Sunday, September 20, 2009
Words Fail Me
I need a word that describes what you were thinking when you decide to make mac & cheese and try to substitute the mac with spaghetti.
On Comic Worlds
I love comics and believe there is a lot of potential for stories to be told in them. All too often though in the mainstream titles there is a limitation to what can be done. You can't have too many lasting changes otherwise you might alienate certain readers. Part of it is that you don't want to upset the fan boys, who are the ones paying cover price for comics and not just buying them in trades. I can understand not wanting to disregard your core audience, but in attempting to placate them means the ability to have progression is lost. Well at least seriously hindered. Add to that there is always that desire to draw in new readers. Many of the characters are iconic. There is a standard for each title that has to be maintained so that your typical person off the street won't be overwhelmed. Spider-Man is always the misunderstood hero. Batman is always fighting crime because of a sense of loss from his murdered parents. The X-Men are a band of renegade heroes that society doesn't understand and even hates.
There have even been several resets within comics to make sure things don't get too far ahead of themselves. Spider-Man got married over 20 years ago. He revealed his identity to the world. He had left his job at The Daily Bugle and became a teacher. Thanks to "magic" all that's been erased. He's back to living with the seemingly ageless and perpetually sick Aunt May. No one knows his identity and his marriage never existed. Not divorced. Just gone. It was felt that readers wouldn't be able to identify with a married Spider-Man. The guy dresses in blue and red spandex. Anyone who could identify with him is in need of serious help. Plus most serious comic readers aren't teenagers anymore. They're middle aged men. Some of whom have wives of their own. The mutant population was in the millions. They lived on islands and even had an entire district in New York City that was like Chinatown, but with mutants. It got to be that mutants weren't really special anymore. So again with "magic" all the mutants were gone (except of course for all the main characters and popular ones that brings in money). Mutants are again this weird little subset of species with their backs against the wall. The biggest resets are death itself. It's been joked about that no one stays dead in the comic world. The only real exceptions seem to be Uncle Ben and Thomas & Martha Wayne. They only stay dead to drive the main character to keep doing what they're doing. Hal Jordan dies saving the universe. He is replaced as Green Lantern by Kyle Rayner. Ten years later Hal Jordan is returned to life and restored as the primary Green Lantern. Nearly every character has been "killed" only to come back. Some take longer than others. Captain America's World War II sidekick, Bucky Barnes, was dead for nearly 40 years before coming back. Jason Todd, the second Robin, stayed dead for half that time. How someone cheats or beats death varies in its believability and quality, but the end result is the same: return things back to how they were.
It makes me wonder what these various comic worlds would look like if there was actual progression within them. Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four has always been called one of the smartest men in the world. In several comics he’s making quick comments about some random invention that’s for lack of a better word, fantastic. (Side note: The Thing has been essentially trapped in his rocky form for the better part of 40 years. Reed should have been able to come up with a cure by now. Ben being stuck as The Thing supposedly makes for a more interesting character, but it’s been 40 years. I think it’s safe to say that well has been tapped dry. In a world of make believe it comes off as unbelievable.) Their costumes aren’t even costumes. They’re unstable molecules which conform to the wearer’s body and don’t get destroyed when Human Torch bursts into flames. It also makes it easier for the artist so they don't have to draw fabric, but that’s really beside the point. He’s created super computers to help with his experiments. He has a flying car that can fly across the US in a short amount of time. Imagine if a good-natured scientist, who is already insanely rich was coming up with these breakthroughs every day. Would we still be using computers or driving in cars that burned gasoline or flying like cattle in a plane that takes hours to get you two states over? Hank Pym named subatomic particles after himself. These Pym Particles allow for size-alteration. Think of the medical advances that could be done by shrinking something. Cancer cells could be reduced to nothing. Imagine the applications of making something giant sized. Food grown at regular size could be expanded in size as needed. World hunger would be a memory. Tony Stark invented a suit of armor that essentially allows the wearer to fly, have super strength, and even go into space. The world of prosthetics would be drastically different. Stark even provided Misty Knight with a cybernetic hand to replace the one she lost. There are normally offhand comments about its expense, but with any technology the first is always the most expensive. So Cancer is gone. World hunger is gone. Reliance on fossil fuels is gone. If you’re hurt, you can be rebuilt to a point where you’re actually better than before. With those types of inventions why is the world still basically the same? Sure it’s possible that various governments or evil organizations could stop the spread of these advances. People sure do like their status quo (kind of the whole point of what I’m writing). Still at some point there would have to be some sign of advancement with just the sheer number of inventions being done.
Speaking of evil organizations, you’d think they too would have progressed beyond just a bunch of henchmen grouped together listening to a leader rant about how he’s going to take over the world. Think about what happens if you ever took over the world. Can you imagine the amount of administration that would go into something like that? It’s not like these things just take care of themselves and unless you want to be the ruler of a dead planet there is a lot of general upkeep to deal with. In a recent reboot of G.I. Joe Cobra Commander was revealed to be someone who thought of himself as a patriot. He was using terrorist actions to take back his country from what he thought was a corrupt government. In his mind he was essentially leading a revolution in the same way the colonists broke from the English. This felt more believable than just some former used car salesman who managed to convince everyone that he was going to rule the world. Of course eventually the comic turned back into the typical story of how Cobra comes up with some insane and outlandish plan and the Joes foil it again. It could have been an interesting twist on who was really the bad guy.
While we’re on the subject of bad guys, there are several instances where you’re forced to suspend disbelief. Considering these are worlds where people can teleport through force of will or manipulate the weather with a thought, it’s saying a lot that something is hard to believe. Lex Luthor was a criminal mastermind responsible for numerous deaths. He was sent to prison on more than one occasion for various crimes. Despite this he was somehow elected President. Granted given his past he was still not the worst President ever elected, but come on. How does that happen? Anyway he eventually wanders off the reservation in attempt to kill Superman and is removed from office. Once again he’s known as a criminal, an ex-President criminal at that. Still given time he’s cleared of all charges and attempts to return to being what most people know him as, just another businessman. As of right now he’s in full bad guy mode, but I’m sure given enough time he’ll somehow be restored back to evil billionaire bent on destroying Superman. He's one of the most well known people in Metropolis and it's expected that people will just forget all the horrible things he's done in the past. I'm a relative nobody and I still have a gym hounding me for membership dues from ten years ago. They never forget.
Another example of disbelief is one of Batman’s most known villains, (although the same can really be said about most villains) The Joker. He’s been around from the very beginning and is the complete antithesis of Batman, which I suppose is what makes him so popular not just among readers, but with writers as well. He’s killed countless people in countless ways, including the previously mentioned Robin (although since Jason Todd eventually got better from being dead, I guess it would only be considered attempted murder). Every time he’s caught by Batman and sent to Arkham Asylum, where given enough issues in between, he escapes to do it all over again. There comes a point where rationality has to supersede morality. Batman has a major no-killing rule even though he’s a vigilante and has no problem breaking bones, removing teeth, and causing serious psychological trauma to criminals. So of course the worst Joker ever has to worry about is getting beat up and tossed into a padded cell. This man will continue to spread pain and death as long as he’s alive so why is he allowed to live? No wonder Gotham City is always depicted as a festering cesspool. The criminals know that sure they may get hurt once and awhile, but just wait a bit and you’ll be able to keep doing what you’ve been doing. There is a Punisher series under the MAX label, which has taken Frank Castle out of the regular Marvel Universe and kept him in a seemingly self-contained world. It actually frees him up to do what he’s supposed to. He doesn’t go around beating up thugs, leaving them tied up for the cops to pick up. Instead he ends the threat by ending them. Now his character is very much on the extreme side of things, but I have to believe there could be a more reasonable middle ground. Cops are issued weapons and are expected to kill if needed. That doesn’t mean they’re killing every single criminal they come across. If you have a mass murderer who has killed before and is in the process of killing again, you don’t wring your hands about how crossing some invisible line is going to make you as bad as them. It’s such a lame argument and really just used as an excuse to make sure that the popular characters never are eliminated.
So with all that said, I’d love to see what these various comic worlds would look like if a writer actually attempted to expand on what things would really be like. What would the world be like with amazing technology that advances society into tomorrow? The world would have real consequences because death is a permanent state, not some place where you rest for a bit so you can become popular again. The villains have true motivations beyond just they’re evil, it’s what they do. They should be people, not sharks. The world should keep spinning and things shouldn’t always be the same.
There have even been several resets within comics to make sure things don't get too far ahead of themselves. Spider-Man got married over 20 years ago. He revealed his identity to the world. He had left his job at The Daily Bugle and became a teacher. Thanks to "magic" all that's been erased. He's back to living with the seemingly ageless and perpetually sick Aunt May. No one knows his identity and his marriage never existed. Not divorced. Just gone. It was felt that readers wouldn't be able to identify with a married Spider-Man. The guy dresses in blue and red spandex. Anyone who could identify with him is in need of serious help. Plus most serious comic readers aren't teenagers anymore. They're middle aged men. Some of whom have wives of their own. The mutant population was in the millions. They lived on islands and even had an entire district in New York City that was like Chinatown, but with mutants. It got to be that mutants weren't really special anymore. So again with "magic" all the mutants were gone (except of course for all the main characters and popular ones that brings in money). Mutants are again this weird little subset of species with their backs against the wall. The biggest resets are death itself. It's been joked about that no one stays dead in the comic world. The only real exceptions seem to be Uncle Ben and Thomas & Martha Wayne. They only stay dead to drive the main character to keep doing what they're doing. Hal Jordan dies saving the universe. He is replaced as Green Lantern by Kyle Rayner. Ten years later Hal Jordan is returned to life and restored as the primary Green Lantern. Nearly every character has been "killed" only to come back. Some take longer than others. Captain America's World War II sidekick, Bucky Barnes, was dead for nearly 40 years before coming back. Jason Todd, the second Robin, stayed dead for half that time. How someone cheats or beats death varies in its believability and quality, but the end result is the same: return things back to how they were.
It makes me wonder what these various comic worlds would look like if there was actual progression within them. Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four has always been called one of the smartest men in the world. In several comics he’s making quick comments about some random invention that’s for lack of a better word, fantastic. (Side note: The Thing has been essentially trapped in his rocky form for the better part of 40 years. Reed should have been able to come up with a cure by now. Ben being stuck as The Thing supposedly makes for a more interesting character, but it’s been 40 years. I think it’s safe to say that well has been tapped dry. In a world of make believe it comes off as unbelievable.) Their costumes aren’t even costumes. They’re unstable molecules which conform to the wearer’s body and don’t get destroyed when Human Torch bursts into flames. It also makes it easier for the artist so they don't have to draw fabric, but that’s really beside the point. He’s created super computers to help with his experiments. He has a flying car that can fly across the US in a short amount of time. Imagine if a good-natured scientist, who is already insanely rich was coming up with these breakthroughs every day. Would we still be using computers or driving in cars that burned gasoline or flying like cattle in a plane that takes hours to get you two states over? Hank Pym named subatomic particles after himself. These Pym Particles allow for size-alteration. Think of the medical advances that could be done by shrinking something. Cancer cells could be reduced to nothing. Imagine the applications of making something giant sized. Food grown at regular size could be expanded in size as needed. World hunger would be a memory. Tony Stark invented a suit of armor that essentially allows the wearer to fly, have super strength, and even go into space. The world of prosthetics would be drastically different. Stark even provided Misty Knight with a cybernetic hand to replace the one she lost. There are normally offhand comments about its expense, but with any technology the first is always the most expensive. So Cancer is gone. World hunger is gone. Reliance on fossil fuels is gone. If you’re hurt, you can be rebuilt to a point where you’re actually better than before. With those types of inventions why is the world still basically the same? Sure it’s possible that various governments or evil organizations could stop the spread of these advances. People sure do like their status quo (kind of the whole point of what I’m writing). Still at some point there would have to be some sign of advancement with just the sheer number of inventions being done.
Speaking of evil organizations, you’d think they too would have progressed beyond just a bunch of henchmen grouped together listening to a leader rant about how he’s going to take over the world. Think about what happens if you ever took over the world. Can you imagine the amount of administration that would go into something like that? It’s not like these things just take care of themselves and unless you want to be the ruler of a dead planet there is a lot of general upkeep to deal with. In a recent reboot of G.I. Joe Cobra Commander was revealed to be someone who thought of himself as a patriot. He was using terrorist actions to take back his country from what he thought was a corrupt government. In his mind he was essentially leading a revolution in the same way the colonists broke from the English. This felt more believable than just some former used car salesman who managed to convince everyone that he was going to rule the world. Of course eventually the comic turned back into the typical story of how Cobra comes up with some insane and outlandish plan and the Joes foil it again. It could have been an interesting twist on who was really the bad guy.
While we’re on the subject of bad guys, there are several instances where you’re forced to suspend disbelief. Considering these are worlds where people can teleport through force of will or manipulate the weather with a thought, it’s saying a lot that something is hard to believe. Lex Luthor was a criminal mastermind responsible for numerous deaths. He was sent to prison on more than one occasion for various crimes. Despite this he was somehow elected President. Granted given his past he was still not the worst President ever elected, but come on. How does that happen? Anyway he eventually wanders off the reservation in attempt to kill Superman and is removed from office. Once again he’s known as a criminal, an ex-President criminal at that. Still given time he’s cleared of all charges and attempts to return to being what most people know him as, just another businessman. As of right now he’s in full bad guy mode, but I’m sure given enough time he’ll somehow be restored back to evil billionaire bent on destroying Superman. He's one of the most well known people in Metropolis and it's expected that people will just forget all the horrible things he's done in the past. I'm a relative nobody and I still have a gym hounding me for membership dues from ten years ago. They never forget.
Another example of disbelief is one of Batman’s most known villains, (although the same can really be said about most villains) The Joker. He’s been around from the very beginning and is the complete antithesis of Batman, which I suppose is what makes him so popular not just among readers, but with writers as well. He’s killed countless people in countless ways, including the previously mentioned Robin (although since Jason Todd eventually got better from being dead, I guess it would only be considered attempted murder). Every time he’s caught by Batman and sent to Arkham Asylum, where given enough issues in between, he escapes to do it all over again. There comes a point where rationality has to supersede morality. Batman has a major no-killing rule even though he’s a vigilante and has no problem breaking bones, removing teeth, and causing serious psychological trauma to criminals. So of course the worst Joker ever has to worry about is getting beat up and tossed into a padded cell. This man will continue to spread pain and death as long as he’s alive so why is he allowed to live? No wonder Gotham City is always depicted as a festering cesspool. The criminals know that sure they may get hurt once and awhile, but just wait a bit and you’ll be able to keep doing what you’ve been doing. There is a Punisher series under the MAX label, which has taken Frank Castle out of the regular Marvel Universe and kept him in a seemingly self-contained world. It actually frees him up to do what he’s supposed to. He doesn’t go around beating up thugs, leaving them tied up for the cops to pick up. Instead he ends the threat by ending them. Now his character is very much on the extreme side of things, but I have to believe there could be a more reasonable middle ground. Cops are issued weapons and are expected to kill if needed. That doesn’t mean they’re killing every single criminal they come across. If you have a mass murderer who has killed before and is in the process of killing again, you don’t wring your hands about how crossing some invisible line is going to make you as bad as them. It’s such a lame argument and really just used as an excuse to make sure that the popular characters never are eliminated.
So with all that said, I’d love to see what these various comic worlds would look like if a writer actually attempted to expand on what things would really be like. What would the world be like with amazing technology that advances society into tomorrow? The world would have real consequences because death is a permanent state, not some place where you rest for a bit so you can become popular again. The villains have true motivations beyond just they’re evil, it’s what they do. They should be people, not sharks. The world should keep spinning and things shouldn’t always be the same.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Words Fail Me
I need a word for that overwhelming fear that no matter how careful you are, somehow if your hand gets too close to the garbage disposal you're going to be pulling back a stump.
On Modern Fears
It's really hard for me to stay current with modern fears because I seem to have this backlog of scary things that I just haven't gotten around to. I can't really worry about swine flu right now when I haven't finished being scared about Anthrax, SARS, bird flu, and global warming. Those are in addition to my ever present fears about cancer, getting old or sick in America, the general failing of our education system, and my penis falling off. So for now swine flu, or whatever they're trying to call it, is just going to have to wait until I can sort through the others. They were thrown in my face first.
Originally when it first broke to all the various media outlets the number of cases was in the triple digits. Be afraid because it's spreading so fast! Then about three days later it was corrected when the CDC said it was more likely less than twenty. Twenty people are sick out of 6.5 billion and I'm supposed to be afraid of this why? I'm not saying I disbelieve the seriousness of swine flu, but it's a cold. Sure it's not fun to get sick and there's a chance you could die from it, but is the chance really any greater? Since April there have been 4013 deaths from swine flu, which may seem like a lot. When you compare it to the number of people who had verified cases of the virus it's a small fraction. Annually there are 440,000 smoking related deaths and about 1.2 million people die in car crashes. The number of people who have died from swine flu so far comes out to less than 1% of the people who will die from smoking. In comparison to auto accidents it's so small it's not really even a number anymore. The CDC has even said that while the virus was serious, cases worldwide are typically mild. Hospitalization and death has been from people with other underlying conditions.
Problem is even knowing this I can't help but feel a slight twinge of fear. The other day I was out and someone had the sniffles. I felt uncomfortable around them and every time they'd snort I'd shudder. My mind was picturing the little viruses jumping from their snot and raping my immune system. I can see why the zombie genre is so popular. It's just our fear of other people. You're still you and technically they're still people, but they're mindless and herd together into this seemingly unstoppable wave of humanity. If you're not careful, you'll become one of them. One of the infected. That's how people are starting to look at each other. Going onto Amazon.com and buying masks and gloves so they can stay "clean" for a little while longer. I got news for you people. Even if they find a vaccine for swine flu that they can get out to everyone who wants it, there will be another virus tomorrow. They haven't cured the common cold because it's constantly evolving. And we're making them stronger. We can't keep dodging the bullet on the real super virus. Eventually something will come along that we should be afraid of, but we'll all be so numb to the every day crap that we won't even see it coming.
A couple years ago there was a movie called Civic Duty. It's really just a modern take on Rear Window. A regular guy has lost his job and spends way too much time looking at his neighbor, who he is convinced is a terrorist. Much like Rear Window you're not entirely sure what's going on until the end. Is he just another person who has been caught up in the blitz of fear? Even if he's telling the truth, who's going to believe him? It was a great example of how we're afraid of our neighbors. What's going on behind those closed doors?
So what's the point of all this fear? Are we supposed to be distracted by all the things that could get us so we don't see what's going on elsewhere? Sometimes I feel like an audience member watching a magic show. You're forced to focus on something small and don't realize the real threat. That's not to say these issues aren't important, but think of it this way. You wake up in the morning, your paint's peeling, your curtains are gone, and your water is boiling, which problem do you deal with first? None of them. The building is on fire. They've got us worrying about our curtains. You want something to really be scared of. Any society is about three missed meals away from anarchy. If we ever lost our ability to provide food for everyone you'd see just how terrifying other people can be.
If you weren't afraid before, you just haven't been paying attention...to the right things
Originally when it first broke to all the various media outlets the number of cases was in the triple digits. Be afraid because it's spreading so fast! Then about three days later it was corrected when the CDC said it was more likely less than twenty. Twenty people are sick out of 6.5 billion and I'm supposed to be afraid of this why? I'm not saying I disbelieve the seriousness of swine flu, but it's a cold. Sure it's not fun to get sick and there's a chance you could die from it, but is the chance really any greater? Since April there have been 4013 deaths from swine flu, which may seem like a lot. When you compare it to the number of people who had verified cases of the virus it's a small fraction. Annually there are 440,000 smoking related deaths and about 1.2 million people die in car crashes. The number of people who have died from swine flu so far comes out to less than 1% of the people who will die from smoking. In comparison to auto accidents it's so small it's not really even a number anymore. The CDC has even said that while the virus was serious, cases worldwide are typically mild. Hospitalization and death has been from people with other underlying conditions.
Problem is even knowing this I can't help but feel a slight twinge of fear. The other day I was out and someone had the sniffles. I felt uncomfortable around them and every time they'd snort I'd shudder. My mind was picturing the little viruses jumping from their snot and raping my immune system. I can see why the zombie genre is so popular. It's just our fear of other people. You're still you and technically they're still people, but they're mindless and herd together into this seemingly unstoppable wave of humanity. If you're not careful, you'll become one of them. One of the infected. That's how people are starting to look at each other. Going onto Amazon.com and buying masks and gloves so they can stay "clean" for a little while longer. I got news for you people. Even if they find a vaccine for swine flu that they can get out to everyone who wants it, there will be another virus tomorrow. They haven't cured the common cold because it's constantly evolving. And we're making them stronger. We can't keep dodging the bullet on the real super virus. Eventually something will come along that we should be afraid of, but we'll all be so numb to the every day crap that we won't even see it coming.
A couple years ago there was a movie called Civic Duty. It's really just a modern take on Rear Window. A regular guy has lost his job and spends way too much time looking at his neighbor, who he is convinced is a terrorist. Much like Rear Window you're not entirely sure what's going on until the end. Is he just another person who has been caught up in the blitz of fear? Even if he's telling the truth, who's going to believe him? It was a great example of how we're afraid of our neighbors. What's going on behind those closed doors?
So what's the point of all this fear? Are we supposed to be distracted by all the things that could get us so we don't see what's going on elsewhere? Sometimes I feel like an audience member watching a magic show. You're forced to focus on something small and don't realize the real threat. That's not to say these issues aren't important, but think of it this way. You wake up in the morning, your paint's peeling, your curtains are gone, and your water is boiling, which problem do you deal with first? None of them. The building is on fire. They've got us worrying about our curtains. You want something to really be scared of. Any society is about three missed meals away from anarchy. If we ever lost our ability to provide food for everyone you'd see just how terrifying other people can be.
If you weren't afraid before, you just haven't been paying attention...to the right things
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Words Fail Me
I need a word that describes when you're so hungry that you know whatever you eat will be fantastic and that actually makes it hard to decide because you don't want to ruin that feeling on just anything.
On FM Radio
This is my theory: At any given point in time on some radio station Foo Fighters is playing. If I had access to every radio station I'm sure I could prove this. It's a perfect example of why I can't stand FM radio. Just about everything that's played there feels like it's been packaged for some focus group. Nothing too loud. Nothing too long. Nothing too new. Yes there are "new" songs being released all the time. The latest from Green Day. The latest from Linkin Park. The latest by some band who couldn't think of a name and instead just started randomly throwing words together. I'm not saying those songs are bad. Those songs are just safe and are really just variations on whatever they released before. It makes me wonder who they're playing for. In today's age you can have an iPod with 10,000 of your favorite songs. There's XM radio that has over 70 different music channels. If you're near a computer there are dozens of streaming radio stations playing songs from bands you've probably never heard of. At least not if you've been listening to FM radio. So what's the target audience when it comes to FM radio? People with a lack of options?
Radio should be where you hear music not muzak. Whenever I get in my car, which has a bitchin tape deck and is the main reason I'm forced to listen to FM radio in the first place, I feel like I'm riding in an elevator about seven years in the future. The music playing today is going to end up being played softly in a grocery store where people hear it, smile softly as they remember the first time they heard it, and then pick out the fabric softener than really fits into their lifestyle. And who's deciding what gets to be on the radio anyway? Is it the listener? Is there some number I should be calling to say that I really haven't heard enough Nickelback today and I'd appreciate it if we could have a four song super set from them? Someone has to be deciding what's popular and what's not. I heard the Rob Zombie song from The Punisher soundtrack just once (it sucked) and never heard it again. Obviously someone somewhere is keeping track of these things. Who decides what's a hit song?
The term One-hit Wonder is used a lot in FM radio. There are some bands out there who managed to only come up with a single song that didn't sound like drywall screws in a blender. While others actually had several songs and even albums that are well known, outside of the mainstream. Warren Zevon was a respected musician outside of his Werewolves of London song. Jimi Hendrix only appeared on the Billboard Top 40 once. Using the Top 40 as the standard then he's just another One-hit Wonder. If you've ever been to Seattle's Experience Music Project then you know that's not true. So how many bands have been labeled as One-hit wonders and actually weren't? On the flip side how many bands have you heard where you think to yourself that you only liked the one song so how is it that they're still being played?
There is a radio station here that does this thing called 90 Minutes of the 90s. Because after only ten years it's really time we revisit all the great music from that decade. Really it's just an excuse to fill the air with more recycled music. The 90s lasted ten years. Why is it whenever I tune to that station on those horrible days when I'm driving between 12:00 and 1:30 that I only hear Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, The Offspring, and that one song by Seven Mary Three? With an entire decade's worth of music I shouldn't be hearing the same twelve songs on a loop. It's like a TV station playing episodes of Seinfeld and Friends in prime time and saying it's the best of the 90s. Sure those shows were great in their time, but with ten years worth of stuff, it's pretty limited to say it's the only thing. Then of course you've got radio stations out there who are playing the equivalent of The Jeffersons.
So it comes back to who is FM radio really for these days? Is there anyone out there that's listening happily to the fast food-ish music that's being broadcast?
If you weren't tired of listening, you just haven't been paying attention.
Radio should be where you hear music not muzak. Whenever I get in my car, which has a bitchin tape deck and is the main reason I'm forced to listen to FM radio in the first place, I feel like I'm riding in an elevator about seven years in the future. The music playing today is going to end up being played softly in a grocery store where people hear it, smile softly as they remember the first time they heard it, and then pick out the fabric softener than really fits into their lifestyle. And who's deciding what gets to be on the radio anyway? Is it the listener? Is there some number I should be calling to say that I really haven't heard enough Nickelback today and I'd appreciate it if we could have a four song super set from them? Someone has to be deciding what's popular and what's not. I heard the Rob Zombie song from The Punisher soundtrack just once (it sucked) and never heard it again. Obviously someone somewhere is keeping track of these things. Who decides what's a hit song?
The term One-hit Wonder is used a lot in FM radio. There are some bands out there who managed to only come up with a single song that didn't sound like drywall screws in a blender. While others actually had several songs and even albums that are well known, outside of the mainstream. Warren Zevon was a respected musician outside of his Werewolves of London song. Jimi Hendrix only appeared on the Billboard Top 40 once. Using the Top 40 as the standard then he's just another One-hit Wonder. If you've ever been to Seattle's Experience Music Project then you know that's not true. So how many bands have been labeled as One-hit wonders and actually weren't? On the flip side how many bands have you heard where you think to yourself that you only liked the one song so how is it that they're still being played?
There is a radio station here that does this thing called 90 Minutes of the 90s. Because after only ten years it's really time we revisit all the great music from that decade. Really it's just an excuse to fill the air with more recycled music. The 90s lasted ten years. Why is it whenever I tune to that station on those horrible days when I'm driving between 12:00 and 1:30 that I only hear Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, The Offspring, and that one song by Seven Mary Three? With an entire decade's worth of music I shouldn't be hearing the same twelve songs on a loop. It's like a TV station playing episodes of Seinfeld and Friends in prime time and saying it's the best of the 90s. Sure those shows were great in their time, but with ten years worth of stuff, it's pretty limited to say it's the only thing. Then of course you've got radio stations out there who are playing the equivalent of The Jeffersons.
So it comes back to who is FM radio really for these days? Is there anyone out there that's listening happily to the fast food-ish music that's being broadcast?
If you weren't tired of listening, you just haven't been paying attention.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Words Fail Me
I need a word to describe that sensation you get when you're reversing in a car and shift into drive, but for a moment you're still traveling backwards and aren't quite sure if the car is going to get on board with moving in a forward direction.
On Reimagining a Remake
Let's just start off with that I think most remakes are unnecessary. Just watch the original. It's a step down from a sequel, which is really done to progress the story further. It's a step up from a prequel (one of the stupidest terms we have to deal with), that is just a way to bore us to death with how we got to the first movie, which is now technically the second movie even though it was the original. There are enough books, plays, comic books, TV shows, toy brands, video games, social networks, and funny catch phrases out there that we shouldn't be seeing a swarm of remakes every year.
Don't get me wrong. Actually I don't care if you get me wrong. Sometimes a remake works and adds something new to an existing idea. This has happened once in the entire history of film. It was when Alfred Hitchcock remade his own movie The Man Who Knew Too Much.
That's not entirely true. There have been plenty of remakes that stood on their own and did a good job of modernizing the concept for current audiences. The horror genre is probably the one hit most by this. Just about every major horror movie I grew up with has been remade or is slated to be reimagined (another one of the stupidest terms we deal with). Some are able to update the general idea or even expand on it while most others confuse gore and CGI for a plot. Then there is the rare exception that does less than nothing. An example of this would be the remake of Psycho. What the hell was that? I felt like I was watching a film school experiment in shot-for-shot masturbation. Eventually we'll get to a point where people are watching the third or fourth remake of something. I can't wait for them to remake The Fly again.
I've come to the realization that the more you like a movie the more you should avoid its eventual remake. I love Red Dawn and there is no way in hell I'm going to watch the remake. Unless you can promise me that Jennifer Grey is somehow going to get gunned down there is nothing you can offer me I can't see in the original. I was pretty much indifferent to the original Halloween and didn't see it as the horror standard that it's been made out to be. So I was able to walk into the remake with no expectations.
Why is it generally accepted that a movie can be remade or reimagined? It's not done elsewhere. Sure there are cover songs and even cover bands, but it would be insane for some band to attempt to release a remake of Led Zeppelin II. It's ok for someone to remake The Birds, but lunacy for someone to rewrite Stephen King's The Stand. Why is one accepted and the other isn't? Another horrifying thought, what if we're not that far off from it? I know how to work a computer, I think I'm going to take a stab at rewriting Dune, but you know, make it more modern so more troglodytes can appreciate it. At some point aren't what we watching just plagiarism?
There are so many remakes that Wikipedia had to dedicate TWO pages to them all. Think about that.
If you weren't annoyed before, you just haven't been paying attention
Don't get me wrong. Actually I don't care if you get me wrong. Sometimes a remake works and adds something new to an existing idea. This has happened once in the entire history of film. It was when Alfred Hitchcock remade his own movie The Man Who Knew Too Much.
That's not entirely true. There have been plenty of remakes that stood on their own and did a good job of modernizing the concept for current audiences. The horror genre is probably the one hit most by this. Just about every major horror movie I grew up with has been remade or is slated to be reimagined (another one of the stupidest terms we deal with). Some are able to update the general idea or even expand on it while most others confuse gore and CGI for a plot. Then there is the rare exception that does less than nothing. An example of this would be the remake of Psycho. What the hell was that? I felt like I was watching a film school experiment in shot-for-shot masturbation. Eventually we'll get to a point where people are watching the third or fourth remake of something. I can't wait for them to remake The Fly again.
I've come to the realization that the more you like a movie the more you should avoid its eventual remake. I love Red Dawn and there is no way in hell I'm going to watch the remake. Unless you can promise me that Jennifer Grey is somehow going to get gunned down there is nothing you can offer me I can't see in the original. I was pretty much indifferent to the original Halloween and didn't see it as the horror standard that it's been made out to be. So I was able to walk into the remake with no expectations.
Why is it generally accepted that a movie can be remade or reimagined? It's not done elsewhere. Sure there are cover songs and even cover bands, but it would be insane for some band to attempt to release a remake of Led Zeppelin II. It's ok for someone to remake The Birds, but lunacy for someone to rewrite Stephen King's The Stand. Why is one accepted and the other isn't? Another horrifying thought, what if we're not that far off from it? I know how to work a computer, I think I'm going to take a stab at rewriting Dune, but you know, make it more modern so more troglodytes can appreciate it. At some point aren't what we watching just plagiarism?
There are so many remakes that Wikipedia had to dedicate TWO pages to them all. Think about that.
If you weren't annoyed before, you just haven't been paying attention
On Identity Theft
First off you don't want my identity. I don't even want my identity. Never mind the fact that I owe so much in student loans that I'm seriously considering faking my own death to get out of them. I'm on the Your Children Will Be Paying These Off Plan. I'm also kind of a boring person so the second you charge the jet ski rental in the Bahamas the bank is going to be alerted. I've already gotten calls the previous two times my card number was stolen. They were just short of "There's no way in hell you did something that awesome." If you want to spend $5834.12 in tacos and comics then you might consider my identity.
My problem with credit cards these days is that no one seems to ask for identification or even a signature. I've heard varying amounts that the purchase has to be over before they bother to check. $25 all the way up to $50. Nearly 10 million people were hit by some form of identity theft last year. Why would businesses make it easier to allow people to use a stolen credit card? If you use a credit card on a regular basis think about your weekly purchases. How many times did someone even glance up at you when you swiped it through? Now think about how fast you could max out your card just with little purchases. I'd say it wouldn't take more than a few days. If you're thinking like a thief you may start off slow, hoping you don't get noticed and then just running for the finish as you figure someone has to be looking at their statement soon. If you're not thinking at all, you might just go crazy and buy everything on the left side of the menu at Morton's Steakhouse.
So why are more and more businesses going the route of next to no security when it comes to credit cards? Is it a matter of convenience for the customer? Is our world so fast paced that a person can't be bothered to show an ID or sign a receipt saying you approve the charge? That would have been like handing someone a blank check and just assuming they'd fill out the correct amount for you. Maybe it's just assumed that the bank or credit card company has a system to deal with it. Some banks are better than others, but no matter how good you're going to be looking at 5-7 days before a replacement card comes in and possibly several weeks before they fully refund the charges. Is that a worthwhile trade off for the 7.3 seconds you save by not having to sign your credit card receipt?
If you weren't scared before, you just haven't been paying attention.
My problem with credit cards these days is that no one seems to ask for identification or even a signature. I've heard varying amounts that the purchase has to be over before they bother to check. $25 all the way up to $50. Nearly 10 million people were hit by some form of identity theft last year. Why would businesses make it easier to allow people to use a stolen credit card? If you use a credit card on a regular basis think about your weekly purchases. How many times did someone even glance up at you when you swiped it through? Now think about how fast you could max out your card just with little purchases. I'd say it wouldn't take more than a few days. If you're thinking like a thief you may start off slow, hoping you don't get noticed and then just running for the finish as you figure someone has to be looking at their statement soon. If you're not thinking at all, you might just go crazy and buy everything on the left side of the menu at Morton's Steakhouse.
So why are more and more businesses going the route of next to no security when it comes to credit cards? Is it a matter of convenience for the customer? Is our world so fast paced that a person can't be bothered to show an ID or sign a receipt saying you approve the charge? That would have been like handing someone a blank check and just assuming they'd fill out the correct amount for you. Maybe it's just assumed that the bank or credit card company has a system to deal with it. Some banks are better than others, but no matter how good you're going to be looking at 5-7 days before a replacement card comes in and possibly several weeks before they fully refund the charges. Is that a worthwhile trade off for the 7.3 seconds you save by not having to sign your credit card receipt?
If you weren't scared before, you just haven't been paying attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)