matt jones « Unfiltered Smoke

Posts Tagged ‘matt jones’

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

12
Jan
2010

The New Monday Night War?

8 Comments

by Jenn Harrison and Matt Jones

January 4, 2010

Jenn: For the first time in longer than I can remember; wrasslin’ gave me those old familiar chills tonight.

Tonight, TNA Wrestling put its IMPACT show on from 8 – 11 PM, coinciding with the WWE RAW 9-11 time slot; direct competition for Vince McMahon for the first time since he didn’t own WCW, ECW, WWE and every other brand.

TNA came prepared, too. Huge names including Ric Flair, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, ‘X-Pac’ (or as I will forever remember him, ‘The 1-2-3 Kid’), Jeff Hardy and Eric Bischoff all made appearances within the first hour of TNA, hoping to grab an audience and keep them from changing over to RAW at 9PM.

TNA also pulled out the big gun – Hulk Hogan himself. The Hulkster praised the integrity and quality of TNA wrestling, saying to his former (and in Scott Hall’s case – drunken) buddies that “everyone has to earn” their spot with this company, and you are not guaranteed a job despite the accolades of your past. Hogan then said “if you can’t talk and you can’t wrestle, pack your bags and head up north.” This was a direct shot at Vince and all the Superstars of WWE, claiming their wrestling and mic skills were not up to TNA standards.

Bischoff and Hulk then vowed to take another company to the top against Vince, just like they did once before (WCW), and I smiled and thought, “whatcha gonna do, Vince?”

Well, Vince McMahon is no idiot. For weeks, he has been teasing fans with a seemingly impossible gem: Bret “Hitman” Hart returning to WWE. And coincidentally, it is really, finally happening. Tonight. Now. The same night as TNA’s brilliant Monday night debut.

As eagerly as I gobbled up that first hour of TNA, my heart pulled me back to RAW as soon as it began, and there he was- my main man. My childhood hero, Bret Hart, back in a WWE ring for the first time in 12 years. Now this guy is the real deal. ‘The best there is, the best there was,’ and yes – probably the ‘best there ever will be’. Screw Hogan, with his reality show and 3 move arsenal!

What does Bret do? Immediately, he calls out Shawn Michaels! (Now, the reason for this is connected to the “Montreal Screwjob”. The screwjob is a long, emotional story; one I am personally invested in and cannot get into here. It deserves its own article. If you don’t know about it, you cannot be my friend.)

Twelve years later, and these two men are face to face in the ring once more. I haven’t even thought about TNA since RAW began. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart finally talking shit out? This is the stuff of my dreams! (Although, yes, I am disappointed that the WWE universe is suddenly supposed to forgive Shawn Michaels for all the tears we shed during that pivotal Survivor Series).

Vince played our emotions tonight, and kept me from changing the channel back to TNA…this Monday, at least. Let’s see what RAW will do in the future to keep it that way. Now that Vince isn’t the only show in town, perhaps WWE will improve its quality to match the glory days of old, and once again be truly worthy of a Superstar like Bret Hart. Let the ‘Monday Night War’ re-commence!

**********

Matt: Hulk Hogan did not live up to his promises on last Monday’s Nitro. Oops, I mean Impact.

Hogan promised that we would see a new promotion with a new focus that would become a suitable competitor for the WWE. He promised that TNA would become a true alternative. What we got was three hours of wrestling that combined the most annoying tendencies of both WCW and TNA into one ungodly creation.

I will give them credit that the show did have a fairly spontaneous feel to it. There was an excitement as you wondered who would show up, and what would happen next. This was one of the best things about WCW Nitro in its day.

On the other side of the coin, however, a show that supposedly took six weeks of planning felt just like those old disjointed Nitros. You know, the ones when we would hear stories of Hogan vetoing almost everything at the last minute and Bischoff would have to improvise the show 10 minutes before it started? It felt like those Nitros.

The opening contest was a cluttered and confusing cage match that was lousy long before the brain dead finish that had the fans chanting “bullshit” (apparently, there was a problem with the cage that they only discovered the day of the show which forced the stupid finish, but that’s no excuse). Think about that. Ten minutes into the biggest show they’ve ever done, and the fans are chanting “bullshit.”

Then Jeff Hardy debuts. A smart move for a company that doesn’t seem to care much about drug abuse among its roster (Hardy was indicted for a laundry list of drug charges the very next day). But it didn’t mean anything. Jeff Hardy showed up during an awful, disjointed undercard match after spending the last year in the main events of the WWE. Arguably the biggest star in wrestling last year made his debut in a trainwreck, no where near the top of the card.

Then we get Ric Flair, one of the most legendary names in wrestling, show up and head into the building. And later he came out to watch the main event for a bit. And that’s it. Ric Flair, one of the most charismatic wrestlers of all time, a guy who’s been talking fans into the seats for 30 years, came out and said nothing. How do you not give Ric Flair a mic and 10 minutes to get the crowd pumped and to put over TNA? Would that have taken too much time away from the Nasty Boys segments or the mind numbingly stupid strip poker bit?

And then, after 45 minutes of his damn-near presidential motorcade driving to the arena, Hogan finally shows up. First off, that’s a fine message that he gives a shit about the program, when he only shows up after it’s already been on the air for an hour. But then he comes out and says that he’s been in the back all day talking to the wrestlers and the producers, really putting over his involvement in the company. WHY THE HELL DID WE WATCH YOU DRIVE TO THE ARENA FOR 45 MINUTES IF YOU WERE ALREADY THERE!?!?!

Then, we have the main event which was a spectacular display of athletic wrestling from Kurt Angle and champion AJ Styles (my personal dislike for kicking out of 1,000 finishing moves in a single match notwithstanding). They put on a hell of a show, but there was too much else going on. Why did the masked man attack them if it had no impact on the match at all? Why did Flair come out and do nothing? Why did Hogan praise them at the end, only to run off giving fans the impression that the nWo beating up Mick Foley backstage was more important? None of it made any sense at all.

Last Monday’s Impact was a chance for TNA to make a definitive statement. Using Hulk Hogan’s name value and the incredible athleticism of TNA’s roster (and make no mistake, they have some incredibly talented performers) could have been a winning combination. Instead, most of TNA’s roster spent the night doing 30 second interviews or being found unconscious backstage (seriously), while we watched the Nasty Boys destroy a locker room and Val Venis playing poker.

To be totally honest, Raw wasn’t great either. The Bret Hart segments were awesome, but other than that, it was the same irritating Raw as always. Same stars at the top of the card, same directionless midcarders, and the same skits with the midget. But this wasn’t a make or break show for them. Vince hadn’t promised to change the wrestling industry. They have a proven business model and seem to be in a position to succeed regardless of quality.

For TNA and Hulk Hogan though, it was a crucial show. And they blew it. Other than nostalgia, there was little that was truly impressive on either wrestling show last Monday. President Dixie Carter, and certainly her parents who actually own 71% of the company, should be very concerned right now. Her new TNA that she’s paying Hogan and Bischoff all this money for looks disturbingly like the old TNA that couldn’t compete and the old WCW that went out of business.

Buyer's remorse?

Going forward, regardless of Raw’s quality, one assumes that we’ll get a very interesting result out of this storyline- Vince McMahon vs. Bret Hart in some sort of street fight match at Wrestlemania XXVI. As for TNA, in their position they can’t afford to trade on nostalgia alone. They need to build new stars and they need to do it fast. That’s how the nWo and the Nasty Boys should be used; to establish new stars. If not, there’s no purpose to bringing them in at all.

As much as I would love to be excited about this new potential Monday Night War (TNA has not yet permanently moved to Monday nights, but it is expected as they drew a decent rating), I’m not. I hope that TNA can put it together and come up with a winning formula, but if they go forward as is, they’re going to get destroyed by the WWE.

Let’s all hope they do improve though. The WWE have gotten stagnant without competition. The wrestling industry desperately needs new ideas and new talent to challenge the McMahon wrestling monopoly and to move the business forward.

Tags: bret hart, hulk hogan, Jenn Harrison, matt jones, Monday Night War, Shawn Michaels, TNA, vince mcmahon, wcw, wrasslin', wrestling, wwe, wwf
Posted in Sports

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

07
Dec
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

05
Nov
2009

Let Not the Dixie Cup Deceive You

9 Comments

Why The Venture Brothers is the smartest show on television.

by Matt Jones

If there’s one thing we can all relate to, it’s failure.

Admit it. We’re all failures in our own way. Maybe it’s failure as an employee, an employer, as a parent, as a lover, or just as a decent person who doesn’t do bad things. We have all tasted the bitter tang of just not being good enough, or being so blinded by the defenses we’ve erected that we never try. Let’s blame it on something external, or maybe someone specific. It’s all their fault. It’s something that is universal to us all.

And The Venture Brothers, an animated comedy/adventure show in its fourth season, is a study in failure. “Beautiful sublime failure,” said Doc Hammer, one of the two driving forces behind the show. His partner, Jackson Publick expanded on this thought.

“If you’ll permit me to get ‘big picture,’ this show is actually all about failure. Even in the design, everything is supposed to be kinda the death of the space-age dream world. The death of the jet-age promises.”

And indeed, there have been many promises. Fiction writers throughout the years dreamed of the world of tomorrow and promised a glittering future of pristine efficiency: flying cars, holograms everywhere, the whole deal. Back in the post-WWII years, when atomic power was young, technology was advancing quicker than ever before. No wonder we expected so much by the year 2000. Unfortunately, the future hasn’t lived up to our past dreams. There is a yawning chasm of failure between what we expected civilization to be like now, and what it actually is. The Venture Brothers exists within that chasm; it exists in the comparison between the fabulous dreams of fiction and dismal existence of reality.

We can learn more about the show from its primary inspiration. Jonny Quest began as an attempt to bring high-tech, globetrotting adventure like James Bond’s “Dr. No” to an animated program. The idea developed into a simple format: the boy adventurer. Jonny Quest is the son of the esteemed scientist Dr. Benton Quest. As such, Dr. Quest pursued many an adventure in the name of science. Thus, his son found himself in a new dangerous and exciting situation every week. With the help of his stereotypical friend from Calcutta, Hadji, and his father’s bodyguard, Race Bannon, the “family” escaped death and weirdness on a regular basis. The show was also infamous for its violent content, with many on-screen deaths.

Enter Jackson Publick. Presumably a fan of Jonny Quest (or at the very least, familiar with the show’s conventions), Publick may have asked a logical question: what would a childhood like that do to someone? What psychological issues would plague someone who spent their youth in the shadow of a brilliant scientist, while being dragged to windswept corners of the earth by that same scientist and getting shot at by frog men and kidnapped by Incan blood cults on a regular basis? What would Jonny Quest be like as an adult?

He might be a lot like Thaddeus “Rusty” Venture, the son of the renowned Dr. Jonas Venture. With the same basic back-story as Jonny Quest, we meet up with Rusty as an adult. His father is long dead and his days as a boy adventurer a distant memory. Now a super-scientist himself, he has cracked under the pressure of trying to live up to his father’s legacy. He’s compensated for his childhood trauma with a pill addiction, rarely applies himself fully and when he does, his motivation is generally financial (he has sold off many of his father’s old inventions over the years, literally giving away his father’s legacy for a quick buck). He lacks in morality and basic decency, perhaps desensitized by a childhood spent watching frog men’s heads explode.

Interestingly, when the show finally went into development on the Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim block, the creators found themselves with access to old Hanna-Barabara characters. Thus, Jonny Quest and The Venture Brothers exist in the same universe. Jonny and Rusty were both boy adventurers, possibly rivals. Now, Jonny is a recovering junkie with such extreme trauma from his childhood that he makes Dr. Venture look downright well-balanced. (“Maybe I did kill the dog! Maybe I was the Lizard Man who stole your precious serum! You loved that serum more than you loved me!! FATHER!!!! FATHER!!!!!”)

Rusty’s sons, Hank and Dean are also damaged. While Rusty attempts to live up to his father’s legacy as a super-scientist, the boys are faced with the daunting task of living up to Rusty’s legacy as a boy adventurer. Sadly, through neglect and isolation the boys are odd and poorly socialized. Appearing as a pair of “dim-witted Hardy Boys,” the Venture Brothers are keen to experience excitement and adventure. Unfortunately, they often get more than they bargained for, as Rusty is an even worse parent than he is a scientist.

(Spoiler warning)

You see, the boys are rather death-prone. In the 2nd season premiere “Helpless in the Face of Death” we discover that the boys, who died in the final episode of the first season, are actually the 14th or so generation of clones. This is a source of confusion for some characters (Henchman 24 believes Hank to be a Highlander), but the boys are generally unaware of it.

(End Spoilers)

The other main character in the series is the family’s bodyguard Brock Samson. Samson is a secret agent and an incredibly overblown parody of the “man’s man.” The ultimate bad-ass, Samson has near super-human strength and agility, is irresistible to women and kills henchmen with seemingly psychotic glee. In spite of all that, Samson is the most well adjusted character and is a much better father figure to the boys than Rusty ever has been.

These are the basic characters. Or at least they were. The Venture Brothers is a very organic show. Over three seasons, every character has developed naturally. Doc, finally coming face to face with his own inadequacies and failures in season three is now showing signs of competence.* Hank, always the tougher of the two boys (though not by much), begins to show signs of, if not maturity at least, personal growth. Dean, on the other hand, desperately wants out of any kind of adventure in his life and suffers frequent tearful breakdowns. Even the legendary Dr. Venture Sr. has developed in spite of being dead. Through 3rd season flashbacks, we’ve come to see that while Jonas was one of the most revered scientific minds of all time, he was a lousy father and traumatized his son with a combination of legitimate danger and feelings of inadequacy.

* (SPOILER) Also, after the extra clones are killed in the Season 3 finale, Doc begins to show more concern for the boys’ well-being. “You don’t have a safety net anymore,” he warns Hank. (END SPOILER)

Perhaps the most amazing thing is how multifaceted the show is. It’s hilarious and serious. The character driven humour drips out of every scene, but the storylines and plots are intricate. The show presents all the dramatic twists and turns of a comic book story (or a show inspired by comic-book storytelling like Heroes or Lost), while still being pee-your-pants funny.

Hammer and Publick grasp continuity to their bosom like a lost child who’s finally found his way home. Characters and organizations like Sgt. Hatred, Captain Sunshine or the organization S.P.H.I.N.X. may be mentioned just in passing. Then a dozen episodes later we find out just how important they are, and that they tie in to everything that has happened in between.

It’s a lot like an Alan Moore work. Hammer and Publick cherry pick their favourite references from culture (pop or otherwise), put their own twist on it, and add them to the expansive Venture universe. A short list of references include- Mr. Clean, Kraven the Hunter, Klaus Nomi, Iggy Pop, David Bowie, Dr. Strange, The Fantastic Four, Red Dragon, Tycho Brahe, GI Joe, Led Zeppelin, Walt Disney, Henry Kissinger, Bettie Page, Mark Twain, Aleister Crowley, Eugen Sandow, Oscar Wilde, Hunter S. Thompson, Frankenstein, and, of course, various lines of dialogue from Star Wars (“You always wanted to be a boy adventurer” says Dr. Venture to Billy Quizboy, “not at all like answering trivia, is it, boy?”).

Of course, there are two schools of thought on referential comedy. Family Guy, unfortunately, too often takes the route where the reference is necessary to get the joke. The Venture Brothers takes the same view as the cult-classic sketch comedy Mr. Show: the comedy can be grown from a reference, but it shouldn’t be necessary for the bit to be funny. You don’t need to be familiar with James Lipton’s histrionics to find David Cross’ film professor character Cyrus Tetley funny, though it will certainly add to it. Likewise, you don’t need to be familiar with Marvel Comics’ Dr. Strange to find Dr. Orpheus’s overly dramatic intonations funny, but if you are it will be doubly funny.

The show isn’t above poking direct fun at those references either. “We’re trapped in a cliché,” notes Dr. Venture dryly as spiked walls slowly move closer. In another episode, as the grand opening of a museum dedicated to Rusty’s father descends into a brawl between heroes and villains of yesteryear, Doc has a realization:

“This is gonna be one of those things, isn’t it? I mean, you get a bunch of short-fused, costumed idiots together in one room like this, and what do you think’s gonna happen? Any minute now, stuff’s gonna start blowing up, guys’ll be throwing each other at other guys. You know, when you’re not the one in the middle of it all for once, it’s actually totally, completely obvious.”

Brock, who more often than not is the one to deal with these situations sighs, “Welcome to my world.”

Having spent three seasons establishing their world and its conventions, the general tone of the show and developing their characters, Hammer and Publick have a great deal of momentum currently. Coming off a very well received third season, the fourth season seems very promising. The new episodes have been quite good so far. The premiere jumped around more than a Quentin Tarantino film, using a decaying copy of Marvel Comics #1 as a clock. In the second episode we finally meet Captain Sunshine, voiced by the legendary Kevin Conroy(the star of Batman: The Animated Series). In this week’s episode, we got a twisted tale that references Hamlet, progressive rock and the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

The show, like its characters, has developed. It’s striking a balance that provides the laughs and intrigue, while rewarding long-time viewers with scraps of information. That information then sparks fan debate over the untold aspects of the show’s back story (like the origins of the Guild of Calamitous Intent, which I believe is sponsored by the government to keep the limitless imaginations of super-scientists in check). Either way, the future seems very interesting. It may not live up to the space-age promises of fiction, but it will definitely be a worthwhile romp.

Tags: adult swim, brock samson, dean, doc hammer, go team venture, guild of calamitous intent, hank, jackson publick, jonny quest, matt jones, rusty venture, television, venture brothers
Posted in Reviews

23
Sep
2009

This is what happened to the WWE

No Comments

by Matt Jones

I don’t want to make it a thing on this site where every article spawns a series of debating articles. Nor is this meant to be an attack on Jennifer Harrison’s “What Happened to the WWE?” article.

From reading her article, I noticed two main things. First, at one time, Jennifer, you loved wrestling, and wish it was as good as you remembered. Me too. Second, you can tell from a lot of the minutia I mentioned in my comment that you haven’t been watching with any regularity recently. Fair enough. You haven’t enjoyed it, so why would you watch it? You’re not a sadist like I apparently am. I’ve watched the show hating it sometimes, wishing desperately that it would get better.

I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong and the WWE is as good as it’s ever been. There’s a whole lot of gray area that’s subjective to each fan. But the title of the previous article ends with a question mark. I’ll do my best to answer that question.

The short answer is that wrestling changed, as it always has. Wrestling has been around more than a century and has been a lot of things. It’s been a carnival side-show attraction and it’s been on school lunchboxes. It’s held in smoky bars and rotary clubs as well as sold-out stadiums during international tours.

Since the “glory days” of the 1980’s, wrestling has gone through many of these changes, dictated by the circumstances of the business. Steroid and sex scandals in the early 90’s were combatted by the WWF through branding themselves as “family friendly” entertainment (and, let’s be honest, with their bright, colourful, cartoon character personas, the WWF wrestlers were already VERY family friendly).

And why not? From the WWF’s point of view, being family-friendly had made them millions. Doing the same thing, perhaps more so with characters like Doink the Clown or Mantaur, probably seemed like a good plan.

However, that extra neutered approach, and the stench of the scandals, led to a downturn in business and World Championship Wrestling took advantage with a more mature approach to wrestling. The WWF owned the 12 and under crowd, so WCW established themselves as the king of teens and young adults — essentially, the fans from the glory days who had now grown up and weren’t interested in the kid-friendly WWF.

Once McMahon finally got himself acquitted of steroid charges, they began to fight back. Going after the same “young adult” demographic as WCW, the WWF went much further and created what’s now known as “the Attitude era.” While WCW presented more realistic storylines, they were bound by the standards and practices of their parent company Turner Broadcasting. The WWF could do whatever they wanted though. They were bound by the judgment of the USA Network, which aired Monday Night Raw, but as long as the controversy they created attracted more eyes and corresponding advertising dollars, USA couldn’t care less. So sex and violence were amped up, and every child’s hero Hulk Hogan (“say your prayers, train hard and eat your vitamins”) was replaced by beer–swilling anti-hero Stone Cold Steve Austin (“Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!”). In 2001, when the WWF bought WCW and ECW, winning the Monday Night Wars, the company saw no reason to change the way they did business or promoted themselves.

And why not? From the (now) WWE’s point of view, being edgy and outrageous had made them billions. Doing the same thing, perhaps more so with fiascos like Katie Vick or the Billy and Chuck wedding, probably seemed like a good plan.

Of course, history repeats itself, never more so than in the wrestling industry. Starting with the death of Eddie Guerrero, and then becoming firmly entrenched with the Chris Benoit tragedy two years later, the WWE is in damage control mode. The WWE is PG again and, in terms of presentation of storylines, bears more resemblance to the WWF of the 80’s than it does to any period in between. Edgy, sex based storylines are gone, as are most of the half-naked (or completely naked) women who used to be everywhere.

In the current WWE, kid friendly characters like Rey Mysterio and Hornswoggle are heavily featured. Bloodshed, for years all but expected in the main events, has disappeared. Women who used to simply represent T ‘n A (not to be confused with TNA) are now actually trained to wrestle.

That’s the interesting thing about wrestling though: if you asked 100 fans whether or not any of the changes detailed in the past several paragraphs is a good thing or a bad thing, you’d get wildly different answers. Wrestling “should be” different things to different people.

To a lot of fans who grew up in the 80’s, wrestling “should be” something you can watch with your entire family. Ask fans from the 60’s or 70’s though, and you might get a completely different answer. A lot of these fans were horrified with what wrestling became in the 80’s (when the WWF became synonymous with wrestling in the public perception). To many of them, wrestling was supposed to be about gritty, intense, athletic competition, not “kids stuff.” A lot of fans from the Attitude era feel the same way about the current PG WWE.

What is wrestling supposed to be? Everyone, from the lowliest fan to Vince McMahon himself would give you a different answer. Vince’s answer, if he’s honest with you, would probably be “whatever makes me the most money.” And that’s reflected by the in-ring product.

Five-star matches like Mr. Perfect vs. Bret Hart, Steamboat vs. Savage, Angle vs. Benoit or Jericho vs. Michaels aren’t where McMahon made his money. Or, more correctly, they aren’t where he made his biggest money. What made Vince McMahon a millionaire was the sales from Hulkster, Stone Cold, Rock and John Cena shirts, toys, video games and other ancillary merchandise. Wrestling doesn’t move merchandise- characters do. Carefully marketed and positioned characters.

The fans who actually care about wrestling matches- the fans like me and many others – we’re always going to be there (in McMahon’s view). We’ll be the ones to keep the company going with DVD sales, Pay Per View purchases and live event tickets (I went to one last weekend in Moncton, actually). But it was when the casual audience got involved that everything was gravy for Vince and the WWE. It doesn’t really matter to them if I place an order through WWEshop.com for a Finlay shirt and a Dean Malenko action figure. What matters is when having a “Hulkamania” or “Austin 3:16” shirt becomes the hot new thing and the casual, mainstream audience all have to have one.

That’s why Hulk Hogan is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest, names in WWE history despite wrestling virtually the same match for his entire career (punch, kick, bodyslam, big boot, leg drop). He could make people care about him, and made them want to cheer for him, and to buy his merchandise.

Believe it or not, Vince McMahon is a big fan of technical wrestling, according to a number of sources I’ve read. McMahon loves believable, credible technical workers like Bret Hart, Chris Benoit or Kurt Angle. But he’s smart enough to know which side his bread is buttered on. There will always be a place for technical wrestling in the WWE, but it’s not necessarily going to be the main event.

Is the quality of the actual wrestling as good as it was in the past? Like everything, it depends on who you ask. The pace is quicker these days, and there are more moves from the top rope. On the other hand, with less places to work, young wrestlers have less experience and are often less polished in their performances (especially in the “psychology” of a match). It’s give and take. But is one era conclusively better than another? Hardly.

Jennifer made reference to Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect from Summerslam 1991 as being one of those great, classic wrestling matches that you don’t see anymore. But does anyone remember the rest of Summerslam ‘91? Ted DiBiase and Virgil had a decent match. That’s about it. Everything else was pretty awful, and the main event of the show was a wedding.

Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect was a great match. It’s one of my favourites (though, I am partial to their 1993 King of the Ring bout). But matches like that stand out more than they would otherwise because they’re framed by crap like The Bushwhackers vs. The Natural Disasters. Wrestlers like Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, Ted DiBiase, Jake Roberts, Randy Savage and Ricky Steamboat stood out because they were surrounded by guys like King Kong Bundy, George Steele, Giant Kamala, One Man Gang, Outback Jack and Hillbilly Jim.

And that’s not meant as a slight against Hillbilly Jim or King Kong Bundy or anyone else. There’s definitely a place for them. Though they weren’t, as Jim Ross might put it, “catch-as-catch-can stylists,” guys like Junk Yard Dog, George “The Animal” Steele and Hillbilly Jim were LOVED by fans. On the heel side, people paid good money to see King Kong Bundy, Kamala or One Man Gang get their ass kicked by Hulk Hogan.

Wrestling is, at its best, like the circus. There should be something for everybody. Just like the circus would get boring if it was nothing but lion tamers, wrestling would be boring if everybody wrestled like Bret Hart. If you don’t like the lion tamer, maybe you’d prefer the high-wire act (Randy Savage, Rey Mysterio), the clowns (George Steele, Santino Marella) or the side show (Andre, The Great Khali).

The problems with the WWE are, in many ways, the same problems as the earlier eras. John Cena is over-exposed today, as was Hulk Hogan in his day. Drug and steroid abuse is still an issue. There was, and still are, too many wrestlers to effectively showcase all of them with allotted TV/PPV time. New stars need to be cultivated; this used to require talent scouts, now it requires a development territory and trainers. There are still fans who tire of the emphasis on sketches and skits over actual wrestling. And as always, there are wrestlers at the top of the card who will do whatever it takes to stay there, regardless of what that means to the company. Either way, it’s all wrestling. It’s just adapted to what Vince McMahon thinks people want it to be at a given time. Whether that’s for better or for worse is up to you.

But remember that, as I said off the top, wrestling means different things to different people. No matter what our opinion is, there were many who think that our favorite era is an abomination. It’s telling that the WWF’s two biggest periods were the diametrically opposed squeaky-clean late 80’s and raunchy and edgy late 90’s. The WWE will no doubt go through many more changes as time goes on, so keep checking in. Who knows? In a few years, you might love it again.

Tags: chris benoit, hulk hogan, jennifer harrison, matt jones, professional wrestling, randy savage, raw, smackdown, Sports, sports entertainment, steroids, steve austin, vince mcmahon, wcw, wrestling, wwe, wwe attitude, wwf
Posted in Op-Ed, Sports

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

Posts Tagged ‘matt jones’

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

The New Monday Night War?

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

Top 10 Video Games of the 2000s

Twilighting Other Films

Let Not the Dixie Cup Deceive You

This is what happened to the WWE

When Robotic Philosopher Kings Become Mechanical John Rambos

Pages

Archives

Categories

Sponsors