And the Movie Was Pretty Good Otherwise

So there's a bit in Funny People that got my attention. One of the subplots is a pretty standard loser-comedy romance: Boy meets girl, boy turns out to be way too shy and awkward to actually interact with girl, roommate sleeps with girl. Pretty standard stuff. All you need is a discussion on how girls only sleep with jerks and shun guys who actually care about them, and you're set. And Funny People does hang around in that territory for a while.

But then . . . the guy in question realizes that he's done something weird by getting mad at this girl he hardly knows for sleeping with his roommate, apologizes, and then ends up going on a date with her, wherein making out and perhaps other things happen. The moral of the story is: "Of course women won't sleep with you if you never ask. Having actual conversations with them helps, too."

It was very weird. Not only did the movie demonstrate why the Nice Guy routine doesn't work, it did so in-character and made something of a big deal out of it. Which I wasn't expecting. I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but it wasn't that. Really quite refreshing.

Sunshine and Mongol

So I've been watching some movies lately, in between being massively busy and accompanying mental exhaustion. Sunshine and Mongol.

Sunshine was awesome, but frustrating. It could have been one of the best science fiction movies of the decade, maybe ever, except that this ranting over-make-upped Batman villain kept popping up, teleporting around, and strangling people who had just stabbed him. Great. On the bright side, I think a lot of it would have been fixed if they'd just cut out his lines; the movie does use the extra tension well, and without lines he fits in pretty well as just another menace of the sun.

Mongol was neat, and was worth seeing (haven't seen the new Hulk movie yet, but I loved the first one so I'm not to sure about the new, improved, more fight scenes less staring at flowers Hulk) but not so engaging that I didn't spend most of the moving trying to figure out how to make it an RPG setting. A bunch of tribes, all mobile but with home bases, PCs adventuring in part to gain warriors and power, (maybe rivals, maybe siblings or all supporters of one of their number) a mysterious mountain shrine where the gods live -- I need to fiddle with it, but it could work.

Random Thoughts on Iron Man

I loved Iron Man. Awesome movie. Shame I didn't get a chance to write about it until now, but thems the breaks.

I wasn't expecting it to be so funny. It works. It would have been interesting if they'd put one of those testing videos Tony Stark took on YouTube, but it obviously wasn't necessary.

I love tech-y, shiny, robot type stuff. I knew the movie had the suit in it, but then it turns out to have even more robot awesome, and I am officially happy.

I was impressed by the psychology of the movie. I think this movie has the most coherent explanation for why its superhero became what he is, out of all of them that have come out so far.

And his relationship with Pepper Pots seemed more human than the sort of "no, I can't love you, it's too dangerous" business most superheroes satsify themselves with. I mean, it had that, but it had a lot more than that--we work together and depend on each other but I'm desperately afraid of commitment, etc. Standard pieces for relationship movies, but stretching the superhero box a bit.

And--this is a personal thing, not analysis--I liked Tony Stark. A lot more than I like, say, Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne. I sympathize with Peter, and Spiderman, and I accept Bruce Wayne as necessary. But I don't even particularly like Batman, as a person, I just think he's cool.

I hadn't realized that, until I saw Iron Man. It made him a likable guy. A messed up guy, but in an understandable way. And, in the end, a mostly decent guy.

Not That I Need A Reason

Transformers is awesome.

I've seen it twice already. I may go see it again in theaters, and I'll definitely watch it twelve times when it comes out on DVD.

I spent a long time trying to figure out why. I have two posts, 500 words, trying to explain why. Like I had to justify myself. Pointing out all the reasons why it's good, all the aspects of it that are good.

Except that's not why I like this movie. I could go on and on about the acting, the writing, the music, the cinematography, whatever. It's good, it's not good, ultimately, it doesn't matter. Because that's none of that is why I like the movie. It may be what allows me to like the movie, but it's not why.

I like this movie because I can honestly imagine hanging out with the Autobots. Doing this, just chilling, whatever. I can imagine enjoying being around them.

It hit me, as I was trying to explain why I like this movie, that this is what defines the stories that I truly love. Hulk, Hellboy, Animorphs. There are others. X-Men satisfies this criteria, to a somewhat more limited extend, and Oblivion probably falls in this category. Maybe Reboot. But those are the main ones--and now Transformers falls solidly in that category.

These are stories that I desperately want to be real. I feel like that in a general way about a number of things: robots, AI generally, (friendly) aliens, space travel. (This is why I read science fiction. I want it to be true.) But these are specific stories that I want to be true. These are characters that I want to be real. These are people I want to meet.

That's why Transformers is awesome.

That's Not How Money Works

Apparently, Fox thinks they're allowed to deface U.S. currency for profit.

I know a bit about currency. Part of my elementary education. Mostly what I remember is, "Money is fancy! Don't mess with it! The Secret Service will get you!"

I don't recall, "Unless you have a really good reason! Like money!"

Mostly, I like how they didn't intend to “suggest that there was any approval from the U.S. Mint or the U.S. Government.” That's what money means: the U.S. Government has approved this metal. They say it's worth something. Otherwise, it's not money. If something is on money, and it still functions as money, that literally means, "the government is cool with this."

Note that the Franklin Mint is a private company--that's not entirely clear in the article linked. New York Times has a better article (meaning: not cribbed from the AP) but you have to sign up for a free account.

An Improvement

Someone should dub The Matrix with dialog that consists exclusively of internet memes.

"HA! HA! I'm using teh internets!"
"Hax!"
"I'm in ur base, killing ur doods"

It's like they were made for each other.

Transformers On The Brain

I want to see the movie. It looks wicked cool. And I never even saw the TV show. Except for a couple of episodes of Armada. I always kind of wanted to watch it more often, but I never got around to it.

I've seen enough, though, to know that it's awesome. And now I can't stop thinking about the movie. Even if it's not very good, it's going to have giant, CGI robots. That turn into cars. You don't get enough of that in your modern cinema going experience.

And, of course, my newfound interest in all things Transformer has led me back to Optimus Rhyme. Found the website a while ago through MC Chris's, liked it, and now I'm back into it. Rap music about robots. Truly, one of the greatest styles of artistic expression ever devised.

There's no way I can stop these thoughts cause I'm hardcoded

Robot angst. Everyone knows I'm all over that.

Children of Men

Children of Men was better than I thought it'd be.

See, I have this love-hate relationship with science fiction movies. I love science fiction. I hate science fiction movies. They always get it wrong.

Science fiction is about extrapolation. You start with "what if?" and you work from there. The complications need to tie into the world, what makes it different from the real world, what makes it science fiction.

Otherwise, it's not science fiction. If it could work in a different setting--if your story is "a western, in space," it's not science fiction. It's got the trappings, but not the mechanics.

Note that this doesn't mean that shows like Firefly aren't science fiction. (I use "western" because it's traditional, when making this particular point.) Firefly is actually an example of the reverse of this phenomena. It's got western flavor, but develops its plots in a science fictional manner: pick an aspect of the setting, figure out how that aspect could cause problems for the protagonists.

Science fiction movies--or rather, the movies people call science fiction--don't generally do this. Or they don't do it well. They tend to be too concerned with blowing things up and making philosophical points.

The Matrix is an example. I loathe this movie, with a totally unwarranted passion. And I mean the original, not the latter two--haven't even seen the third. People think it's deep, and they think it's science fiction. It's not. It (or rather, it's hack writers/directors) starts with a philosophical point it wants to make, and then puts together a patchwork setting that exists only to make this point. It's got no depth, except for some idiocy about vitamins. And that doesn't even count, because it was old hat when Asimov was writing robot novels.

I guess that's what I like about Children of Men, at least now, before I've had the chance to really think about it. It's got depth. It's got a number of different challenges and plot twists, all based on the setting. It brings up things that are never fully explained ("your parents were in New York when it happened") because they don't need to be, but they still make sense.

It's got a sense of verisimilitude. The story comes from the world, not the other way around.

And I liked the music--felt all future-y without being stupid, and there was a lot of Beetles, which made sense in the context of the world.

Plan 9 From Outer Space

I watched Plan 9 From Outer Space a couple of nights ago. It's a spectacularly bad movie, and everyone should see it. After watching Ed Wood.

I have nothing else to say. Because I'm busy.

Dingus Ahoy!

So, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 does indeed have two separate, unrelated sequences where the heroes roll down the hill in a barrel. I'm not sure this was entirely necessary. (Spoilers ahead. Sort of.)

It invites comparisons to Star Wars, when taken as the second installment of a trilogy. The first movie was basically, self contained, because they don't know if they're going to be able to make a second. The second movie builds on what the first did, and ends with all these wacky cliffhangers. You know how the next one's going to start: they have to go rescue Han S--I mean, Captain Jack Sparrow. And you know who the big bad guy is, and why. (The heart, the death star--the details are different, but the basic message is the same.)

I still haven't quite wrapped my head around the structure. This thing has, at barest minimum, three separate dinguses. The heart, the compass, and Jack Sparrow. So you've got one people need because they want the other(s), one that starts out as two separate dinguses and then keeps transforming into different ones, and one that's actually a person, with all the wacky hijinks accompanying that trick.

That's a lot of dinguses. Add in the number of people after those dinguses, and just figuring who has what becomes an adventure in itself.

The other thing I noticed was there's just a lot of stuff in it. Stuff that only shows up for one sequence. (the cannibal/villager people never show up again) Stuff that is there mostly to make things even more complicated. (The jar of dirt being sort of a case in point. The only reason that item is there is so they can pull the three-way split.)

And then there's stuff that's just sort of there--like Davy Jones playing the organ. It's cool, and it adds a bit of complication to one scene, but they could have done the same thing with something else--something that didn't involve taking thirty seconds to show him playing it. But it's cool, because it links him up with the Phantom of the Opera and associated awesomeness.

The letters in the chest also stand out. They could easily have been taken out. They serve no mechanical purpose at all. But they're still really cool, because it's obvious what they are, and it underscores exactly what the heart is.

There's mostly just a lot going on. More than in your typical summer blockbuster. Maybe more than was in the original movie--I haven't watched it in a while. But I don't recall it having all the different characters and interlacing plots that this had. It did have several dinguses, though. And although it didn't have the amazing transforming dingus, it did pull a similar kind of sleight of hand with the whole "Ha ha! Not Turner! You fail!" thing.

Needs To Be Said

I'm not planning on seeing 300.

It's probably a good movie. I don't care.

The "Look we have computers! Shiny!" thing not promising. When Time does a piece on how your movie is a "sign of things to come" in the movie industry, because it involves technology, that's not good. It indicates that the movie's focus is on the shiny, shiny graphics, which is where we get things like Phantom Menace.

Of course, it's also where you get thins like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and that was a good movie. It was all about the shiny, shiny graphics, but what it was showing was cool enough that it was good. Giant robots attacking New York? Good. Vaguely Spartan MEN! MANLY MEN! talking about how "free" they are? Not so much.

Mostly, I'm kind of off Frank Miller. Since I figured out that his subtexts weren't limited to weird crypto-fascism, "but he's a genius!" hasn't seemed like much of an excuse.

Because if what you're doing is evil, being really good at it doesn't make it any less evil. Depicting women as sex objects, as accessories and plot devices for the male characters, as anything less than human, is evil.

Because it ties into and supports a culture that says, "women can't . . ." because they're women. A culture that says they're not as smart as men, or not as stupid. A culture that restricts human potential based on gender, and that's evil.