fadetoblog-blog

[fadetoblog-blog]

SCOTUS to Hear Right to Gerrymander

If you’re, like many Americans, have been frustrated by the lack of action in our government, brace yourself because it could get a whole lot worse.

Naturally, people are fed up with the leadership and want to throw out the do-nothing bums. But the current leadership is a symptom, not the cause of our current state of State.

The root cause is gerrymandering. There has been a recent a bold trend to blatantly redraw districts to secure seats in the House of Representatives for a specific party. All politicians like to have their districts drawn to favor their own party so the complaints from leadership tend to crop up by whichever party is under-represented.

Gerrymandering hurts the country.

It doesn’t matter which party you belong to, Gerrymandering is anti-democratic. Politicians use it for job security, and to squeeze out opposing voices. Since a gerrymandered district is drawn specifically to favor one political party, it shuts out opposing voices. In a Democratic district that means voters will essentially be picking candidates that are leftist or extremely leftist. It eradicates the middle. Without balance, a state of extremism is unreasonable. And since their district is comprised of a majority of their party, they are virtually guaranteed to be reelected. A secure politician becomes lazy and deaf to their constituency, because, frankly, they don’t have to listen. They’ll still get elected.

It’s like that Simpsons Halloween episode where two aliens, Kang and Kodos, run for office even though they are allies. Before the election they are revealed as aliens, but the citizens have no other candidates to vote for, so they elect Kang. Being whipped by aliens, Homer says, “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.”

Contrast the the House with the representatives in the Senate. The Senate’s districts are their entire states. There is no room for bias. Every person in the state can vote in those races. With both parties voting, you get representatives that have to represent the majority, the entire state. (In practice states tend to fall to either red or blue.) As you’d expect, Senators are more balanced, more reasonable, and less extreme than their counterparts in the House. Gerrymandering is a pass to bad behavior. The most extreme voices in politics come from the House. (Well, Fox Corporation and talk radio win the questionable honor of extremism, but in politicians, the House is the asylum.)

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could kill the cure for gerrymandering: independent district commissions. Arizona voters passed an amendment to force politicians out of drawing their own districts and replace them with an independent commission: an act that is the very definition of representative democracy. However, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, state Republicans are arguing that districts should be drawn exclusively by partisans (themselves) and not the citizenry or any other independent bodies.

Let me restate that: Republicans are trying to enshrine bias and congressional intransigence by invalidating independent voices. If SCOTUS sides with Republicans, it could invalidate other states’ attempts to end gerrymandering. The last shred of our representative democracy is being pushed ever closer to an oligarchy.

Politicians have proven their inability to do what is right for the country. They have declined to draw fair districts, and, instead, opted to cover their own seats. Make no mistake, I would speak out against any party the endorses gerrymandering. However, this is a strong trend on the Right to disenfranchise voters. They’ve been passing unnecessary voter ID laws specifically to hurt democrats. Tom DeLay (R) was indicted with criminal conspiracy to violate election laws by redrawing districts after they were recently redrawn since they were not partisan enough. And now they’re trying to shut out voters from the process of who can be elected. Yes, both parties like gerrymandering when it benefits their party, but the Right has once again gone to the extreme and made it mandatory.

We should have more choices than just Kang and Kodos.

If you want to see a Congress that can get things done; if you want more reasonable--or just rational--leadership; if you want to restore democracy; if you want fair, unbiased elections; if you want America to be true to its own values, then you have to end gerrymandering. Politicians need to feel accountable, and they will only do that when they know we can fire them and that we have other choices.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." - John Basil Barnhill

[fadetoblog-blog]

http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/

I could not have said it better myself.

[fadetoblog-blog]

Way of the Gun: Zimmerman Trial Edition

The Martin/Zimmerman case is highly charged, but let’s flip the script for a second. If Trayvon Martin had killed Zimmerman, Martin would be on trial for the very same thing. He would’ve been defending himself against an armed attacker. A mistaken attack that became lethal because both parties thought the other was up to no good. It surprises me how similar the case is if all we do is switch who died. It’s what I would’ve done if I were on the jury.

I’ve watched Zimmerman’s video explaining the incident, and for the most part I believe his testimony. In that testimony, you can see Trayvon Martin’s point of view. He was walking in the neighborhood and notices someone is following him. He ducks between two houses so he can get a better look at his stalker. He seems like less of a threat, so Martin confronts him. Zimmerman, lacking training or experience, is outmatched. He does not know how to deal with confrontation nor does he have the authority to question a man in the street.

Both Zimmerman and Martin are “standing their ground”. They’re acting to defend themselves from a perceived threat. Here lies the danger of this law. All it takes is a perceived threat that can be met with lethal force. People who are fearful, fearful enough to buy guns even, are more likely to interpret events as threatening. They are more likely to see monsters around them, and, are more likely to shoot first.

I think the gun is to blame. Without the gun, Zimmerman would not have felt a false sense of empowerment to leave his car. He would have had to let the police take care of it. He could have circled the block in his car. Martin may have hidden, or the police would confront him. If the police confronted him, Martin would likely defer to their authority, coming peacefully. The badge they wear means they have been trained, they have laws to follow. They are not some scared dude with a gun pursing a person down a street.

Granted, when Zimmerman fired he was truly being threatened. But he was a lamb heading into a wolf’s den and then crying for help. He saw a man who he thought was dangerous and then pursued him on foot. He had a gun and, intentionally or not, created the circumstances to use it.

Guns feed the ego. They make you feel powerful. If you’ve seen how gun owners talk, they believe they will need to use their guns in self defense at some point. They want to take down a bad guy. They fantasize about the day when there is an intruder or a robber and they will be the only thing that will stop the bad guy. They believe there are several scenarios where killing someone is not only justified but moral and heroic. Just because a person has a permit for their gun doesn’t mean they are the good guy.

In this instance, the presence of the gun directly led to the altercation and death. In a world where guns are banned, or restricted to law enforcement, this event would not have happened. What happens when you give everyone guns and the permission to kill based on their own discretion without any training in apprehending suspects? More people die. Even spies need a license to kill. So, when does killing become murder? When does killing become absolutely unavoidable, and who has the training and right to determine that? Is killing ever justified? These are the questions we must ask ourselves for our country, for civilization, and for our future.

[fadetoblog-blog]

Now, You’re Just Adobe that I Used to Own.

“All your base are belong to us.”

As part of Adobe’s long tradition of being user-hostile*, they have recently announced they will switch to subscription-based software. The greedy move will force users to make monthly installments on a product they used to own. I guess they saw how much money banks, cellular companies, and utilities were making and said, “we want in!” Now, you can’t own it, you can only borrow it. But it is not a service, it’s a product. They aren't delivering new content, just bug fixes and the occasional new--and often unnecessary--feature. So, why subscription-based product?

 Naked greed! Updates! Yes, Adobe is constantly tinkering with its software. Rarely do these upgrades improve functionality--like making any of their programs intuitive to use. All those annoying developer-only updates to Acrobat or Flash, are now a regular feature. Photoshop is a powerful tool, but actual useful updates are few and far between. They brandish a new feature, that sort of works, about like it’s the invention of fire. However, for vast majority of users, updates are only needed when your computer becomes too sluggish to handle high end projects, say every five to ten years. $240 a year adds up, and that’s just for Photoshop.

“I want my software to have more updates,” said no one, ever.

Updates are a way for companies to release their software prematurely, recoup some cost, and crowdsource their bug testing to their customers. Then they release the bug fixes as an update instead of creating solid programs from the outset.

Even car dealers give you a choice to lease or buy. As any good financial adviser will tell you, never lease your car. Most cars last ten years and take five years to pay off. If you keep your car until it completely dies on you, that means you are getting five “free” years of use on your purchase. The financial adviser will also tell you to use those five years to save up to pay for your next car in full so you aren’t losing money on interest rates.

BACK TO SCENE:

Often updates change the product’s functionality in a way you do not like. WindowsVista, O.S. Lion, and even Adobe’s Acrobat has had some really annoying do-as-we-say “features.” Users may not want to upgrade because they prefer the way the product worked before or they finally got the bugs out of the previous version. Well, that’s just tough. It’s all part of the new cruelty.

Adobe’s dick move to bleed their customers on a regular basis treats them like users. If you want your fix, you need to pay the piper again...and again...and again...forever. It will make people lament the comparatively benign DRM moves by Apple and X-Box One. X-Box learned the hard way that there is only so much people will tolerate, especially the tech savvy.

I urge anyone reading this: do not buy the new Adobe products until they correct this insulting abuse of their customers. Write them if you must, but be sure to let them know that you won’t be signing up for their software serfdom. The only way they won’t do this, and set a dangerous precedent for other companies to follow, is to hit them in the pocket book hard. Really, punt it!

Time to investigate some alternatives: ACDSee, PaintShop Pro, and Pixelmator. Maybe even some free alternatives, too: http://features.en.softonic.com/5-free-alternatives-to-adobe-products

  *Adobe’s products are very powerful, but they maintain a user-hostile (as opposed to user-friendly) interface with labyrinthian routes to use features, rather than an intuitive point and click selection. In recent years they have made some improvements, but their programs never reached Macromedia’s ease of use.

[fadetoblog-blog]

5 Myths about Gay Marriage

Now that DOMA is struck down, it doesn't mean the battle is over nor that people have suddenly become enlightened. So, I'd like to myth-bust some of the stupid things straight opponents say.

 1. Sexuality is a choice

This little gem doesn’t die. It isn’t based on fact, just a feeling. People feel that being gay is something a person decides to do because they’ve had it with being normal and just want to watch Spartacus series in peace. Oh, and have sex with their own gender. Completely a choice.

But when you think about it for just a few moments, it means everyone else is choosing to be straight. In order for there to be a real choice, both sexes must be equally appealing. Chicken or beef? Therefore, everyone is equally attracted to both sexes. We are attracted to both guys and gals in the same way and to a similar intensity, but the vast majority of people make a choice each and every day to date the opposite sex because babies or whatever.

In fact, there’s a very good word for these people: bisexual. So, the next time someone says they know sexuality is a choice, they’re really saying, “I am sexually attracted to men and women.”

Gay people come from straight parents. They aren’t hatched from eggs or alien invaders. They are born that way. And some kids have an attraction to their own gender (not to be confused with cootie aversion) long before it is sexual. It is just an attraction. Since there have been literally centuries of oppression, it can take a decade or two for a gay person to be open about who they are. So, it seems that people become gay, instead of just admitting it. As homosexuality becomes less stigmatized, there will be more cases of kids feeling safe enough to admit their sexuality.

(The trend has already started. People are coming out at earlier ages just in my lifetime. Typically it was thirties, but in the 90s, I started to hear stories of one or two people coming out right after high-school or senior year. In the early 2000s, those one or two kids became dozens, some coming out at a much earlier age. Now, one mom is openly blogging about her son’s boy-crush since he made it known at the age of 7. It is a measurement of them feeling safe enough to be honest about who they are.)

Women have been able to tell which of their friends are attractive for centuries without anyone freaking out about it. I’ve seen guys complement each other in the gym. Yet, I think some straight people project this same-sex appreciation onto gay people. They assume that--since this is what they feel-- it must be what gay people feel. And then it would seem like it is choice. But to truly see it from a gay person’s point of view, you have to flip your own sexuality. Gay men feel about men the way straight men feel about women. Though gay men can appreciate what is attractive in a woman, it doesn’t mean they are attracted to them anymore than straight men are attracted to other men. If you are not romantically attracted to both sexes, or even 60/40, you are either heterosexual or homosexual.

2. Tradition is a reason.

Tradition does not validate a way of living. There are some pretty awful traditions in human history: slavery, rape, and Thanksgiving to name a few. Tradition is another word for habit or cycle. Usually, we practice a tradition because it’s the only thing we know. Children who have abusive parents are more likely to abuse others. Is that a tradition worth preserving?

Traditions have no intrinsic value outside of nostalgia. We become comfortable with them, and they make us feel part of an ongoing narrative, but we can form any tradition we want. Many parents start good traditions of education--introducing their kids to books and reading. The question is not how do we preserve our traditions exactly as they were, but which traditions are worth preserving.

In America, we set up a tradition in our constitution of freedom and equality. Freedom of speech, religion, and self-governance. Later, we realized that our actions didn’t live up to our ideals. We woke up to the fact that denying a race or gender the right to vote failed our own ideal, our tradition, of equality. We always have the power and freedom to start new traditions that support our values, regardless of what’s been done before.

On a related note, the traditional marriage championed by groups like NOM, is a fairly new tradition. There are much older and long-lived traditions for marriage. (American Indians allowed same-sex marriage before and, for a while after, the European colonization.) Historically the institution of marriage was concerned with property and its inheritance. Who gets the parents’ wealth when they die? That is where our civil contract of marriage finds its roots. Wives, for their part, were considered property. The Bible has plenty of polygamous marriages that included concubines. Ahh, tradition!

Thankfully, we have outgrown that tradition of women as property. Modern marriage, though still concerned with property and rights, has shifted focus to be about love. It is the committed union of two consenting adults. Then states started inserting language that defined marriage as only between opposite sexes. And they say gays are the ones trying to redefine marriage.

 3. Same-sex marriage will ______.

People like to fill that blank with so many doom-filled prophecies. But the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry is limited to the people getting married. When has any marriage, outside of a monarchy, affected anyone else’s life? When has anyone made a decision to marry or not based on whether two people they’ve never met marries? To pretend that this changes marriage for anyone is pure hysterics.

As we’ve already seen in the handful of states that have permitted gays to marry, there have been no real consequences. The human race will goes on. Straight people still have sex. They still have babies. And straight couples still get married. The only true change is that there is more equality.

I need to address one of the oddly compelling “blanks” used by opponents of marriage equality: “They’ll teach kids about gay marriage.”

This argument assumes that kids will become whatever they learn about. That’s why so many kids have grown up to become dinosaurs, astronauts, Nazis, and Jedis. Yes, once kids learn that guys marry guys, they’ll want in on that action, too. As I stated above, they believe homosexuality is as attractive as heterosexuality--and given the opponents level of concern--it must be more desirable. Why would anybody date the opposite-sex if they don’t absolutely have to?

Kids should be taught about the struggle for equality. That is the primary and most principled narrative of our country. Once you take off the hysteria hat, it’s obvious that the way schools would approach it would not be in a sex-ed class or even delve into the sex at all. (If they did, they’d bore students into never wanting to do it.) A rational teaching would go something like this: Marriage is a lifetime commitment between two adults to love and care for each other. At one time in our history, the majority would not permit people of different color to marry or of the same gender, but eventually, they came to see that all people have the right to marry and lifted those superficial bans.

 Oh, the horror! People can marry each other! What will our children, especially our gay children, think? They’ll start to believe that it is the content of our character, not what we look like or our gender, that should define us.

4. We’re victims, too.

There is a faction that feels they have a right to discriminate against a group that’s different from their own. They have the nerve to say, “It’s hurtful when people say I’m a bigot.” But that is the definition of a bigot: “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Intolerance is not morality. And, Jesus certainly preached tolerance. So, please, stop complaining when people call you out on your bad behavior.

If you believe that this is a land of individual freedom and rights, then you must understand that in order for everyone to enjoy those rights, you can’t take them away from people you disagree with because that would create second-class citizens. America is about everyone getting equal treatment. Your desire to force people to follow your personal or religious beliefs is not a right. It seems to be a common complaint of conservatives that being unable to deny people rights--or treat people unfairly--is unfair. Marriage equality is about same-sex couples gaining the same exact rights as hetero couples and the freedom to marry the one person they love.

 5. Homosexuality is unnatural.

A very curious statement. Gays are uncommon in humans making up somewhere around 10% of the population. There is strong evidence that it is genetic. (The people who say otherwise just ignore/disbelieve the evidence rather than disprove it.) 10% of the population is left-handed. There was a long time or tradition where left-handed people were considered unnatural and even demonic. The word “sinister” means left-sided. So, there is evidence that a preference can be small genetic mutation that affects a fraction of the population.

A mutation, like blue-eyes, doesn’t have any moral weight. It is not right or wrong; it exists. An American Indian approach is to trust in the creator. Everything and everyone is here for a reason. Anyone who didn’t fit into a traditional gender category was a shaman. They had other gifts, be it healing, talking to spirits, or settling disputes. It is our job to accept, and when possible, understand them. We should not have the hubris to change or deny them.

When DOMA was passed, it meant that two men have the right marry anyone one in the world they like as long as they are of the opposite sex. But the minute those two men decide to marry each other, they are stripped of that right. Robbing people of that freedom, that equal treatment under the law, is dehumanizing and criminal.

At the end of the day, whatever you think of gay people, they are still people. They are still human beings with the same capacity to love and feel pain. And they are entitled to the same rights as any other human being.

Look at their happiness! It's like they love each other like real people or something.

[fadetoblog-blog]

MAN OF STEEL: Waiting for Superman

Since Christopher Reeve hung up his cape, we haven’t had a decent cinematic Superman. We have seen great Superman stories in comic books, animation, and even a live-action T.V. series. All of these stayed close to the core of Superman while finding ways to make him interesting. The two movies post-Reeve fall short of achieving Superman’s potential.

Other articles have already made some excellent points about Man of Steel even a fanciful discussion of the religious symbolism. Unfortunately, the primary corroding factors to Zack Snyder’s film could have been fixed on the page.

In Superman Returns, we had a stiff Superman hindered by colored contact lenses. His gaze remains flat, even when being struck by bullets. As Superman rolls over to blast falling glass with his heat vision, he reminded me of a shark, rolling over with its dolls eyes. Perhaps another casualty of green screen filmmaking. We’re rarely invited into his emotional world, left to infer his feelings by his actions. His actions consist of a lot of stoic posing, or spying on his ex, without much action.

Beyond character, Superman Returns is flawed by its slavish devotion to emulate Richard Donner’s film with the addition of a darker tone. Lex Luthor returns to Superman’s home, uses the crystals, and launches a real estate scam. We’ve seen it all before when it was new. It is Superman, Too more than an genuine sequel. (The eerily similar “Year without Superman” run in the comics, avoided revisiting old territory and gave Superman something to fight.) We’re left with a deadbeat super-dad with few action sequences to really flex his muscles.

Man of Steel finally gives us some action and fights with a villain that is tough enough to go toe-to-toe with Superman. Audiences have been craving to see a super-powered fist-fight on the big screen--which was partially fulfilled by, and explains the success of, The Avengers. It also deserves the credit for Man of Steel’s box office success. Fight scenes, however, are just frosting. But frosting needs to be layered on something more substantial.

Superman’s abilities are thrilling, but his charm lies in his character. He uses that extreme power to protect the weak and defend justice. He leads by example. He inspires. But in the Nolan/Goyer/Snyder universe, Clark Kent travels the world in a self-imposed isolation. There is nothing preventing him, other than the script, from making meaningful connections. Of all the superheroes, Superman has enjoyed the sunniest backstory. He was adopted by two loving parents on a planet that gives him god-like powers. He, of all people, has reason to be upbeat. Goyer steals heavily from The Hulk for this script, but The Hulk needs to avoid relationships; he’s a danger to those around him. Superman is not protecting others by his isolation; he’s abandoning them. It’s a self-centered, moping character.

The story obsesses over the fact if the world found out about Superman something bad would happen, but it never demonstrates it. Even if they did find out about him, what could they do to him? He’s freaking Superman! At worst, they’d force him into hiding, where he already exists. We need high stakes and consequences, not a mere temptation to use his powers for good. It is a cheap knock-off of The Incredibles, minus its bigger heart and motivation.

The Incredibles opens with an act of heroism that backfires injuring several citizens on a train which forces  him into hiding--real-world consequences and motivation. Here we only get conjecture and dire warnings from an overprotective dad--while at the same time telling him he’s here for a special reason. “You’re here for a reason, son. Just don’t ever try to act on it.” His decision to act should’ve been wrapped up in the first act or so, but the movie keeps puffing air into it like a leaky pool toy until the third act.

Isolating the hero from people makes him aloof and foreign. He talks more to a hologram than other people and primarily for exposition. We don’t see any conversations that reveal his character. The emotional scenes are relegated to flashbacks of a brooding child, so, adult Clark comes off as emotionally and intellectually immature. Great Costner’s ghost! He doesn’t talk to the living!

The result: Man of Steel is a pity party in honor of the world’s most powerful adonnis. It’s hard to feel sorry for Superman, and we shouldn’t. We should root for him. We should look up to him. He was imagined by his creators as an ideal to strive toward. Over the years, characters have told Superman that he is naive to his face, but instead of proving their point, it is their lack of vision that is revealed. Sometimes we need an idealist to reset our moral compass. [Example: Aunt May in Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy.]

When the long, and eventually tedious, fighting begins (and by fight I mean “exploding through walls”), Superman saves three people: his mom, Lois (two times), and a soldier. Since his mom and Lois are important to him, and he does so little to save strangers, it becomes more self-serving than heroic. We’ve seen Superman fight Zod before, in a different film but the same circumstances. In that fight, he lured Zod away from innocent civilians. It demonstrated heroism and his selfless concern for others. As Singer learned, if you’re going to retread old ground, you have to at least rise to its level.

Case in point: he fatally damages the Kryptonian ship to stop Zod’s goal of creating a master race on Earth. This Superman lets it crash into the city. The Superman we know and expect would have at least tried to steer it away from the city. The mere attempt is more important than success.

Superman’s greatest vulnerabilities are kryptonite and compassion. (Let’s ignore Kryptonian air as a weakness.) The past two Superman films have not exploited the latter weakness even though it was effectively used in Superman I and II. Superman of the comics and animated versions would tell you that compassion is actually a strength (it certainly is story-wise), but it is also a liability when facing his enemies. And we love him for it. It is his super-humanity that we admire. In “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman,” Clark tells Lois, “Clark is who I am. Superman is what I can do.”

Man of Steel has far more action than any Superman we’ve seen on the big screen. This movie is more entertaining than the previous entry, but isn't really a movie. It's Fight Scene: The Motion Picture. In order for the next film to truly soar, it will need a new writer and director. But before Superman suits up again, please, let him visit the Wizard, and give the Man of Steel a heart.

Man of Steel: The Good, Bad, and Ugly Review

THE GOOD:

The bright star of this movie is Henry Cavill. His performance is as three dimensional as his muscles. He’s a beast. I really hope he stays on for subsequent films, but, please, give him more to work with character-wise.

The costume is also much improved from the last one. It looks best when the colors are more saturated. Only the insane wear underwear over their pants. I’d also like to see an explanation that his suit is constructed with kryptonian nanites that can repair the suit as long as it is mostly intact.

We finally see a Krypton, in theaters, that looks like a real planet. I’ve never really liked Kal El coming from Hoth. It shows the extinction of a fully realized planet. Even though Kal El may not miss it, it gives the audience some stakes. It also opens up the possibility for some of Superman’s more powerful villains: Brainiac and Darkseid. Though I feel like we’ve seen a Brainiac fight when Superman attacks the World Machine. I love the choice to fully explore Superman’s alieness on the big screen, I just wish it didn’t take over the movie.

It is fast paced. The movie runs on rails. It is great to have a fast-moving Superman after the plodding previous film. However, it is often in a hurry to nowhere. With all the time they save, they could do far more character development.

Superman does have some good fight scenes in this, however, there is a lot of repetition. The Avengers avoided that trap by having several different kinds of battles. An aerial chase through the city, duking it out on the ground, saving hostages, flying leviathans, et cetera. In the last film, Superman’s big fight was actually to bench pressing a giant rock into space (that was a threat only to himself). There should be a superhero rule that they can only fight objects that can fight back. (The Hulk fought a giant cloud, so there clearly needs to be a memo.) Having a villain Superman can punch is a step up, but not necessary since it is his compassion that is important.

THE BAD:

Let’s continue with the fight scene. Superman and Zod blast through walls again and again. Usually from a similar distance. The scenes in of themselves are fine, but back-to-back and with so many of them the film really has little new to say. They could easily cut down these set pieces and have a leaner, better film. Though, it seems to be trying to make up for the lack of substance. Sounds like an expensive choice.

The script is thin and full of plot holes. I’ve already pointed out the weak choice of stakes and character, but on top of that, the film has some truly awful dialogue. Goyer should never get final draft on scripts. The actors deliver these cheesy lines in a close-up deadpan, making the directing partly to blame. Example: When soldiers close in on a downed Superman, the soldiers let him pass and then the commanding officer tells them to stand down. This man is not our enemy. Reversing the order of events would’ve made the line a command instead of a cheesy “it’s Miller-time” line read.

The C.G. effects are inconsistent. A few times it drifts into the territory of Gumby fight scenes from Spider-Man. The worst was a composite shot of Superman flying away with Lois in his arms from an explosion. It looked exactly like one from the opening titles of “Lois & Clark”.

Lois Lane and Superman haven’t had good chemistry since “Lois & Clark”. It’s difficult to say in this film if it was the actors or simply the fact that the script doesn’t permit them any decent moments.

Note to DC and Warner Bros:  Do not give control of Superman to pessimistic/cynical directors or producers. Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan don’t believe in a sunny superhero. Nolan’s heroes are their own worst enemy, whose self sabotage comes back to haunt them. Singer is best when exploring the dark side of people, which works for most characters, but not the boy-scout superheroes.

THE UGLY:

On Krypton, Zod and his army get encapsulated in C.G. dildos--complete with nuts and bolts--that fly.

[fadetoblog-blog]

STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS and the Anti-Hero

For thousands of years, entire civilizations have had oral traditions. Storytelling is ingrained in humanity. These traditions included common themes which Joseph Campbell identified in his monomyth concept. More often than not these stories were coded with spiritual and moral lessons. Iktome--the spider man of America’s first peoples--and Coyote were tricksters and anti-heroes. They were wildly popular stories because of the comical self-destruction, but it is misconception to think of them as heroes. The people hearing those stories were well aware that the protagonist was making poor choices. They’d shake their heads and laugh. Silly, Coyote. Won’t you ever learn?

J.J. Abrams’ latest film, STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS showcases an anti-hero, but Abrams doesn’t seem to realize it. James T. Kirk, in both of Abrams Trek films, has a severe case of Peter Pan Syndrome. He’s cocky, self-assured, eschews responsibility and believes that rules are made to be broken. This isn’t just inference. In STAR TREK, Captain Pike as a mentor figure directly tells him he needs to grow up. Throughout the first film, Kirk constantly challenges authority, never does what he is told, and mutinies on the Enterprise. He does whatever he wants to do and ends the film cocky, self-assured, eschews responsibility, and believes that rules are meant to be broken.

Having failed to learn discipline in the first film, yet, somehow rewarded with the captain’s chair, the second STAR TREK film begins with Captain Pike again lecturing Kirk that he needs to become a responsible adult. In other words, no character arc.

Starfleet in other incarnations of the Trek universe is a military institution based on exploration rather than combat, complete with authority, rules, and ranks. However, in Abrams’ universe they are bunch of Keystone cops. They are complacent and myopic and need someone to point out the obvious. Lacking a Wesley Crusher, it is Kirk who is the voice of “reason.” Reason in quotes because many of his solutions are illogical, high-risk gambles that shouldn’t work, but succeed through sheer luck.

In STAR TREK 2 (“Into Darkness” is meaningless within the context of the film), Kirk begins by being disciplined for his lack of competence by the authority figure: Starfleet/Pike. Now, since Starfleet is also incompetent, Kirks demotion was an empty threat. Pike, like a bad parent, gives-in and reinstates Kirk almost immediately. Sure it’s not as captain, but Pike’s instant death makes it so. Since Kirk hasn’t had the chance to prove himself as a leader--or even set foot on the bridge as First Officer, Starfleet should assign an experienced captain in his place. Did I mention Starfleet’s competence level? Kirk is now rewarded, for a second time, the captain’s chair he never earned.

This may sound like a quibble, but this Kirk is better suited to an action hero than a captain. John McClane can take out terrorists by himself because he’s a fighter, a warrior. A captain is a leader, and it requires that he do things like protect his crew and delegate responsibility. When a leader tries to micromanage things fall apart (in film or the real world). Making tough choices as captain and assuming the responsibility can be very dramatic. Shatner’s Kirk, Picard, and Adama are cinematic captains who have proven a hero doesn’t have to get into fist fights to be compelling heroes. Kirk, on the other hand, spends roughly half the film running around ships because he has to do everything himself. (Are there only five people on this ship?) It is more about glory-seeking than sacrifice.

Which is the other problem with this film in particular: no one does their job. Instead of sending security officers (it’s not just their job, it’s their name) to contain a prisoner, Kirk goes himself or maybe it’s the communications officer who goes to fight because that makes sense. Chekhov is put in charge of engineering (instead of someone who works in engineering) for the very thing Kirk refuses to do: Chekhov does what he’s told. Kirk likes that in his crew. If there were a few less lens flairs, he might take a look at his own reflection.

Scotty is the one exception to this issue, and, unsurprisingly is the standout character. He is competent. He knows regulations and follows them. He has a duty to protect his ship and he does so. Kirk actually gets in Scotty’s way of protecting the ship.

The best thing Kirk does for his crew in this film is die. But, since this film does not believe in consequences, he does not truly face death. It’s an extended nap. There’s nothing better to feed one’s arrogance than defeating death. So, there is little hope that Kirk learned anything in this film. He even ends with a lecture about putting aside vengeance, even though the whole movie was championing vengeance through Kahn against Walker and Kirk against Khan, then Spock against Kahn: all had personal vendettas. Kirk has learned nothing.

The arrogant action hero didn’t start here. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN has a rather cocky and self-centered protagonist. (Peter, why did you break up with your girlfriend instead of comforting her about her father’s death? Jerk.) But usually the hero learns some humility along the way. That has been lost. There is no personal growth, only a positive feedback loop that reinforces our ego. Ayn Rand’s unrepentant hero who is gifted above mere mortals and should be worshiped, not criticized. The greatest good is to serve the self, not others. No sacrifice is necessary, which is a very boring story to tell.

Media is swiftly tilting toward viewer-driven narratives. The lives of characters could hang by a tweet. In the past, the stories would guide civilization, but now, sadly, they seem to be following it.

STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS Review:

In full disclosure, I am a fan of Trek. I liked the original series and films, and the Next Generation. These are very different from Abrams take, and that is fine by me. I don’t hold it against the film that its a action film instead of science fiction. On first pass, I enjoy Abrams’ films; however, they crumble under scrutiny. The lens flares feel like they’re put there to literally blind you to the plot holes and weak story. I enjoy the ride while I’m on it, but there is an awful aftertaste.

Aside from a douche bag protagonist who never grows, these films bend common sense and repeat themselves. In the first film, Spock ejects Kirk off the Enterprise instead of putting him in the brig--a.k.a. the place designed to hold prisoners. Wasting an escape pod and not using the brig is, to use Spock’s very own catchphrase, highly illogical. It is done strictly for plot convenience to pick up Old Spock and Scotty. Lazy writing.

In the second film, the movie begins with a scene that violates its own logic. It is designed to demonstrate that Kirk cares about Spock and will break the rules to save a life of a friend. (Writing tip: When the protagonist saves someone they have relationship, it is natural because its self-serving. When they save those they don’t know, or even despise, it is heroic. This scene would’ve made Kirk more sympathetic if he broke the rules to save a red-shirt. He is trying to save a population of natives, but they are reduced to caricatures.) Plot wise, it sets up a temporary, and therefore narratively useless, demotion of Kirk for breaking the Prime Directive of non-interference. This, too, is irrelevant because their attempt to stop the volcano from erupting is itself interference.

Next, Spock is put in danger for no reason. He goes down into the volcano to set off a bomb that stops volcanoes--as everyone knows, volcanoes hate explosions. They can’t beam it in there, though beaming out works fine. And they can’t just fly over with a shuttle and drop it into the volcano because [reason not found]. I’m losing count of things that don’t make sense within this one scene.

They follow up that nonsense by parking a spaceship under water. Why is it underwater you may ask? Good question. The film doesn’t answer that. Ostensibly, it is to hide it from the native population, but that’s the whole reason they have transporters. It would be much easier to hide the giant spaceship in space, where it was before they lowered it into the ocean. (SPACEship. Think about it.)

There is a quick debate about saving Spock because doing so would reveal themselves to the natives, breaking the Prime Directive. They have already broken the Prime Directive by going on this mission. And, they wouldn’t have to reveal themselves if the ship had stayed in orbit. The time for debate is long past, but now they’re going to worry about it?

I could enjoy this film if it didn’t break its own logic and had a likeable protagonist. Abrams is a skilled filmmaker. He’s able to make us suspend disbelief for some truly ludicrous events for the duration of the film. To that end, he is a good director. I just hope that for Star Wars he gets a writer that can write likeable characters that make logical choices.

[fadetoblog-blog]

Which "Doctor Who"

With the recent announcement of The Doctor feature film I think I should finally post my critique of the rebooted series. You see the show made a distinct shift when Steven Moffat took over the reigns from the man who resurrected the series: Russell T. Davies. There are obvious shifts like the change in actor portraying the doctor and a jump in production value. The show has progressively gotten bigger budgets since its reboot in 2005. But the more important shifts are the more subtle ones in character and quality.

THE DOCTOR:

Davies' Doctor begins off having ended the Time War between his race of Timelords and their primary enemy, the soulless Daleks. His solution to ending the Time War resulted in his home planet, race, and enemy to burn up. The event was sealed off in a time lock, making him the only survivor. The guilt and rage haunts The Doctor who appears to be on a mission to escape (he states he's never stopped running since he was a child) and an attempt at redemption. In short, a hero with a dark past who is trying to lead a life of peace. That's good stuff.

Eccleson portrayed the Doctor as shut off from his past and he slaps on happy face now and then. David Tennant, arguably the best portrayal of The Doctor, plays him as a man who is burdened by the knowledge of the universe and copes with it through play, whimsy, and distraction until those few occasions when he is confronted by it. These moments are usually the Doctor at his best. He can be absent-minded as most genius are, but, he is typically the smartest (most clever) man in the room. He's always thinking, always thinking strategically as one must do to avoid violence. It's a lot of work being peaceful.

Regardless of the odds, and the cost, you knew that the Doctor would win in the end.

Moffat's Doctor, played by Matt Smith, is much different. He is more alien in that he seems dangerously unaware of human needs and fragility. He is detached from what's going on around him, and his companions often berate him. He is less competent and spends quite a bit of time stumbling around the sets. He is also more callous than we've seen him. Two things he did that the previous Doctor would never do: he used the word love in referring to his companions, and he wiped out Cybermen just to send a message.

THE SHOW:

There are several things that Moffat does that I personally do not like.

Doctor Light -- Moffat seems far more interested in the Doctor's companions then the Doctor himself. His spin on the show, and even the episodes he wrote for Davies, always featured more interesting secondary characters, giving the Doctor little to do. In fact, his best episode, "Blink", has the Doctor as a cameo.

One Note -- Not only does he focus on the companions but he just reuses the same characters. Rory and Amy are the same characters as Sally and Larry from "Blink". He is obsessed with the story of a pretty girl in love with a nerd, a theme that plays well with its fan base.

Reset the Story to Zero -- Moffat does something the previous Davies run not only avoided, but said was impossible, jumping back into your own timeline. At the end of Moffat's first season, the Doctor jumps around in time willy-nilly, usually for gags, and then caps off the season by resetting it all back to zero. He literally has the universe reset.

This last note breaks the first rule of time travel. Never use time travel to get out jail free. It's bad writing. More than that, it's lazy writing. The characters don't have to be clever, nothing has consequences, and it lowers the stakes. It's deus ex machina. Let the gods, or in this case Timelord time travelers, fix everything by preventing it from happening. 

Moffat's second season (series) at the helm, he did a similar thing. We see the Doctor die, but it's all just pretend. As it turns out he found another way out of it, we were just not aware of if. It is designed so Moffat can pop out and say, "Fooled You".

Yes, fool me once...

I have no interest in the series anymore. Though there are some wonderful sets, Moffat's universe never seems consistent or real. One day it's pirates, another it's Cyberman on space stations and headless monks. Davies' universe all feels like the same universe as our own and within the show.

And don't get me started on Matt Smith and his awkward use of props.

Too bad I don't believe in jumping in the same timeline. Otherwise the show could revisit a time when the show was about sacrifice, the preciousness of life, and morality. Instead all we have is nagging couples, blind devotion, and a startling (for a sci-fi show) disinterest in science fiction.

Our time machines, DVDs, are the only way to revisit a Doctor we can care about and respect. Because regardless of why you may watch the show, I doubt it's because you like the Doctor himself. 

[fadetoblog-blog]

The T.V. Series Naming Process

Staring Contest

Standing by Windows

Looking at Stuff

Another Dynasty

Peeping Toms

Voyeur

Revenge

[fadetoblog-blog]

D.C. Reboot: Costumes and Complaints

D.C. has one of the most well-known and beloved superheroes, but D.C. has one big problem: their fans. Their fans are loyal and fickle. Rabid and cold. If there's one thing a fanboy can do, it's complain -- loudly and forever. If you don't believe me, ask George Lucas.

In the STAR WARS universe, Lucas intent was to make a more sophisticated Buck Rogers serial. He borrowed heavily from effects, staging, and concepts. The ice-planet Hoth? Buck Rogers had one, but gave it the unfortunate name Frigiria (sp?) When the films came out, something happened Lucas hadn't anticipated. People took them seriously. The music, the effects, Ben Burtt, and Alec Guinness all conspired to make the film legit. But Lucas continues to tweak the films to make them more cluttered and light-hearted, while fans wish he'd accept the movies as they were received.

But I did not come here to talk about Lucas.  

D.C. has the opposite problem. They want to make their comic line more relevant and contemporary. Yet, the fans fell in love with the cheesy comics they knew before and fear change. They want it to be exactly the same but new.

The D.C. heads are now making their third attempt to clean up the clutter. The D.C. Universe, or DCU, has suffered two Crisis that rewrote the universe. They tried to clean up the past and preserve it, while making a fresh start. Since they never made a clean break, we're back to another reboot.

When D.C. originally announced the reboot, it sounded like welcome news. It was overshadowed by several bad decisions with Wonder Woman. First they let "Babylon 5" creator, J. Michael Straczynski, hack away at Wonder Woman. He had some bold ideas, but many of them were bad. Then they had the T.V. series pilot that was dead on arrival. Both the comic and the series had bad writing and bad costume choices. 

If you're reading this, I'm sure you're in the know. Those vinyl baby blue pants created a storm of disgust and anger. D.C. heard it and changed the color in post, but they could not change the story and dialogue problems.

I think this experience made D.C. fret over costume changes. They hedged their bets with the reboot, saying it was a 'soft reboot'. They weren't ditching all the backstory, which would infuriate long time fans, who, frankly, aren't getting any younger. They dithered again and again. 

Marvel avoided the nerd rage storm by creating an alternate line: Ultimate Marvel. It gave the characters a solid reboot with costume changes, updates, and simplified stories. D.C. failed to do the same so their stuck trying to please the old fans. It's the albatross around their neck.

Yet, D.C. seems to think that the thing the readers hate the most are costume changes. True some people freak out, but who cares? Their current costumes have baggage from long dead eras. Let it go already.

Batman changes his costume in every new book or artist change. No one raises an eyebrow (except the painted ones on Adam West's costume).

Green Lantern has gone through several costumes and even different heroes carrying the title. It happens.

Superman wearing his underwear on the outside is dumb. It's a hold-over from the old strongman costumes. So, unless Supes is going to sport a handlebar mustache and lift triangle weights, let it go. Let him wear underwear on the inside.

Wonder Woman would wear pants. She's a warrior princess. She'd wear what contemporary armor we have. We don't hate all pants; just the ones from the T.V. pilot. (Actually, we hate everything about that.) But black pants with her traditional, non-cowboy, boots, that's awesome! 

The time has passed to call the New 52 a hard reboot, but maybe when they clean it up again in ten years, they'll remember they can't please everyone. And trying to please everyone will please no one.

I do have hope for this new DCU.

Final Thoughts

Yes, you can write a compelling reason for Batman to have Robin. Yes, you can make a stupid character cool. But, D.C., it doesn't mean they have to exist in the core universe, or rather, a new universe.

Also, just because you own the rights to all these characters, doesn't mean they should exist in the same universe. Shazam and Superman in the same universe; it is a bit redundant. And will someone please kill off Detective Chimp and the Squirrel Green Lantern. It's embarrassing. 

[fadetoblog-blog]

Hello World

I finally have the blog name I wanted without getting creative with the spelling. FADE TO BLOG! As the name implies this blog will focus on cinema and writing.

However, I reserve the right to rant, and/or wax philosophical on any subject. I can do that on the Internet, right?

FADE OUT.