This is the playground where most hard science-fiction plays. It can be a simple enough idea, like in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park where they clone dinosaurs and the dinosaurs eat people. We’re all familiar enough with the movie, which did a good job at portraying the book (probably because Crichton wrote the screenplay). The plot is based on the idea that genes (DNA) naturally create life, and thus we can manipulate them into creating life. Scientists in the story found old dinosaur genes and created a favorable environment for them to grow living dinosaurs. The action of the story involved people trying to avoid getting eaten by the giant monsters, but without the science aspect there would have been no dinosaurs and no action. Jurassic Park has a plot based on a scientific idea, and for me that means that it is just as sci-fi as Star Trek.

But Jurassic Park is not what I’d call “hard” science fiction, because the science-part pretty much ends once the dinosaurs are alive. All you need to do is accept that cloning might be possible in this fictional world, and proceed to be afraid of dinosaurs. I admit that the book is much closer to being hard science-fiction than the movie, with occasional discussions about ideas and deeper descriptions about the mecahnics of genetic science, but when I compare it to the work of Greg Egan, I can’t justify calling Jurassic Park “hard sci-fi.”

Greg Egan is the man who showed me the brightest possibilities in true science-fiction. He is one of my favorite writers, and I’m always shocked (genuinely shocked) by the new places his sci-fi can take me. I’ve only read three of his books, but they are three of my favourite books. The basic plots of his books are based on complex scientific ideas, the action itself is a constant interplay of theoretical physics and software-fiction, and his characters themselves are often based on scientific ideas. It all seems very abstract when I describe it like that, but the characters are very compelling and the conflicts, while strange, dig right into your heart. The evocative stories carry on at a fast pace, the biggest page-turners I have ever read. He is a master storyteller.

To summarize the plot of his 2003 novel, Schild’s Ladder, in one sentence, I could say that “a new type of physics is eating up the universe, expanding at half the speed of light, and futuristic scientists are trying to find out how the human race can survive it.”

The novel is set twenty-thousand years in the future, when science has discovered much more about physics. According to the science of Egan’s fictional world, the vacuum of space and the particles within it are just one type of possible vacuum that can exist in the so-called “universe.” But one scientist has created an experimental new kind of physics, a new kind of vacuum, which is stronger than the current one which gave rise to stars, planets, and life. This new vacuum, called the “novo-vacuum” starts expanding as a huge ball, moving at half the speed of light, eating everything in its way (including space itself).

That’s a pretty cool plot by itself, but Egan adds crazier elements to the story. People are no longer flesh-humans, nor are they part-robot or anything like that. They can choose to take flesh-forms, they can choose to inhabit robots, they can live as independent software floating around with no computer (“incorporeals”), and they can transmit themselves across the galaxy at the speed of light. This creates interesting conflicts between characters, and a new context for the strange new-physics problem facing all the “people” of the galaxy. A lot of the conflict is based around characters arguing whether to try to stop the new physics, or try to study it and adapt to it. Egan gets philosophical about this point. It might seem silly to get philosophical about a problem that’s probably impossible, but it is also a metaphor about being brave and pursuing new things.

As you can imagine, the action of the story requires methodical descriptions of the behaviour of particles and software. This makes for reading that is simultaneously very dry and imaginative, while the concerns and welfare of the characters keep the reader extra-interested. It is very well done. I won’t tell you how it ends.

If that seems too far-out for you, then I won’t even begin to describe the multi-dimensional meanderings of the software-people in Egan’s Diaspora, or how the regular human main-character in Quarantine has to navigate through devastatingly limitless possible quantum outcomes to every situation in an attempt to save humanity from insanity.

And that brings me to Star Wars, where Jedi-magic is just as important to the plot as any kind of technology, and scientific ideas are simply absent.

I was once at a comic-book convention and I asked a comic-book vendor if he knew of any good science-fiction comics, because I’ve been looking for a good one for a while. He said, “I have lots of Star Wars comics.”

I said, “Star Wars is more fantasy than science fiction. What else do you have?”

He frowned at me, then he looked at my friend and said, “He’s lucky there’s a table between us right now.” After that he refused to talk to me.

Star Wars belongs in fantasy just as much as it belongs in sci-fi, because the Jedi knights are wizard-warriors. There is no offer of a scientific explanation for their abilities to move objects with their minds, or any of the amazing and impossible fighting moves they do. It’s magic. They are wizards. I had a friend say, “No, it’s not magic. It’s just mind-over-matter! It’s like Buddhism.” Well, I’m sorry but if there was a story about Buddhists using telekinesis, then that story would be fantasy, because telekinesis is magic, and it’s not real.

I had someone tell me that “cyber-punk” was a sub-genre of science fiction where there is lots of technology, but the stories are usually gritty and tough. Star Wars can fall into that category, because it’s a fairly gritty epic-adventure with spaceships and laser-swords.

I have certainly relented from my previous stance that Star Wars is not science-fiction, but when I think about Greg Egan or Michael Crichton, men who have their heads right inside a science text-book, I just can’t put Star Wars in the same category. Instead it is the perfect blend of sci-fi elements with fantasy, for a truly imaginative adventure story.

Keep in mind that this is merely an organizational matter, a matter of categorization. This has nothing to do with the quality of the work. I’m a big fan of the first three Star Wars movies, and I believe that the world needs more laser-sword battles. But it stimulates a different part of my mind than the stories that I consider scientifically imaginative.

Then there is Christopher Priest. I’ve read several of his books, and they are always mind-bending soul-wrenchers. Priest is great because he intentionally messes around with the reader, using the perspective of the characters to submerse you into his surreal yet very tangible worlds.

The whole plot and world of Priest’s surreal sci-fi classic, The Inverted World, are basically a philosophical statement with a scientific explanation. The characters all live in a city which is moving on tracks. They have to work together to pick up the tracks behind the city and lay them down in front of the city every day. At first, you don’t know why they’re doing this. The main character is just a kid at first, and he doesn’t understand the city, and the reader only knows what the character knows.

The city-dwellers have a name for the areas they already passed through. They call it “the past.” The area ahead of them, where they plan to lay new tracks, is called “the future.” It seems like a stupid and pointless activity at first, desperately picking up and laying down tracks, but then the main character travels into “the past” by simply walking back to where the city has already been, and he finds that all the old mountains and trees have gotten smaller and smaller. The further back he goes, the smaller the trees and mountains get, and gravity eventually threatens to pull him vertically into the infinite and flat “past.” When he travels into “the future,” walking ahead of the slowly-moving city, he finds that everything gets bigger and bigger until he can’t even step over pebbles, and gravity won’t let him walk any further forward. To make it worse, the future and the past are always moving forwards. If the city stops moving, it will shrink into “the past,” and gravity will pull it off the flat landscape and supposedly into oblivion.

Beautifully strange as it is, the city-dwellers have a scientific explanation for this gorgeous and terrifying world they live in. They say that instead of living on a finite planet in an infinite universe (like our finite Earth in our infinite universe), these people live on an infinite planet within a finite universe. They think that their planet is a rotating parabola, but only part of it is ever within the finite universe, and the city has to keep moving to stay within the universe, and to keep existing.

As a metaphor, he is referring to our perspective of the future looming huge above us, and our dwindling memories of our disappearing past. Also, our seemingly innate instinct to keep moving, almost desparately towards the future, terrified of what would happen if we stopped.

As science-fiction, the idea of an infinite planet moving through a finite universe is really cool and interesting. Christopher Priest is often a dark and paranoid writer, but the action is equally colorful and imaginative.

So I’ve spoiled a lot of the fun surprise of The Inverted World for anyone who might read it (and the surprise of discovery is the biggest part of the fun of reading Christopher Priest), but you can still read The Affirmation if you want to get mind-fucked, or Darkening Island if you want to get depressed and scared. They are less sci-fi, but awesome stories. Indoctrinaire is another great book by Priest, and it is probably the most surreal of all his books that I’ve read.

Actually, you are probably familiar with his work already. His book, The Prestige, was made into a movie of the same name. It had a lot of the same lineup as Dark Knight, including Christian Bale and Michael Caine in the cast, and the amazing Nolan brothers writing and directing it.

Now for Star Trek.

Star Trek beats Star Wars for sci-fi categorization because there is no magic. They at least pretend that things like replicators and transporters are genuine inventions of technology, plausible within our own regular physics. For me Star Trek in all its forms is in the same genre as Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. It’s social-science-fiction, using a futuristic setting to demonstrate ideas about humanity, rather than scientific ideas.

Asimov’s Foundation stories were mainly political stories, showing the development of humanity as empires ebbed and flowed throughout the galaxy. Star Trek used an episodic style to show the noble Star Fleet officers giving help and wisdom to other life-forms. The humans in Star Trek have overcome war and financial inequality through the use of technology to make everyone comfortable and relatively safe. Some episodes have sci-fi plots, like in The Next Generation, when Star Fleet wants to dissemble the android Data. He has no actual feelings or legal rights, but the crew of The Enterprise have grown fond of him and they want to keep him, and so there is a court battle about why humans deserve rights and robots don’t. I don’t think this idea is really socially relevant yet, but it might be some day. Also, science considers humans to be merely biological robots, so the legal rights of androids is a silly question that actually sheds light onto the question of what it means to be human.

For the most part, the science of Star Trek isn’t very scientific. The aliens they meet always seem to look like humans with makeup on their faces, and the scientific understanding of natural selection seems to suggest that it’s really unlikely that there would be aliens so very similar to us. In fact, there is sometimes breeding between different species (like Worf’s half-human, half-klingon son Alexander), which must suggest that other aliens use the same kind of DNA as humans, with the same six molecules, and that they have a genome so close to our own that we can breed with them.

That being said, I love Star Trek: The Next Generation more than Star Wars or any other sci-fi, maybe even including Egan and Priest. It’s true that it’s a corny television show, but I love it because the characters are noble and curious, the episodes have a lot of (often naïve) social wisdom, and the Enterprise just seems like an awesome place to live. Of course, Captain Picard is the most noble of them all, jolly and witty in good times; deadly serious, sharp and disciplined in the tough times.

So Star Trek is a great show, but not hard science-fiction. It is a story set in the future, and the characters could just as well be on a ship exploring the ocean in the past, and not much would be lost for the viewer. The sci-fi element is mostly an aesthetic choice. Plus, it allows us to hope for this as a possible version of “the future.”

I wanted to discuss the films The Matrix, Gattaca, and especially Terminator II: Judgement Day, but I think I’ve vaguely categorized enough for now. I’ll leave them floating among the sci-fi mists.

This short multi-review does not describe the whole massive genre of science fiction; it doesn’t even come close. But I hope that I’ve expanded your image of the genre beyond the typical low-quality space-opera conception/prejudice.

As a final note, sci-fi often refers to “alternate dimensions,” and the authors treat it like moving to a different universe similar to our own but different. They mistake the idea of dimensions. We live in three-dimensional space, and the real theoretical idea is that the fourth dimension is time. Greg Egan plays with this idea in Diaspora, but you can get a really cool description of the actual (theoretical) idea on Youtube. Check out the video embedded below. It’s part one of two. The second part should be available at the end.

Tags: alternate dimensions, christopher priest, cloning, fantasy, future, greg egan, jurassic park, michael crichton, schild's ladder, science fiction, star trek, star wars
Posted in Essays

26
Jan
2010

Criterion Conquest: Seven Samurai

1 Comment

by Jason Wilson

Seven Samurai (1954)
Directed by Akira Kurosawa
Written by Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto and Hideo Oguni
Starring Takashi Shimura, Yoshio Inaba, Daisuke Kato, Minoru Chiaki, Isao Kimura, Seiji Miyaguchi and Toshiro Mifune.

It took me a long time to fully immerse myself in foreign films. I was all about the Hollywood system and watched the Oscars every year like a good little boy and accepted that they were pretty much spot on (though I never agreed with Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas or Titanic over L.A. Confidential). I can’t say for sure but I don’t think it was until university where I decided to dabble with foreign language films. High school was my discovery phase of film in general. I started with the newer stuff and slowly took in the Godfather films and older Spielberg stuff like Jaws and even some Kubrick and Hitchcock.

*A quick note: Access was always a problem. I lived in rural New Brunswick and foreign films weren’t at the ready until the last couple years. Even now classic foreign movies like anything by Kurosawa are hard to come by in my hometown.*

After a couple film classes here and there, my appreciation for global cinema started to breathe. I had started watching old Westerns by Sergio Leone like Fistful of Dollars and learned it was based on Yojimbo, another Kurosawa movie. Through my reading I came to learn The Magnificent Seven was not an original story but one based on Seven Samurai. Luckily, living in Fredericton, I was able to find a rental copy and it blew me away.

Cut to several years later and I’ve seen a fair chunk of Kurosawa’s filmography but had yet to revisit the one that got me started. I’m an obsessive and tend to re-watch movies multiple times, especially the ones I love and even some I hate (I’ve seen Daredevil three times). I figured I could definitely stand to watch Seven Samurai again.

It’s a sprawling epic that embarrasses pretty much any of its kind released today. It’s a deep character study with intensity and wild action and swordplay. It’s three and a half hours long but the time is used economically and not a minute is wasted. Each of the seven ronin are fully developed and maintain their own identity, none of them are one-dimensional characters and none are used as mere window dressing. Even the supposed secondary characters like the farmers they are hired to protect are presented with depth and dignity unseen in many epics of today (I will give credit to Braveheart in this regard though, Gibson and company had a colourful cast of people in that flick).

The story in a nutshell is a group of bandits are discovered to be plotting a raid on a village of farmers once their barley harvest is ready. The farmers decide, at the behest of an elder, to hire samurai to protect the village. Kanbei (played by the fantastic Takashi Shimura) is the first one recruited. He’s an aging samurai without a master expecting to live out the rest of his days as a vagabond. Out of a sense of duty to morality he takes on the farmer’s cause even though he knows he may die and they cannot pay him. He slowly recruits others and the seven of them journey to the village to prepare for the onslaught.

It follows a formula of the lone wolf hero (multiplied by seven) or gun for hire but focuses on the human elements of the story. But it’s not treated as above the action. Instead the characters, the story, the action and the themes are all treated as equal and thus the film is one of the most well rounded and thoughtful action films ever committed to film. Kikuchiyo (Toshiro Mifune) could easily be considered the comic relief but in the same breath he could be considered the most tragic character among the samurai. His past his slowly revealed as the movie progresses; there are hints and guesses by other characters until he has two specific breaking points where he reveals his lineage and history.

It’s incredible because in many stories like this a love story will seem completely out of place but Kurosawa even gets that right. The farmers don’t trust the samurai even though they rely on them for their salvation. The farmers force their daughters to cut their hair and dress like boys so they will not fall into the romantic trap of the village protectors. Of course this has to be visited again later on and it addresses the disparity between social classes and the idea that love between two people regardless of their status is a beautiful thing. Kurosawa and his co-writers Hashimoto and Oguni put together a complex yet simple to understand story that works on every aspect of humanity. It lives up to the hype because it takes itself seriously with a sense of whimsy.

The three-disc edition released by the Criterion Collection is one of the best DVDs ever released. While the special features may seem minimal despite the three discs, it makes up for it with the quality of each. There are two feature-length commentaries (neither of which I was able to listen to…I must purchase this DVD). One by five film scholars and the other by Japanese film expert Michael Jeck.

There are two 50-minute documentaries; one on the making of the film itself and another on the impact of samurai cinema and traditions and how Kurosawa was influenced. There’s also a two-hour long interview with Kurosawa himself from 1993 (he died in 1998) with filmmaker Nagisa Oshima covering most of the films of his career and his early life as well. If you purchase the DVD you’ll also get a booklet of essays on the film. By the end you’ll know all you need to know so you can brag to all your friends about your expertise on the samurai genre. The Seven Samurai set provides an intimate look at Kurosawa and what many consider his masterpiece (take imdb with a grain of salt but this film rests at #15 on their top 250 of all time).

It’s a humanistic movie with amazing action and intensity. It doesn’t feel like its runtime, if anything it feels like it should be longer. That’s not to say Kurosawa left anything out, he didn’t, but by the end the audience is so attached to the goings on that more of the story would be welcome. Instead we can revisit it over and over again. I gladly will…if for no other reason than I should see it more times than I’ve seen Daredevil.

Next on the Criterion Conquest: Alfred Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes

Tags: akira kurosawa, commentary, criterion, criterion collection, daredevil, dvd, foreign language film, high school, japanese film, jason wilson, samurai, seven samurai, special features, subtitles, toshiro mifune
Posted in Essays, Reviews

19
Jan
2010

Machine Thinking: The End of an Era?

2 Comments

by Amy Anderson

The internet is often the starting point for my new ideas. When I come across novel ideas online, I try to apply them to my little world and see if they ring true. Nerdy, I know. So, here’s American educational rebel John Taylor Gatto talking about Marshall McLuhan’s views on machines:

“Marshall McLuhan once called on us to notice that all machines are merely extensions of the human nervous system, artifices which improve on natural apparatus, each a utopianization of some physical function”.

I would go further and say that machines are not just substitutions for the nervous system, but for the human body as well. So, a car is really a substitute set of very fast legs that go from point A to Bwithout leaving us fatigued. Gatto’s explanation continues:

“‘Equally important’, says McLuhan, ‘the use of machinery causes its natural flesh blood counterpart to atrophy’”.

We’ve certainly seen this in Canada over the last thirty years – cars make legs atrophy. People get fat because they no longer use their legs; instead they eat unhealthy food from drive-thru windows. So what?

Although McLuhan’s statement itself is interesting, what intrigues me most is the idea of “machine thinking” – that the human body is like a machine, that cities are organized like an immense clock, that we are all cogs in the wheel. This is a tremendously influential idea that has been with us in the West since the Industrial Revolution.

It is my feeling that this machine paradigm is becoming obsolete in our post-Industrial era, and that ‘machine thinking’ is eventually bound to give way to a more techno-naturalistic understanding of the world as a place of connectivity and relationships. Sounds like a lot of hocus-pocus but it actually has a big effect on how we perceive ourselves, and by extension how we organize our societies.

The contrast between the natural and mechanical worlds is clear – the natural world is cyclical, subtle, non-linear and full of processes. Think of a tree and the repetitive but always slightly different growth cycle it goes through in a year – dormancy during winter, leaves budding, foliage, shedding leaves, dormancy again. But two years are never identical, despite the repetitions in the process.

The machine is linear, self-evident, and product driven. A cardboard factory has specific inputs processed identically in each case, with products made uniformly and with the machine invented for precisely this purpose. It has one end and one end only, whereas a tree is part of a complex natural network (ie, an ecosystem).

In the past 250 years, we have interpreted the machine’s ability to surpass human weakness and nature’s unpredictability as a glorious triumph. It has given us mass transit, consumer goods, large-scale food production, and communication technology. From James Brown’s legendary drummer to the Olympian Michael Phelps, the statement “he’s a machine!” is usually meant as a compliment.

However, as we move further into the post-Industrial era, many people are starting to wonder if the complexity and sophistication of natural systems are in fact superior to the linear processes of the machines. Part of this is probably due to the detrimental results of too much mechanistic intervention.

Machines are largely responsible for such problems as pollution, climate change and deforestation. Although we might imagine the world as a machine with discrete and disconnected parts, clearly the results of our actions show us that everything is connected. Cars don’t just replace legs in taking us from point A to B, they actually change the atmospheric make-up of our planet.

Furthermore, no supercomputer has surpassed the abilities of the human brain. Sure, we can attach a lot of computers and do really big calculations really fast, but nobody has succeeded in creating a thinking machine that writes or understands poetry, births children or runs marathons. All of these acts can only be achieved by the organically functioning system that is our brain, with help from the body.

The natural world is inherently intelligent, unlike machines. Natural feedback loops have evolved to ensure that not too many lemmings live for too long, and that birds fly south for the winter before their climate becomes too inhospitable to survive. All of this takes place without intervention.

In addition to raising the material standard of living, the proliferation of machines has had a tremendous impact on human perception. Imagine living in a pre-industrial time when nearly everything was made by hand. The psychological implications of that should not be overlooked – humans were once directly involved with, and responsible for their interactions with the material world. They were connected to feasts, famines, diseases and lived within the psychological boundaries that came along with seeing themselves as part of the natural world.

With the invention of machines, humans began to dominate this world. Subsequently, nature became something to be subdued or managed and strangely, humans started to pressure other humans to behave like machines – ie. to stop feasting and go to work in large factories.

Most people still see things in mechanistic terms, describing everything from planetary orbits to parts of the human body as if it were all another cog in the wheel. But if there’s anything that climate science, quantum physics and attachment theory demonstrate, it’s that the world is in fact much more subtle and connected than a machine, which is built for only one pre-ordained purpose.

Now we have entered a phase where our ideas and knowledge are opening up new possibilities: the possibility of modelling human creations on the natural world. What does this mean? It means we are transitioning from a linear, segmented way of seeing the world (and behaving in that world) to a more complex, interactive and self-organizing set of systems.

The internet is a prime example of this new model: although it is high-tech and dependent on industrial processes to begin (ie. someone has to make computers and cell phones), the internet enables people to self-organize, connects information and people regardless of geography, allows the creation, implementation and monitoring of new ideas, all without levers or central planning. This is much more akin to the self-regulation of natural systems.

Permaculture is another relevant example. Whereas in agriculture the goal is to produce as much food as possible as cheaply and quickly as possible, in permaculture humans imitate natural systems: planting gradually over a series of years, working with the natural tendencies of the specific region, using natural solutions instead of chemical interventions. Here we have avoided the machine approach that leads to loss of topsoil and biodiversity while maintaining productivity needed for human survival.

My feeling is that to advance beyond our industrial problems and limitations, we will need to acknowledge that ‘machine thinking’ is no longer sufficient. Instead, we ought to be modelling ourselves on the idea of a living organism: made up of complex interdependent parts, intricately tied to our environment, the whole being more than the sum of its parts. I think that many of the top thinkers of our times have already arrived at this conclusion – if you’ve spent any time on ted.com lately you have probably seen some of this new mentality.

Obviously, human beings are not going to leave behind the knowledge gained from the Industrial Era. But I hope we will have the wisdom to acknowledge that we are part of the physical world, not its master. Using natural processes as a model is necessary if seven billion of us are going to continue to inhabit this planet. It’s interesting to see the pendulum swinging back towards the physical world – not exactly to pre-industrial times, but back to a mentality that focuses on context instead of pretending everything is separate.

It’s exciting to be alive during a time when new ideas are likely to transform the way we see the world and ourselves in it. As Mr. Einstein famously said, “ the problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” I think Einstein’s right about that, but of course, new situations invariably create new problems.

Still, one thing’s for certain, the sun is setting on the analogue age, and we are going to need new ideas to express the realities of a new era. Letting go of ‘machine thinking’ will help determine which people adapt and prosper, and who will remain burdened by a mode of thinking that no longer reflects the world in which we find ourselves.

Tags: agriculture, amy anderson, cell phones, computers, future, internet, machine thinking, machinery, machines, marshall mcluhan, natural processes, past, pre-industry, present, technology, ted.com
Posted in Essays

03
Jan
2010

Me, Joe and Hank Williams: A Road Story

4 Comments

by Richard Blaquiere

I picked up a homeless person as he was en route from the shelter in Moncton to, most likely, the shelter in Fredericton, although he denied that. He was thumbing at the Y in the four lane TCH where you choose Saint John or Fredericton. He was in the Fredericton lane as was I. It was after 4 and I needed a Christmas tale in my life. I was on my way home to Woodstock after visiting my 19 year old daughter on the second anniversary of a tragedy that altered so many lives irrevocably. A story for another day. That’s how I met Joe, a dirt-encrusted, sixty-six year old bi-polar former miner and current homeless person. Joe’s hair was seriously matted as was his beard. His finger nails stretched two inches past the fingertips and were like motorcycle windshields in a shit storm. He stank to high heaven. My fuck, Joe stank.

We quickly hit it off. After a bit he alluded more than once to his “pills” and I asked him flat out if he was schizophenic/bi-polar and he agreed that he was. I asked him if he minded me asking him questions about his condition and how it shaped his life. “Fill your boots.” He told me where he was when he was first diagnosed. Edmonton. He was suicidal and was at a mental health clinic. He had worked in an Alberta gold mine for several years. His then age? 47. “Married ever?” “Never.” Over the past twenty years he has been in and out of several group homes, men’s shelters, hot air ducts and institutions including the Provincial Hospital in Campbellton. I worked there as a teenager when we, the locals, called it the Mental Hospital. Prides himself in being a non-drinker but argues convincingly for his right to smoke cigarettes. Not weed.

Then apropos of nothing, lightly poking my arm, he says, “Know a great singer who made it to the top of the charts?” “Who, Joe?” I asked. “Hank Williams.” He said. Ha! I am a hard core traditional country fan and, in fact, one coveted 2008 Christmas gift is my Hank Williams: The Unreleased Recordings three CD Boxed Set. We then started flinging Hank Williams song titles back and forth as if in some “Name That Twang” quiz show on Nashville television. Me. “Kawliga!” He. “Your Cheating Heart.” Me. “I Saw the Light.” He. “Mansion on a Hill.” Then he started to sing “I Can’t Help It If I’m Still in Love with You” and I joined in and we sang a few more Hank Williams songs laughing like fools. I silently and discretely lowered the back windows a bit. Then he says once more,”Know a great singer who made it to the top of the charts?” “Who,Joe?” I asked. “Johnny Horton.” “Hang on now Joe.” I said, dramatically raising my right hand in a “halt” gesture, and paused. Then I launched full-throated into the Battle of New Orleans, “In 1814 we took a little trip…..” and sang almost half that song with Joe looking and laughing then we both sang “Sink the Bismarck.” And he did the “Know a great singer who made it to the top of the charts” prompt again and again and we’d play it out and sing. We covered Patsy Cline, Kitty Wells, Merle Haggard and even Woody Guthrie. “He’s folk.” I said. “But he got country.” accurately answered Joe. The cigarettes had done their job on Joe’s voice but not on his enthusiasm for a good country and western song. We did a lovely serious duet on Jim Reeves’ “He’ll Have to Go.” Gentleman Jim wouldn’t have minded one bit.

I slipped him a few bucks and a half-full Tim Horton’s gift card when I dropped him off at the downtown Tim’s in Fredericton. Tim Horton’s coffee is Joe’s other vice. He told me a friend would be picking him up around 9. It was sixish. I had my doubts but I prayed that was true. When I left him, despite the cold, I drove with my four windows open for 15-20 minutes. Good-bye Joe, me gotta go.

Tags: great singers, hank williams, hitchhiking, richard blaquiere, tim's
Posted in Essays

31
Dec
2009

A Big Damn Shame – The Fall and the Fury of “Firefly”

3 Comments

by Jennifer Harrison

In September of 2002, a new show from the mind of Joss Whedon premiered on FOX. This show was Firefly, and it was canceled after eleven episodes aired. Usually, cancelled shows go the route of hundreds of others, and fall into oblivion. Not so with Firefly.

In 2004 an Irish friend introduced me to Firefly via DVD. He was furious that I, a North American, had never heard of this show and therefore had participated in its demise. He ranted about the wonders of this Sci-fi / Western, and the brilliance of Joss Whedon (who already had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel under his belt). I assumed he was going a tad overboard…until he put in the first disc.

Firefly takes place in the year 2517, and the population of Earth has long exceeded this planet. Now, humans have made all of space their home, with people piloting spaceships as we would cars. Inevitably, a war was fought to prevent the newfound Alliance from incorporating all of the planets under its control. Those that resisted the Alliance were called Independents, or Browncoats. Malcolm Reynolds was one such Browncoat fighting on the losing side of this war.

Now, Captain Mal Reynolds avoids Alliance control by living life with his crew aboard Serenity, a Firefly Class cargo ship. The show revolves around the crew of this ship, as they visit new worlds, make shady deals, and try to maintain their freedom.

I was blown away. Besides Star Wars, I would not consider myself a fan of Sci-Fi. I have never watched Battlestar Gallactica, or Stargate SG-1. However, Firefly was different – it was so REAL. It literally felt as though humans were merely conquering new territories, and the references to the Old West and Westerns abound.

The show is void of aliens. No aliens! It was simply one of the most realistic depictions of the future that I had ever seen. Everyone on the show was able to speak both English and Chinese, since these were the two Superpowers remaining on Earth-that-Was. The new frontier planets have elements of Asian culture, and people wear gun holsters ala the Wild West. I was enthralled.

Aside from this, the show had a terrific ensemble cast, including Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite and Alan Tudyk. Greg Edmonson provided beautiful music that added to the excellence of the show. The writing was superior, and received rave reviews. Also, the effects were so great that the show won an Emmy for ‘Outstanding Visual Effects for a Series’ in 2003.

So, WHY WAS THIS SHOW CANCELLED?

It turns out that I was far from the first to ask this question. Immediately, this show developed a strong legion of fans, calling themselves Browncoats, determined to convince FOX that this show was worth saving. They became a huge presence on the Internet, created a postcard campaign, placed an ad in Variety magazine and helped push the DVD sales for the show into the stratosphere.

Most, like my Irish friend, took it upon themselves to introduce people to the show, as FOX did not give it much of a chance from the start, even forcing Joss to air the show out of order, something that is remedied upon buying the DVD set. Soon, studios began wondering about this cancelled show that lived on through DVDs.

This is when I joined the bandwagon, buying my own DVD set and lamenting about the loss of Captain Tightpants on the Internet. Browncoats began having ’shindigs’ and get-togethers, and the cast was mobbed at Comic-Con. The furor would not die down, and Joss Whedon pledged to find a way for our Big Damn Heroes to live on.

Then, on September 30th, 2005 our Big Damn Heroes found their way into cinemas for Serenity, our Big Damn Movie. This cancelled show had done the impossible and resurrected itself, a victory for the Browncoats. Rare is it that a cancelled show finds itself a major motion picture.

Today, our world lives on through Dark Horse comics, the Serenity role-playing game, a Serenity novelization, and various wonderful spots on the Internet. Visual companion guides exist for the show and the movie, and two books, Finding Serenity and Serenity Found attempt to explain the Firefly phenomenon.

Currently, a World of Warcraft- style online game is in development, and fans can once again interact with their beloved characters. Finally, I have a reason to get involved in the world of online gaming! Perhaps this method will introduce a new batch of Browncoats to the world of Earth-That-Was, the domination of the Alliance, and the way of life out in the black.

After all, as we learned in Serenity, you can’t stop the signal. And you can’t keep a great show down.

Tags: browncoats, cancelled, firefly, Jennifer, jennifer harrison, Joss Whedon, sci fi
Posted in Essays

17
Dec
2009

Christmas vs. “Xmas”: The Ho-Ho-Holocaust

3 Comments

Christmas vs. “Xmas”: The Ho-Ho-Holocaust
(or, since this is much ado about nothing, it could be the Ho-Ho-Hoo-raw!)
(or, How the loudest-portions-of-the-largest-minority think we should greet each other.) by Matt Jones

The debate over the proper holiday greeting has gone on for some time now. “Merry Christmas,” or “Happy Holidays?” Is one exclusionist? Is the other un-American (in the larger North American sense) in a largely Christian part of the world?

I’ve heard some rumblings about this: the odd article here, and an overheard conversation there. Of course, one of the most vocal and hilarious proponents is Stephen Colbert, who wishes PC death on anyone who says “Happy Holidays.” However, as with most things Colbert says, there’s a good chance that in his heart he means the complete opposite.

I got a good chuckle out of this recent installment of Shortpacked, a webcomic about people who work in a toy store. (click to enlarge)

My chuckles stopped when I thought: wait a minute, is that a real website? I typed in www.standforchristmas.com, and what do you know — it is real. If we secular atheists can deign to look at it, it’s a fascinating read.

For our purposes here, let’s look specifically at Wal-Mart. The first thing we can determine is that either Wal-Mart’s corporate rules and regulations are, at best, poorly enforced across their various locations, or these people are liars. After numerous entries complaining that Wal-Mart had no nativity scenes, no Christian-themed cards, and the clerks did not say, “Merry Christmas,” I came across this comment:

I saw nativity scenes available in the store in Edgewood, NM. Also, the Christmas cards they stocked are the most Christ-friendly I have ever seen. (”May your Christmas center around the fact that Jesus was born” said one) – also employees said Merry Christmas. They even had a little lighted Christmas Walmart-building with a salvation army bell ringer in the front of the building on sale for $12. Definitely Christmas friendly.

Compare that to the experience of this person, who seems to have discovered a few additional soap boxes under his or her feet:

I recently was shopping in the local Wal-Mart and noticed the absence of Christmas music while they eagerly sought out my shopping dollars. I was told by an associate that corporate would not allow it because it “offended” certain people. I can only assume it offended atheists and the ACLU who are the usual culprits in this debate.

Those evil ACLU bastards! How dare they! Nonetheless, it seems that there’s no consistency (or effectiveness) in how Wal-Mart applies its corporate decisions. Not every comment is as much a non-sequitur as that one, though. Some are downright, well, logical and Christian:

While the clerks were friendly, no one wished us a Merry Christmas and there are no Chistmas decorations or other indications of this holiday showing in No. Attlrboro, MA. We will continue to greet the staff at Wal-Mart with Merry Christmas and hope that the spirit of this holy holiday will come to Wal-mart.

I think this next one is being facetious, though:

[My] Wal-Mart had the nerve to have “Chanukah” stuff for sale and a sign that said “Happy Chanukah.” How Rude!!

Of course, others will use the forum to make non-related, but still valid points:

There is nothing Christmasy about smothering small businesses and contributing to domestic unemployment by encouraging overseas manufacturing.

I think that this is the most telling one of all:

It’s just business as usual for Wal-Mart. This giant retailer should set an example and show reverence and respect for this HOLY season as it is the core reason for their prosperity in this time.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Wal-Mart should celebrate Christianity during the holidays because of how much money it makes from it? Seems logical. Why has this logic not been applied to the fact that Christmas (the annual celebration of the birth of Christ) and, let’s call it Xmas (the annual tradition of buying yourself into debt and eating yourself into some cardiac excitement) have nothing to do with each other?

I don’t recall any Bible verses encouraging commercialism in celebration of the birth of Jesus. If anyone should be getting presents, it’s he. Trying to combine Christmas and Xmas might just lead to a mental disconnect in those kids you’re trying to raise “right.”

I know that for me, everything seemed to be geared toward presents; hearing about Jesus being born was just an irritation to deal with while at mass on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning. I didn’t have anything against Jesus, but for a five-year-old kid, toys were (and are) far more interesting and important than uncomfortable church clothes and sitting quietly.

But that’s not even the real issue here. The real issue is the idea many people seem to have — that Christmas, as the seasonal holiday celebrated by the largest minority, should be monolithic. It is the idea that other religious celebrations around this time of year (among them Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, occasionally roaming celebrations such as Ramadan, and my personal favourites, Festivus and the Feast of Alvis) are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because they aren’t celebrated by the largest group (or, more destructively, aren’t celebrated because what those people believe is wrong). In essence, it’s the idea that the inclusive “Happy Holidays” greeting is a slap in the face of baby Jesus.

The fact is (and I know that I’m getting into dangerous territory here), the dominance of Christianity (not necessarily the religion itself, but what people have used it for) is offensive to a lot of people. Christian values (the Ten Commandments, for example) are a fine system on which to base one’s life; I don’t believe that anyone has a problem with that. The trouble comes when the richest landowners in the entire world use their moral and political influence to discourage the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa, or quietly relocate child molesters who’ve abused their position of moral authority. Or how about those, believers or not, who take advantage of the faithful in order to sell garbage such as this? Christianity, like anything else, has proven very destructive when in the wrong hands.

But I’m just one guy (who, admittedly, cared more as a child about He-Man than Jesus). What do you think? How should we greet one another this time of year? Should nativity scenes be displayed publicly? Can the other religions hash it out in hell for all eternity? You tell me.

Herry Christadays!

Tags: christmas, christmas carols, consumerism, faith, matt jones, prayercross, religion, religious freedom, wal-mart, xmas
Posted in Essays, Op-Ed

08
Dec
2009

Understanding a Creative Economy

No Comments

a column by Cheryl Ripley

If you haven’t heard of the creative economy you don’t have to feel as though you are living in a cave. This economic concept was introduced following discussions around economic development as dependent on knowledge. Evolving from the knowledge based approach the creative economy appears more inclusive, based in collaboration, economic diversification, a celebration of culture and support for research and innovation. It is a concept to be applied in communities, with business and for personal professional development.

Wait a minute! What is the creative economy?

At the moment there does not exist one perfect definition for the creative economy, jobs or industry. Working out the language and narrowing down the specifics of this holistic concept is tough, as it includes many different working parts. From what I gather, the creative economy is defined by improved quality of life through innovative activity, so that the creation of new products, services, intellectual property or simply renewing those already in existence has the potential to generate wealth and jobs.

Okay, improved quality of life and the use of creativity and innovation to generate wealth sounds great! But what is a creative job or a creative industry?

Advertising, architecture, artists, business consulting, design, education, engineering, film, games, heritage, marketing, museums, music, performing arts, photographic services, public relations, publishing, radio and television, web and software are examples of Creative Industries as defined by the North American Industry Classification System.

Creative jobs however, are not limited to positions within the industries listed above. Sustainable forestry and community supported agriculture are both examples of genres that could host creative jobs. A creative job could also include writers, visual and performing artists, media representatives, software publishers, programmers and environmental or heritage services.

The concept of a creative economy identifies that those in the creative field make more money than those in the service, working or agricultural fields by 20-30 thousands of dollars. It also recognizes the already existent advantages in urban locales where there are more creative jobs and industry. But, yes, the benefits of the creative economy are accessible to rural locations, on the assumption of good physical connections to urban mega regions and internet connectivity. In the Eastern corridor of Ontario, for example, connecting the mega regions of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to the surrounding rural areas would facilitate economic growth. The idea is to support this economic growth through innovation and creative jobs.

The key to the creative economy opens the doors for connections, networks, communication and collaboration. If businesses small or large, can take advantage of technology, embrace the benefits of sharing information and take the time to collaborate and communicate ideas, then perhaps the metaphorical doors within those economic corridors, linking urban and rural, will open to present new opportunities. By moving forward with internet technologies these doors have the potential to present opportunities that surpass the highways and railways between these spaces and places.

Seemingly dependent upon the accessibility for rural communities to high-speed internet connectivity, the creative economy has the potential to break stereotypical boundaries between urban and rural life. So what does the creative economy mean for the future of MY rural livelihood?? It means that in order for the rural creative economy to flourish there will need to be faster internet connection and better cell phone reception. On a positive note many provinces across Canada have entered into a phase of internet introduction so that in areas where using the internet was painfully slow or previously unheard of, more Canadians are connecting to each other and the world over the cyber waves.

Still, the question remains. Do you have to be an internet junkie, a twit or a crackberry fanatic to join in? No. I don’t think so. BUT, capitalizing on these technologies in advertising and marketing your business, job, ideas, events, art, etc. will spread the word about whatever you are working on and has the potential to do so quickly.

Tags: canada, Cheryl Ripley, creative economy, creative jobs, internet technology, IT, new technology, rural living
Posted in Essays, Op-Ed

25
Nov
2009

Twilighting Other Films

1 Comment

Applying Twilight Logic to Other Film Archetypes by Matt Jones

If there’s one thing that the success of the Twilight series has shown us it’s that continuity and accepted lore mean absolutely nothing (see sunlight v. vampires: instant death or body glitter?). The only thing that matters is appealing to doe-eyed teens wearing too much eye shadow (and their girlfriends HA!). With that in mind, here are pitches for a couple of movies that would make millions of dollars while having absolutely no merit otherwise.

Raiders of the Lost Gap

Moody high school sweetheart Indiana Joan’s life is given purpose when a new, bigger and better Gap opens two towns over. OMG! Now Joan and her crew (which includes two skanks and an Asian kid, all of whom are stunning, ethereal beauties, naturally) must figure out a way to get there. Will it mean making a pact with the ugly and socially awkward nerds of the Warcraft cult (led by the perverted hentai fan Mola “C.D.” Rom)? Is getting to shop at the best store ever worth spending time with a bunch of mouth breathers who’ve never spoken to, much less touched a woman? Beneath their slobber and poor social graces, is there something redeeming about the nerds? No, there is not.

Starring Emma Roberts as Joan, Aly and AJ as the two skanks, Zac Efron as the Asian kid, Frankie Muniz as Mola Rom and Pamela Anderson as a horrifying glimpse into what these young, attractive girls might end up looking like someday.

Robocrop (VERY loosely based on a true story)

Amber was just a poor young trend follower, who dreamed of making out with various rock stars with haircuts that resemble Old Faithful. Following her tragic death in a car accident (caused by those no-good drunk driving jocks), Amber’s body is taken to the Adobe Institute for Useless Robotics. There she is rebuilt as a hot-pink human/Photoshop hybrid. Now she crops, filters, and adjusts tint with ease! Will making convincing Photoshops of herself making out with her beloved rockers be enough, or will she use her powers to take vengeance on the jocks and doctor photos of them in gay situations? It’s a moving story full of pain, pathos and people totally making out.

Starring Hayden Panettiere as Amber, Justin Long as the guy from Fall Out Boy, Ashton Kutcher as Brandon (the head jock) and Sir Christopher Lee as Dr. Aloysius Clowater of the Adobe Institute.

The Sweet Rave Party of Anne Frank

Poor Anne Frank. As she and her “family” (actually a clique of impossibly attractive high-school age teens) hide in the attic of a shop, equally attractive Nazis loom ominously in the streets. Can Anne hold the sweetest rave party ever while not attracting unwanted attention? Can the forbidden romance between Anne and the dreamy SS Captain Hermann Schaper ever blossom? And what will happen to the Nazis when the 5 Jewish teens combine their powers to call the Hasidic Hero Uber Mensch, the Glamorous Golem to save the day? One thing’s for sure, the Festival of Lights is going to SPARKLE.

Starring Lauren Conrad as Anne Frank, Wilmer Valderrama as Captain Shaper, Justin Timberlake as Uber Mensch, Shia LeBeouf as a young sexy Adolf Hitler and Jimmy Smitts as the shopkeeper with a heart of gold.

Pirates of the Carribean: Young Girl’s Chest

Pretty much exactly the same as the previous Pirates movies, but in this one no one actually does anything exciting. Instead, they longingly stare at each other and imply sexual tension.

Starring one Olsen twin as the titular Young Girl, the other as her evil twin (it doesn’t matter which).

Other films currently in production –

The Passionberry Lipgloss of the Christ

Finding Emo

Trannyformers

Batman Begins a Livejournal

See these exciting features at a theatre near you!

Tags: batman begins a live journal, film, film pitches, matt jones, stephanie meyer, twilight, twilight: new moon
Posted in Essays

08
Oct
2009

Lily of the Valley! A Q&A with Adam Atherton

2 Comments

As some of you may know, Adam Atherton entered and won on zudacomics.com. He created the comic Lily of the Valley and due to votes, his persistent marketing and high quality of work, he won in a landslide. The story continues on Zuda Comics tomorrow, October 9. Until then, here is an Unfiltered Smoke Q and A with the Woodstock, New Brunswick native.

Unfiltered Smoke:What are the steps involved with writing and designing and drawing a comic?

Adam Atherton: I think of a concept. Something that involves stuff I like to draw! So there’s usually girls in there somewhere… And subject matter I think I know well enough to write about confidently. I write down the main points into point form and start fleshing it out. I flesh out the end first and go backwards. It’s an easy way to ensure everything is building toward the ending. Then I keep filling in the blanks until it looks sort of like a family tree!

Then I break it down into a page count. What’s gonna be covered on each page. Usually this is the scripting process… but I usually know the story enough to go right into things from my mess of an outline. And since I’m drawing it too I can work out storytelling elements visually as I make the thumbnails. Then I draw the full pages with a mechanical pencil on smooth bristol. I constantly switch things around alot. I ink them with a watercolour brush and indian ink(which I think is more fun than anything else cause the page finally starts to look finished) and then I scan the page into my computer and colour it using Photoshop. I slap on the dialogue and word balloons and call it a day!

US: How did you hear about zuda and how did you get into the competition with Bleed (his first attempt last December)?

AA: I heard about Zudacomics.com back in October of 2008. A guy I knew sent me an email asking me to check out his comic which was competing then. The comic he worked on was called Extracurricular Activites and won the contract that month. (The comic just finished it’s first 60 page season pm Zuda last month.) I looked into the submission guidelines while I was there and thought I’d submit my comic Bleed for the hell of it and see what happens. Bleed was something I was just doing for fun at the time and to entertain myself with really. I didn’t have any expectations to hear back from Zuda but they contacted me at the end of November inviting my comic to compete for December.

US: What did you take away from your experience with Bleed that helped make Lily of the Valley a success during your next attempt?

AA: I took note of all comments. The things people liked I carried over into my next entry, and the things people didn’t like, I avoided. For the technical aspects at least. People have different taste so you’ll never please everyone so I still aimed to just make the kind of comic I’d want to read. But just tried to tell it in a technically pleasing way that even those not interested in the genre could respect. With Lily, I tried to put in enough information into the 8 pages to give a reader an understanding of what the story is about. I also learned the importance of marketing in the competition and started planning that side of things pretty early.

US: Who are your biggest inspirations as a comic artist?

AA: Probably Jeff Smith, Mike Mignola, and Paul Pope. I admire these guys cause they’re not just comic artists, they’re comic creators. They write and illustrate their own stories. When the same brain is writing and drawing a story it really brings the writing and art together into one storytelling language. They also all have ridiculously unique and personal styles and utilize design alot. These guys really use the artform expressively.

US: How have other media like music, film and books inspired your work?

AA: Music, films, and books inspire me with comics more than any comic has. Music can set a tone in my mind when drawing a page. I think through the visual storytelling in a cinematic way. I think of the scenes playing through my head like a film and pull out the significant moments and put them on the page. Books, films, and music also all help me shape a world perspective to use in the stories I try to tell through comics. Music that has inspired Lily of the Valley has been anything by Nick Cave and alot of music by The Cure. I actually have a whole soundtrack picked out for the comic and for the newer pages I’ve been hiding the names of songs, that I envision accompanying the scenes, into the page art. Books that have inspired this comic have been Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground. These stories are pretty centered around emotions similar to those I’m trying to express through my comic, so I’ve been able to look to those books and others to see how they’ve conveyed certain feelings visually.

US: How much of the Lily story did you have completed or planned when you submitted the first pages to the contest?

AA: I’ve had the whole thing planned before starting the submission. But it was in point form and I’ve been changing things around constantly. The final comic will likely look nothing like that I’ve written out. (laughs) I like to work organically let changes happen.

US: Do you have plans to finish Bleed? If so, when and is it already sketched out?

AA:I loved making that thing. It was alot of fun and there’s been alot of people who surprisingly liked it as much as I liked making it for some reason. I have it plotted out and know where the story’s going. I have a bunch more pages thumbnailed out too but I don’t know when I will get to them.

US: If you could collaborate with anyone on a story who would it be and why?

AA: I collaborate on Lily of the Valley with my girlfriend Luiza Dragonescu and couldn’t ask for a better partner to work with. She takes a few additional duties upon herself too, like fetching pages out of the trash after I go nutty and throw out just about every other page I draw. If she wasn’t helping me I’d still be getting frustrated and redrawing the first page I’ve ever attempted over and over again trying to make it perfect. Other than that, I can’t really think of anyone I’m dying to work with. I’ve always wanted to be able to wear all hats and do my comics entirely alone.

US: Are there other media that you work in?

AA: I love working with ink on bristol. That’s not an other though. I try out alot of mediums any chance I have. The only other medium I really love but am still learning with, is watercolour. I’d like to do some illustrations, maybe pin-ups or covers for comic series, with watercolour and ink sometime.

US: Are there any other ideas floating in your head for once Lily is done its run?

AA: Bleed. I’d like to find time to do alot more 3 panel humour strips as well. And I’d also like to try a story with a more mature tone where I can challenge myself to work in a more realistic style. I don’t want to get ahead of myself though so for now I’m focusing primarily on Lily of the Valley!

(speaking of 3 panel humour strips, if you missed Adam’s first submission to Unfiltered Smoke, you can check it out here)

If any of you would like to ask Adam a question, please feel free to email unfiltered smoke at ratedargh@gmail.com and perhaps we’ll do another Q&A down the road with reader questions. And now, here’s a picture of Adam and Luiza meeting Nick Cave!

Tags: adam atherton, Comics, dc comics, drawing, Interviews, lily of the valley, luiza dragonescu, Music, nick cave, the cure, zudacomics
Posted in Comics, Essays, Interviews

11
Sep
2009

The Measure of a Man

2 Comments

by Candace Salmon

Candace Salmon visited Rwanda in July 2009 on a genocide education program.

The fight between good and evil is such a common theme in the world. We learn about it in high school, while reading Shakespeare—and trying to survive secondary education. We see it on the news, in the papers, as the moral lesson to be gleaned from our favourite television series. I don’t often think about this theme—I wish the bad guy a just end and cheer when the hero prevails, but I don’t consciously see a battle of good versus evil.

Rwanda in 1994 knew evil. It wasn’t covert or underlying, but it came out to destroy all it could in 100 days. “All it could” ended up being 800,000-1,000,000 people—mostly Tutsi. The Hutu majority, led by Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, had been planning to “cleanse” the country of its Tutsi minority for years. The time came on April 6th, 1994, when Habyarimana’s plane was shot down over the Kigali airport. His murder was blamed on the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by current President Paul Kagame; Kagame blamed the Rwandan Government, arguing they orchestrated the crash to incite violence against the Tutsi’s. To this day, why the plane crashed is a mystery.

This brief background doesn’t do justice to Rwanda, but more information on the genocide is readily available at the click of a mouse or the turn of a page. My interest is more specific—when the world is so disfigured by hatred and rage, what happens to the “hero”? What is good? What is evil?

One of my first days in Rwanda was spent travelling to the Nyarubuye Genocide Memorial. It is not a well worn road, traversing mountains and goat paths (to describe as a dirt road would be too generous) to reach the church. Churches were perverted during the genocide—in previous violence against the Tutsis, victims ran to local churches and were granted sanctuary against their tormentors. No one followed them inside the church. An inherent belief in the power of God was cited as the reason. During the genocide, survivors have recounted being told that their God was dead. A minister would partake in the slaughter of innocents, and say that as the mouth of the Lord, he endorsed the action and forgave the souls of those perpetrating the violence. It was, after all, a required cleansing of the Tutsi “cockroaches” that were plaguing Rwandan society.

It was a gorgeous day. Bright and beautiful. A few children saw us, screamed “Muzungo!”, and suddenly we were surrounded by a hundred smiling faces. This Rwandan term for “white person” was popular in rural Rwanda, with many children never having seen one before. Our local guide pulled us from the crowd and sat us by a ratty sign posted by the church:

In April 1994, 26,000 people were killed at this place.

The accumulation of letters and numbers in this combination was incomprehensible. By the end of the trip, my own language seemed foreign while trying to process these statements.

At the genocide church

Our guide told us a story of a man named Sinba. Sinba was cruel and hateful. His violence was well known, and he was considered an evil man. During the genocide, he was revered as a hero—a great man, full of strength, cunning, and the ability do what must be done. The same characteristics that were so negative and feared before the genocide became those which gave him notoriety as a hero. Evil became good. The church is still used today, but the statue of Mother Mary over the door bears a chilling reminder of the atrocities committed in this place—Mary’s left arm has been hacked off by machete. Why? Because her nose, thin and elongated, was deemed to too closely resemble a Tutsi feature, and she was accordingly punished.

A few days later, I met a man named Silas. Silas is a Hutu, but instead of partaking in the violence, he hid Tutsi’s in his vehicle and smuggled them into the neighbouring state of Burundi. He saved 19 lives before being caught and his captor, a former friend, let him go. Silas eventually married one of the women he saved and they had a family. It is rare to meet such a genuinely kind, gracious individual. His eyes shone in a way I had never seen before, and while his stature and build resembled that of a linebacker, when he hugged us each goodbye his eyes were glistening and his heart was open. This is even more remarkable when one considers Silas’s treatment after the genocide. His family has disowned him, both for what he did and for marrying a Tutsi. His neighbours poisoned his children—one of whom died—because of his choices. He does not regret helping those in need, but he is still ostracized and hated by many for being what I consider a hero.

Another striking example exists at Camp Kigali, the site where 10 Belgian soldiers under the command of General Romeo Dallaire were murdered. Dallaire is a Canadian hero. Indeed, many Rwandans say he did his best with few resources and do not blame him for the events of 1994. But on the wall in Camp Kigali is a chalkboard, where the families of the 10 Belgian soldiers illustrated and wrote of their feelings. It is protected by a pane of glass, and will forever stand as a reminder of their perceived failure of Dallaire in Rwanda. Someone wrote “Dallaire! Do you have ears? Eyes? A heart?” Where we view Dallaire as a heroic figure who fought against hatred and war, these people see his as a villain who let men die.

This theme of good and evil, of what constitutes heroism or villainy, exists in many facets of Rwanda. The examples are many; certainly, more than may be covered in a short article. The French government and its complicity in the genocide is deserving of its own thesis, while the status of current President Paul Kagame could definitely merit its own article. The questions remaining from this atrocity are worthy of educated debate—if nothing else, they are at least worthy of knowledge. Rwanda is a forgotten state to many North Americans, and the genocide of 1994 deserves more time than we give it.

It should be taught.

It should be more than a movie.

Memorial for Eloge Butera's father

It is sometimes difficult to identify with something so horrific. When I visited Poland, I was there with Holocaust survivors. I am friends with grandchildren of survivors. When I walked into the crematorium at Auschwitz, I could identify because I knew these people. I cared about them. And I couldn’t understand why, in 1940, no one else did. Rwanda is different, for me, because I have less ability to identify. The genocide is young in the annals of history, and I know only a few survivors. One of those survivors is Eloge Butera, a Rwandan-Canadian. He invited my group to the memorial service for the 15th anniversary of the death of his father, a well respected local doctor. His entire family was present—over 100 people. We all sat outside listening to stories, scripture, and songs about this amazing man. It was all in Kinyarwandan, the local language, but we didn’t need to understand the words to comprehend their meaning. After the service I stood at the memorial and looked into the eyes of this man, the father of my friend. I realized that identifying isn’t as hard as we make it—I had the same feeling as I did in Auschwitz—why did no one care? Why did they do nothing?

And I wondered… are we good, or evil?

Tags: africa, candace salmon, evil, genocide, good, good versus evil, Hutu, rwanda, Tutsi
Posted in Essays

02
Sep
2009

What Happened to the WWE?

13 Comments

by Jennifer Harrison

I took a look at wrestling recently. The ‘WWE’ is certainly not the WWF I remember. The half naked women, lack of actual grappling, and the overall ‘reality television’ feel of today’s WWE is a far cry from the technical wrestling and believable storylines I remember as a child.

In the late 80’s, wrestling was in its prime, and I was young enough (and naive enough) to have to have it consume my entire life. Before the Internet, I had to eagerly await each new installment of Saturday Night Main Event or WWF Superstars of Wrestling to get a fix; there were no online clips, or rumor websites to visit. My brother and I would debate for days the merits of each week’s matches, and would pour our allowance into the WWF magazine and its products. We were lucky enough to have a satellite dish at the time and so with each pay-per-view event, our house became a mess of kids, junk food, cheering, and even tears. I still get chills when I think of Wrestlemania VI.

Today, I could not imagine paying money to see any Pay-Per-View WWE event. If someone had told my eleven-year-old self that I would someday be indifferent to wrestling, I would have pointed to the posters adorning my walls to prove you wrong. So what happened?

Some argue that I have merely “grown up”. To these fools, I say- have you seen my DVD collection lately? No, this is not the problem. The problems are numerous, and no fault of my own.

When ‘Macho Man’ Randy Savage defended his title against Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania V, he had been the champion since the previous Wrestlemania. The championship commanded respect and actually had value. Fans waited months, sometimes an entire year before the belt would be on the line against the next deserving opponent, allowing plenty of time for a feud to brew, and resulting in matched you had to see. Today the belts are a mockery, changing hands too often with too little build up, devaluing the whole thing.

The champions have also multiplied. Instead of only having a Heavyweight Champion, an Intercontinental Champion and the Tag Team Champions, recent viewers have also been subjected to a United States Champion, the Hardcore Champion, the Women’s Champion, the Cruiserweight Champion, the European Champion and the ECW Champion. Besides all that, the WWE has now split itself into 3 brands, and each brand (up until very recently) had their own tag team champions. The amount of belts flying around the WWE is staggering, and their value is diminished.

The tag teams themselves have become a problem. Gone are the days of costumed, themed teams such as Demolition, the Rockers or The Powers of Pain. Too many of the tag teams today are merely two guys without proper storylines being thrown together for a while. Instead of ever feeling like a real TEAM, they always feel like two individuals, proven by the use of both their names as opposed to a team name. “Here they are, the tag team champions, The Big Show & Chris Jericho!” does not have the same feel as “Here they are, the Tag Team Champions, The Legion of Doom!” The amount of times I have seen two guys thrown together haphazardly to win the title undeservedly makes me sick. Tag teams have become a way to throw two guys together due to lack of ’stories’ for them, or because too much airtime is spent on the current moneymakers (*Ahem*John Cena* Ahem) and half naked women.

The saddest aspect of today’s WWE though, is undoubtedly the lack of actual wrestling. I can still remember Summerslam ‘91, watching Bret Hart battle Mr. Perfect for the Intercontinental Title. This was a match of incredible skill, as these two grapplers displayed an array of high-flying maneuvers and submission holds in an intense match that went back and forth. At the end, as The Hitman was triumphant, he embraced his parents in the crowd. The emotion was real and the wrestling was pure.

Today’s ‘matches’ usually begin with ten minutes on the microphone, feature very few moves, and end with a ‘run in’ or disqualification. While this did occur in the old WWF, it was not so overdone and actually had a desired effect: fans would be outraged at the injustice; not like today’s fans who are always looking up the ramp, wondering which heel will be introduced to ruin a ‘match’, as this is now the most common ending.

Overall, one of the main problems for the decline in wrestling quality has to lie in the complete monopoly Vince McMahon has over the industry. In the days of Stampede Wrestling, viewers were content without the fireworks, breasts or car explosions. With the advent of cable television and satellite dishes, I was opened to the worlds of WWF, WCW and ECW as well. The ratings war between Monday Night Raw and WCW Nitro led to a lot of creative storytelling, as each company tried to outdo the other. This is when things began to get out of hand. It was around this time, in the late ’90s, that I remember seeing a female wrestler wearing nothing but black paint, cars being destroyed in Hollywood-like stunts, a character based on a porn star, women showing their “puppies” and the influx of the real world into the wrestling world. When Vince MacMahon himself is the WWF champion and David Arquette is the WCW champion, something has gone wrong.

The war between WWF and WCW also led to an overabundance of pay-per-views. Gone were the days of anxiously awaiting one of the four pay-per-view events of the year (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam and Survivor Series.) Soon, King of the Ring was added. Then, WWF was offering a pay-per-view every single month, not allowing enough time for heat to develop between wrestlers, and making me pause to wonder if all these pay-per-views were worth the money. These days, they are not.

Now, all of wrestling has become the McMahon show. The entire family is involved in the crazy, unbelievable storylines. Shane is a wrestler; Stephanie is married to Triple H, and all too often even Vince’s wife Linda has gotten on the mic. The cover for 2006’s Royal Rumble DVD features all four McMahons dressed as Roman Emperors and looking incredibly smug. As a fan, I would prefer to see wrestlers on the cover of a DVD as opposed to the owners of the company.

All too often, I want to be entertained, but instead I am sickened and embarrassed for the demeaning things too many wrestlers are doing. I guess when one person owns most of the televised wrestling shows on the air, they no longer have to try as hard.

It’s a shame- wrestling used to be something I could watch with my parents, and discuss with my friends. When I think of today’s WWE, all that comes to mind are mismanaged wrestlers, lackluster talent, nightgown fights, lavish stunts and unintelligent storylines.

Every week I tune into Monday Night RAW, and every week I shake my head. Until WWE gets its act together, I will be paying for UFC Pay Per Views instead.

Tags: bret hart, hulk hogan, jennifer harrison, macho man randy savage, mr. perfect, television, vince mcmahon, wrestling, wwe, wwf
Posted in Essays, Op-Ed, Sports

31
Aug
2009

Silly Rabbit, Thoughts Are For Kids

6 Comments

by Mary Andow

My previous essay entitled “What’s in a thought?” has received criticism from a writer so I thought I would take a few moments to respond. When I first sat down to write my response I did a paragraph by paragraph ‘rebuttal of the rebuttal’ so to speak. Upon having my draft reviewed however, it came to my attention that I had done the exact same review of Matthew Flanagan’s piece that he had done of mine. Besides being far too long, I had failed to offer the reader a solid thesis statement or logical conclusion. I believe Flanagan’s criticism of my piece does the same; in absence of a thesis to suggest otherwise, I believe Flanagan has accidentally written a piece that supports my statements rather than refuting them.

What I understand to be one of Flanagan’s major issues with my statements is that they lack moral grounding. I did, however, ask my reader to put morality aside since I believe it has no place in this argument. That is not to say that I am anti-morals; it is actually quite the opposite. If I had written the piece to offer a personal opinion, it would be much more closely aligned with Flanagan’s rebuttal than the piece I actually wrote. My personal moralistic values are irrelevant in this discussion, however, which is where I dispute Flanagan.

An example of where I believe Flanagan did more to further my point than refute it arises during his discussion of accidental morality. Flanagan offers an example of this condition when he discusses a person firing a gun into a crowd and accidentally killing a serial rapist – a very immoral act. This and other examples are thought provoking but the bottom line still relates to illegal activity, not morals – present, absent, or otherwise. Would it matter if the shooter had sought out the serial rapist in an attempt to protect the public? No, since he will be going to prison for murder either way. Bottom line, it is the action that is punishable, not the thought.

Furthering my point, Flanagan addresses my biggest failure, which was an incoherent attempt to unlink action from thought. It is true that there is no action without thought; I would never dispute this. I have to stand my ground, however, and conclude (once again) that a person’s motivation should have no place in our criminal system. Flanagan raises a good idea when he states that both bias and intent live in our thoughts. This and the coinciding example again miss (yet further) my point. Whether your house burns because you are forgetful or whether it burns because you are an arsonist does not negate the fact that your house is, indeed, a pile of ashes.

Moving on, Flanagan’s point that to ‘censor,’ to ‘influence,’ and to ‘regulate’ are drastically different concepts is an excellent one. The last two seem especially vital to differentiate. Influence: “the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command.”1 Regulate: “to govern or direct according to rule” or “to bring under the control of law or constituted authority.”2 While I am perfectly okay with the idea that education, advertising and the arts influence me, I think I would protest if they could somehow regulate me. In the same turn, I am opposed to hate crime ‘regulations.’ While Flanagan is correct that ‘censorship’ was a poor word choice, I am not any happier with the outcome when he changes the word to ‘regulate.’

Flanagan’s final statement that I reject hate crime legislation because it censors (or ‘regulates’) a person’s thoughts by ‘telling them who to hate and who not to’ could not be further from the truth. Somehow my point was lost on at least one reader. All together now: “Mary rejects hate crime legislation because the motivation does not change the end outcome.” As for the extreme yet logical conclusion that my article suggested pedophiles should be free to prey on children, I think what Flanagan meant to ask was “Why are you supporting this Nazi policy” of healthcare reform? My response would, of course, be much more polite than Barney Frank.

Despite offering a series of ideas that refuted my paper point by point, I was unable to find Flanagan’s, well, point. My point is that with all of his theoretical examples, he helped to further my agenda which was that, in a discussion of the legal system, both morals and motivation are irrelevant. These are just my thoughts: sacred to me, but hopefully very (unimportant) to you – especially if you are a judge.

(editor’s note: To avoid a potentially endless back and forth, Mary has decided that any further discourse on the subject from her side will likely do so through the comments section.)

Tags: hate crime legislation, mary andow, thoughts, what's in a thought
Posted in Essays, Op-Ed

27
Aug
2009

The Essay About Fog: Motivated by Hatred For Fog Around Harbour Cities

No Comments

by John P. Rairdon

Fog is nothing more than a cloud that touches the ground. A lazy cloud that never moves away from home. Afraid to fly, it’s a cloud too scared to join all its companions in the sky. A cowardly cloud that preys on the fears and superstitions of the people it enshrouds. A vindictive cloud not content to simply shower rain upon the masses as so many other clouds it goes for full contact block attack. It’s a bully cloud standing in front of the television daring us to do something about it.

Fog is a loving cloud embracing the land it with a damp hug. A strong cloud with no fear for man, animal or building. A confident cloud, a brave cloud, that one kid that would run up to the stranger and ask him why he’s using a cane. An innocent cloud, misunderstood by all the people it encounters. A weathered hobo cloud that would talk your ear off if you gave it chance.

To be clear (pun) fog is a cloud like all other clouds. Fog is the name given to a cloud that comes into contact with the ground, like thunder is the name of the sound lightening makes or how liars are called weathermen when put in a suit and shown on television.

There is the existence of one other ground dwelling cloud formation. Mist. Fog and mist have many, many things in common. The only difference between fog and mist is the density and its effect on our visibility. Mist is when this cloud touching earth reduces our visibility to less than 2km. Fog on the other hand fiendishly reduces visibility to less than 1 kilometre, sometimes more than half that of mist. Mist will not be mentioned beyond this point.

Cloud School

Clouds are divided into two general categories. Cumulus and stratus. Cumulus clouds are your lovely, fluffy, tall clouds. Stratus are the long flat gray, layered clouds.

Clouds are then divided into several sub-categories designating the altitude of the formation.

Fog is a member of the Low Clouds or Family C designation. Members of this category are: cumulus, stratocumulus, nimbostratus and stratus. These formations appear from ground level up to 2000m.

Stratus clouds are characterized as gray, dense, boring and wider than tall or flat clouds. A stratus cloud is often the result of rising fog and usually considered to be quite tame not causing rain or snow although in severe cases a stratus cloud has been known to cause drizzle.

A bulk of this document will address clouds as a broad subject however rest assured that the point of this document is to specifically investigate fog that typically enshrouds harbour cities.

Assuming that the definition of fog has been made clear, shall we move on to the origin of clouds?

Clouds begin with water. Water evaporates for whatever reason water has to evaporate. The water vapours move along in the air joyously, lightly and without a care (this is called humidity). It is this carelessness that gets the vapour into trouble. The vapour did not know that the air is not a safe place to be and was not ready for the obstacles that lie ahead. The air has a wide assortment of nasties hanging out in it. During its float about the vapour sometimes runs into one of these nasties called Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). CCNs, sometimes ignorantly referred to as “Cloud Seeds”, are any small solid particle in the air that measures around 0.0002 milimetres. That’s about 1/100th the diametre of an ideal cloud droplet.

When water vapour bumps into one of these CCNs it inadvertently attaches itself to it. It’s just like when your mirror gets foggy after a shower. The vapour got caught on the glass but this is on a smaller yet more devastating scale. Welcome to the jungle.

The water vapour, now attached to the particle, becomes a tiny water droplet usually about 0.02mm. If conditions are right, such as humidity levels being high enough and there being an ample supply of these CCN floating about in the air it doesn’t take long for many particles to bump into enough water vapour until a whole family of droplets is fluttering about in the air. Once a gang of these droplets become visible to the human eye they become a cloud. A raindrop is formed when a cloud droplet accumulates enough water from bumping into more vapour to form a droplet of about 2mm minimum and can no longer fly.

Most of the time this interaction happens high in the atmosphere, far removed from any of our concerns about daily things.

Sometimes the water droplets turn into tiny ice crystals while floating along. It’s a trivial fact for the scope of this report however it may be interesting to note that water has a fantastic adventure through the air. It’s somewhat disturbing to consider that ice is flying above our cars as we do our daily things but has nothing to do with fog.

More about Cloud Condensation Nuclei

Here is where things really heat up. CCN are any small particles in the air for water vapour to condense onto. These particles all have different properties and come from many different sources. Dust from the earth, soot from forest fires and grass fires, soot from human industry, sulfate from volcanoes, salt from sea air, aerosols of all kinds and other items.

In the oceans Phytoplankton release dimethyl sulfides which get converted into sulphates (salt water and other chemicals in air all help in the conversion. It’s all natural). Planktons are a very large contributor of the Earth’s oxygen and a substantial producer of CCNs but will never be as glamourous as the Red Woods.

It has been recently discovered that when under stress kelp will release iodine which gets converted into a CCN into the air (again, the conversion is a mystery but I like to think it’s about the same as when a high school student goes through first year of university). “Stress” could be uncomfortable temperatures or polluted waters or something as simple as low tide. Some aspects of university life may in fact offer ways to cope with that stress.

With each CCN being unique this means that some particles may be larger than others and some may be more efficient at collecting water than others. Salt for example is hydro something, something (hygroscopic), it attracts water to it. That makes it excel at forming water droplets out of thin air. Other particles such as soot from factories and some minerals are typically too large to form cloud droplets yet they are ideal as Ice Nuclei. It’s the same thing only in colder climates.

OK. Is the interconnectedness getting to be too much? There’s more.

Global Warming

There is a theory that was written in ‘87 called the CLAW hypothesis. It suggests that as global warming occurs, more plankton will grow. The plankton will produce more dimethyl sulfides which get converted into sulfates which helps more clouds form which protects and cools the earth. The idea is a negative feedback loop. The worse something gets the more the cure works to fix it. This would be positive and possibly control global warming. Fog saves the day. Nothing has been proven.

A few years ago Mr. Lovelock, (The ‘L’ in CLAW) wrote a book called “The Revenge of Gaia” in it he has changed his mind about CLAW, he now proposes the anti-CLAW. His new suggestions are that as water temperatures rise the nutrients of the ocean go deeper into the colder water. The plankton, a near surface dweller will starve and the globe gets hotter, probably exponentially. You don’t love me like you used to do. Nothing can be proven.

More About Kelp:

Kelp grows is forests in shallow ocean waters. It prefers a temperature of less than 20C and grows very fast. Some species grow almost 0.5 metres in one day under favourable conditions. Starting in 2007 there has been concern that global warming will damage kelp forests. The world was afraid of kelp dying. Here’s a quote:

“If you search for “global warming and kelp” on the internet, you will find 65,000 websites with almost nothing but bad news for kelp forests thanks to the many horrors of global warming. The story told repeatedly is that global warming will cripple kelp because the underwater forest grows in areas of the world with cold water and cannot survive or reproduce in waters above 68°F.”
-http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/27/concern-for-kelp-crippled/

This quote is from a site that claims the concern is overrated and that kelp crops are in little danger. The joke is that a search from google for “global warming and kelp” brings this exact site as the top result. (as of December 2008)

OK, so according to these guys kelp is stronger than we thought and it doesn’t mind the heat, so to speak and continues to grow.

As mentioned earlier, new research suggests that when under stress kelp will emit iodine that eventually gets converted into a CCN (“C’mon just try it once. Once never hurt nobody”) increasing the likelihood of cloud formation and usually fog along coastal regions.

On one hand global warming may be heating the water and kelp may die. On the other hand that warm water is melting ancient ice raising tide levels making kelp more comfortable. Both scenarios could result in less iodine being produced. In theory. There is not enough research in the area. Or I’m not working hard enough to find it. Lower levels of CCNs on coastal regions could threaten the formation of fog in those regions. God save the fog.

Not all kelp species display this behaviour and the same species has behaved differently in different parts of the world.

The weekend warrior’s dilemma.

Nature is not the only contributor to cloud forming CCNs. Humans have a great impact on their environment, as we already should know. Power plants, pulp and paper mills, oil refineries, tire fires, afternoon rush hour, my sons 50cc Honda minibike all produce various amounts of particles that could easily convince water vapour to hang out and form cloud droplets.

One doesn’t need proof or cited sources to know that rain will more often occur on Saturday than on Monday. We often want to believe its bad luck or a curse but consider another possibility: all week humans are working and driving and cooking and burning things, producing CCNs all week that eventually accumulate so many water droplets that the clouds can’t hold them turning into rain on the weekend. When these particles aren’t raining on the weekend they are facilitating the formation of fog all week.

The Point:

Each of these causes and contributors are all related to making fog. But I’ve neglected to mention one important fact: the recipe for old-fashioned, homestyle fog is water vapour, Cloud Causing Nulcei, and temperature. There is a fair amount of meteorological science involving dewpoints and humidity etc. It’s a sliding scale.

In the best cases, when humidity is really high (100%) and the temperature is just right (within 2.5C of dewpoint) vapour turns into droplets who attach themselves to CCNs. That’s all well and good and usually results in fog forming in the mornings around watery places.

But that’s not all. Throw in some jean jacket wearing, moisture grubbing salt particles from splashing ocean waves and the angry kelp iodine deposits and it’s possible to get fog at humidities as low as 70% in the middle of the fricken afternoon. Coastal California could talk your ear off for hours about this phenomenon. So could Newfoundland.

The foggiest place on earth is the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland where the cold Labrador Current smacks into the warm Gulf Stream.

Other coastal regions of Newfoundland and California aren’t much better off with an average of 200 foggy days each year.

Now consider the fact that many large cities are built around a harbour with all sorts of fossil fuel burning machines and factories and splashing waves and farting kelp and there’s no way to escape fog.

Fog happens in many places at many different, yet common, times of the year but it cannot be denied that tossing a coin gives you better odds than hoping for San Francisco to be a clear day. Harbour cities are always being smothered by fog.

Is there anybody who gets excited about London weather?

Has anyone ever been glad to take that 6 hour drive in the summer to Halifax only to see a veritable dome of gloom covering the city as they approach?

Can people really like fog?

Doing a search on google for the phrase “fog is good for” would suggest that some people do.

“Fog is good for”…brought to you by Google!

The NFLD Memorial University actually has a webpage specifically about fog entitled “Fog is good for your complexion.” The article doesn’t go on to explain its title but it offers ways to cope with fog and possible positives.

Further searching reveals that Kim Boyd Bermingham from the San Francisco based website sfkids.org compiled a list of 13 reasons why she loves fog. Highlights include:

-fog being good for complexion expanding on Memorial University by saying that the sunshine in L.A. makes woman look leathery
-redwood trees love fog therefore so does she
-” it’s really very, very difficult to get heat stroke, heat rash, and other nasty heat-related maladies when you are shrouded in protective fog”
- and that fog horns “rock”.

The list is targeting a children audience citing fog’s resemblance to cotton candy etc. however some points are optimistic. Nobody wants to argue against the great Red Woods but a definite lack of “heat”, “heat” and more “heat” seems to imply cold weather.

Browsing further into the google results one finds that fire suppression experts have been working on and using a water-fog system that saturates the air in a building that is on fire with water vapour making it difficult for smoke to travel and continue to burn. Museums prefer the system as it does much less damage to the artwork on display; in some cases there is nearly zero smoke damage. Naturally the system needs to be installed as any other sprinkler system would be: before a fire happens. In most cases, however the water fog system is not 100% effective in extinguishing fires but it aids tremendously in slowly the fire down while firefighters do their work. Hardly a natural source of fog it still makes a good name for the cloud. Tim Horton’s used to use glass rooms to control their smoke problems. Perhaps fog “zones” could be next.

Nine Inch Nails recently released a free for download album of instrumental music that one reviewer really connected with while driving in fog. The album is called “Ghosts”. Who really cares about a Nine Inch Nails album that they had to give away because it reminded people of crappy weather? That blogger did. The real question for this point is: “Who really cares about bloggers?”

OK! Here’s a result that really brings home the bacon! There is a fog water collecting system made of a large plastic net suspended on tall telephone poles. When fog passes through it water is collected and runs down the net to a collecting trough. The water is then stored in a reservoir or barrels. This simple system of water collection means nothing to even the most affluent of hobbyists but has been a life saver and time saver for villages in Nepal. These villages live in high altitudes far from water sources. Before these nets came along people, often women, were required to walk for hours to a water source and then carry water up hill but since these devices can produce 1-2 thousand litres of water in 1 day the women have more time to do other things around the village such as nag their husbands about living so damn far from a water source.

One major problem with the system is that fog only occurs half the year. Thus, stockpiling water becomes a very real problem. Of course the nets will produce enough water during the foggy months but will there be enough barrels, bottles, tubs and pails to store it all for the summer? When the nets aren’t collecting water from fog droplets, they are hard at work collecting dust, dirt and bugs from the dry summers. This results in the first few fog harvests after summer in being very dusty, dirty and buggy. That’s a big problem because many of the net implementations are somewhat primitive which risks dirty water getting put right into last season’s clean water buckets spoiling the water reserves. It’s a relatively new system (about 10 years old) and improvements are always being considered.

The bad: More hits (no pun) from a search engine

At its worst fog is a very dangerous weather condition. Humans often underestimate fog. Or more likely overestimate their ability to see things they can’t see when moving at great velocity while inside a fog cloud.

Aircraft have a difficult time landing in fog and accidents are often caused by misjudgment. As a pilot flies over the fog, he can see the landing strip. Fog is a stratus cloud, much wider than it is tall, so the pilot is peering through the thinnest part of the cloud. Upon approach for landing his view point has changed and he’s now staring deep, diagonally into the fog. Visibility is much, much worse than the fly over lead him to believe, but it’s too late he’s committed and cocky and attempts the landing. The results can be devastating. He may even crack those wicked sunglasses his girlfriend bought him and people could die.

Fortunately air traffic controllers prohibit operations within fog and as long as everyone is following the rules nobody gets hurt. But that means that your grandmother is left sitting in that airport while your plane waits for the fog to clear. Airports are small-talk hell.

Drivers of automobiles are in a class of their own when it comes to stupid, pseudo heroism while coping with fog. Drivers are often not wise enough to slow down in accordance to their loss of visibility. Many drivers will tail-gate other vehicles who may be trying to drive defensively. It’s this loss of sensibility and common sense that can result in a phenomenon known as the “multi-car pileup”. Fog has been around many multi-car pileups. To say that fog was the ’cause’ of them all would be arrogant. Humans were the cause because they failed to heed to the dangers. See chart.

99 vehicles, 200 vehicles, 300 cars!? Accidents happen. Was this because of fog? Most of those pile-ups didn’t cause as many deaths as they did property damage and they weren’t in harbour towns. People from harbour towns know fog. They have to drive in it every day or at least 200 days a year.

Ok, take a breath. That really is bad so here’s something that is more silly:

The Bermuda Triangle. You know about it, I know about it. One man, Bruce Gernon, who claims to have been the only man to see how the triangle works thinks he really knows about it. He has a theory he calls “electronic fog”. Really simply it’s a fog that attaches to the plane you are flying and follows you the whole way. Like that dust cloud that followed Pigpen or that rain cloud that gets you in Mario Kart. This is preposterous, of course, because everyone already knows that there is no land in the sky and therefore no fog. What a wacko. (http://www.electronicfog.com/)

So that’s enough of the negative ninny results.

Here is a pretty picture taken during fog of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Study the picture for a second.

Notice how the shadow of the tower is, like, standing beside the bridge? The shadow appears to be floating there like a ghost. That is a fog shadow; a marvelous thing to encounter, a 3-d shadow cast on a curtain of fog. There are a million pictures of the GGB covered in fog.

Four more short paragraphs and you can go home.

Fog is a cloud. Clouds are water floating in air. Water hitched to a piece of dirt. That dirt comes from plants, animals, the earth and seas.

Clouds provide rain water on weekends, protect our skin from harmful sun rays, and reflects a bit of heat from the sun.

Nobody knows what effect global warming, if it exists at all, will have on clouds, fog and plankton.

Fog gives life to people and fog takes life away. I guess in the end fog doesn’t feel love nor hatred. It’s just a cloud. A cloud that will never look like a bunny and will always ruin a summer barbecue. And if you are the kind to hang your laundry out to dry, fog will make it wetter than when you started.

End.

Go home.

Tags: fog, global warming, john p. rairdon, kelp
Posted in Essays

20
Aug
2009

When Robotic Philosopher Kings Become Mechanical John Rambos

1 Comment

by Matt Jones

As a child in the 80’s, I was privy to some very seminal pop culture that is just now beginning to be recycled into films and videogames. I watched every episode of He-Man, I learned life lessons from G.I. Joe (like not to hide in an abandoned refrigerator) and I had the Ghostbusters replica Proton-Pack (though I lacked a ghost trap, and to this day harbour fantasies of rigging a guitar effects pedal into one).

None of them really affected me like Transformers did, though. Something about vehicles that transformed into giant robots appealed to me. Perhaps it was that while He-Man took place on a different world, Ghostbusters dealt with an alternate world where ghosts were everywhere and G.I. Joe was just a simple military fantasy, Transformers were just what they said: robots in disguise.

How could I be sure that my family’s Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera wasn’t turning into a robot and fighting other cars turned robots while I slept at night? I’d never see a ghost and I never lived anywhere where war was an issue, but there were vehicles everywhere and all of them, in my mind, were potential robots.

Obviously, it’s odd to be so affected by a 30 minute toy commercial, but I was. I never paid attention in church, but I absorbed the lessons that Optimus Prime taught me. “Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.” Damn right. Optimus Prime was a reluctant warrior, the William Wallace of the Transformers. He fought to defend people, but was at heart a peaceful being. He was, well he was damn near a robot Jesus.

Optimus Prime died for our sins. And it was one of the pivotal moments to which I can point in my childhood and see the loss of my innocence. When I rented the 1986 Transformers movie on a family vacation in Newfoundland, it was like watching a family member die (and turn grey for some reason). Of course, while it only took Jesus three days to return to life, it took Prime an entire season’s worth of episodes, but it mattered not. Our saviour had returned.

So obviously, when Michael Bay’s 2007 Transformers movie came out, I was interested to see where he would take the characters. And despite some problems (chief among them the human to robot ratio), it wasn’t a bad movie. Most of the important characters were pretty true to form and, even if the designs were so busy it was hard to tell them apart sometimes, it was a fun, nostalgic trip to watch these characters of my childhood fight it out on a giant theatre screen.

(I would be chagrined if I didn’t point out, however, that Michael Bay’s Optimus Prime is a piss-poor military strategist. His plan was to save the world by having the boy destroy him and the Allspark cube. In other words, his plan was to piss off the Decepticons immensely, while also killing the only Autobot capable of defending the earth from them. Just put the damn thing in Jazz, it’s not like he was anything but cannon fodder. I digress…)

The important thing was that, in spite of whatever problems the movie had, Michael Bay for the most part got the spirit of the characters right in his first outing.

In this year’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, however, the robotic philosopher king became a 50 foot mechanical Frank Castle. In the very first scene of the movie, Prime shoots an incapacitated Decepticon point-blank in the face. From there, he goes on to have some incredibly bad-ass fighting scenes. And that’s fine, Prime is a great warrior. But it troubled me throughout the rest of the movie. Prime isn’t an executioner.

The Optimus Prime I grew up with would never do that. In the heat of battle, or given no other options, Prime would do what was necessary- I’m not saying that Prime should be like Batman and never kill. But, uh…Demolisher (I had to look up his name) was completely crippled. Prime didn’t kill him in the heat of battle, he murdered him in cold blood.

What’s more, he’s spouting ominous promises that “The Fallen shall rise again.” Wouldn’t it make more sense to interrogate him? Find out what that whole Fallen business is about? Again, the movie’s Optimus Prime leaves much to be desired in terms of strategy.

The point is that somewhere between Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Michael Bay (or whichever writer is responsible for this) completely lost their sense of who Optimus Prime is as a character and why he does what he does.

And in a movie that’s been described as, at best “outrageous, stupid fun” and at worst “mildly better than **censored**ting your pants” (in Topless Robot’s rundown of the movie which lists complaints in far more detail than I’m capable of), that’s not the sort of characterization problems you can afford. Optimus Prime executing a prisoner is one of those things that fans will look back on like nipples on the batsuit: a clear indication that the filmmakers either don’t understand or don’t give a **censored** that they’re contributing to characters that fans love deeply.

I’m not going to tell you that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a terrible movie. I will tell you it’s a fun, albeit incredibly stupid movie. But frankly, after all the far-more intelligently written and more satisfying blockbusters that have come out since the first movie (Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Star Trek, to name a few) I’m surprised that is the case.

I only hope that the financial success of Revenge of the Fallen doesn’t give Hollywood the idea that fans will gladly lap up any crap with loud explosions in it. The Dark Knight, in particular, was a very intelligently written, dense and psychological film. Sure, it had those same big explosions, but they made sure the set them up so that they made the most impact. Similar praise could be offered to Iron Man and Star Trek in how they managed the balance between good action and good filmmaking. I hope that distinction isn’t lost on future filmmakers.

As for me, I believe I’ll look into getting the first season of the classic Transformers series at some point in the near future. The animation and storylines may not hold up as well today, but at least I’ll be able to remember the Optimus Prime of my youth; that great robot thinker who knew that with “a little energon and a lot of luck” that we would all pull through.

Tags: cartoons, cybertron, films, matt jones, michael bay, movies, Reviews, robots, transformers
Posted in Essays, Reviews

Unfiltered Smoke

Archive for the ‘Essays’ Category

“Which one’s Pink?” – The folly of company executives in creative industries

Science Fantasy

Criterion Conquest: Seven Samurai

Machine Thinking: The End of an Era?

Me, Joe and Hank Williams: A Road Story

A Big Damn Shame – The Fall and the Fury of “Firefly”

Christmas vs. “Xmas”: The Ho-Ho-Holocaust

Understanding a Creative Economy

Twilighting Other Films

Lily of the Valley! A Q&A with Adam Atherton

The Measure of a Man

What Happened to the WWE?

Silly Rabbit, Thoughts Are For Kids

The Essay About Fog: Motivated by Hatred For Fog Around Harbour Cities

When Robotic Philosopher Kings Become Mechanical John Rambos

Pages

Archives

Categories

Sponsors