I know what you're thinking and no I'm not kidding. I am dead serious.
I saw the title and immediately thought "OH MY GOD I MUST SEE THIS MOVIE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE".
So tonight I did.
Honestly, as far as what I expected..... I expected more of it.
See, from the trailer it was very obvious that this movie took itself super seriously, which is exactly why I was so eager to see it. It's bound to be hilarious, right? Such a stupid concept combined with such a dead serious tone is just a recipe for laughs, I think we know that by now. And there were a few times where it actually was really freakin' funny. Like, the part where they're fighting in the middle of a horse stampede (and somehow no one's getting trampled or anything like that) and then the vampire grabs a running horse by the legs, swings around and flings it at Abraham Lincoln. I will admit, I laughed for five straight minutes at that, it was just the funniest thing. And then Abraham Lincoln's silver dipped ax also conveniently converts into a gun if you pull off the blade. Seems legit, right? I laughed so hard. Not to mention all the fight scenes where for some reasons the lights turn off when the fight happens and turn back on the minute it's over, with the random guitar riffs in the background. You better believe I laughed.
The problem is that there just wasn't enough of that stuff for me to enjoy it as much as I'd anticipated. I mean, there aren't many times where you're going to see me dissing a movie because it wasn't stupid enough, but seriously, this movie wasn't stupid enough. The thing is, if you're doing a movie about Abraham Lincoln fighting slavery not because of, y'know, equal rights and abuse and all that stuff, but because all the Confederate slave owners were vampires, you need to go all out with it, okay? Don't be stopping short at, well, at anything. We need more vampires flinging horses around. I mean, how about instead of that cliche fighting on top of a moving train, why don't we just have a vampire throw the train at someone? THAT would have been great.
Now, my reading of the (utterly FANTASTIC) novel Dracula, along with my unhealthy obsession with Buffy the Vampire Slayer kinda means that I have a healthy library of knowledge about the mythology of vampires, okay? For instance, fun fact, the original vampires were probably just people with rabies or similar diseases, because rabies would A) make people bite other people, B) Make them sensitive to sunlight, and C) Make them sensitive to garlic. Wasn't that fact fun?
And this was completely not the point of the movie at all, but it irritated me because they got the mythology of the vampire TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG.
Silver does not hold off a vampire. Silver will hold off a werewolf, not a vampire. Therefore, a silver dipped ax (that converts into a rifle) will not be any more effective than an ordinary ax (that converts into a rifle). Silver bullets will kill a werewolf, not a vampire. I mean, you've got your holy water, your crosses, your garlic. Why not dip your ax in holy water? Whatever.
Also, just repeatedly chopping an ax into a vampire, as bizarre as it seems, will not kill it. The ONLY way to kill a vampire is to get them in the heart with a wooden stake, get them in sunlight long enough to burn them to death (the vampires in this movie had no problem with sunlight whatsoever though so whoops) and cut off their heads. That's it. Stop making stuff up, for god's sakes, the mythology of the vampire is already kinda out there, and there's no need to tamper with it.
Also... vampires can be good.
Now that's been a running theme in recent vampire mythology, but the thing is, even in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, whose good vampire character was extremely bland and boring (at least on the original show.... his spin-off kinda made him a much easier character to watch) at least it stayed true to the original mythology, because the thing is that vampires lose their souls. They lose what makes them human. That's what makes them demons. DUH DOY. They have the skills and memories of the original person, but lose their soul, which as far as I can tell, entails their conscience and anything that makes them willing to do good, or even willing to avoid badness. Literally all vampires are inherently evil, okay?
So how is it that this vampire character in this movie can just make a snap decision to be good and hate his kind after he was turned? And why aren't other vampires the same way? And the thing is, he still kills people though. I mean, rapists and similar assholes, but he's still killing people. Apparently, since Abraham Lincoln's like his bestie and never makes a move to kill him ever, he's perfectly fine with that.
But whatever. One should probably not be questioning the logic of a movie such as this one.
The real problem with this movie is that I was looking forward to something like Rocky Horror Picture Show and ended up getting Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows. If you don't know those movie references you need to start watching some movies.
Took itself way too seriously. That was the problem. And that was part of the reason the funny parts were funny, but it just tried way too hard.
Plus, it wasn't even THAT good of a story.
I feel sad because I was really expecting to like it more.
Oh well.
2.5/5 stars.
P.S This is the second movie I've seen where the guy who plays Wash on Firefly plays a racist asshat. In this movie he's a politician trying to do away with the abolition act, and also in the movie 42 (which is a really good movie that I seriously recommend you watch - it's about Jackie Robinson, who was the first black major league baseball player) he plays a baseball player who continually shouts the N word at the black player.
I'm not sure what exactly this says about the actor, it's just an observation.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Guess What? I Gots Meself a Life!
Not really though.
I'm just saying that my blog posts are going to be a lot more infrequent because ME AND JACEY ARE FINALLY PUTTING A FILM PROJECT INTO ACTION!!!!!!! :D
So, due to the nature of the project (a spoofy Hunger Games, turned into a musical by using High School Musical songs [It shouldn't work as well as it does]) I'm going to be very occupied with other things. Jacey's writing the scripts, but I'm arranging all the music, which is effortful. One day a week we're going to be working on it, alternating between recording the music for the scenes one week and filming the scenes the next. So between arranging, recording, filming and holy freaking cow the editing, I'm going to be busy.
Also, I guess homework and martial arts and all that jazz. And riding my bike every day. Well, as soon as I have a functioning iPod that'll be happening again, anyways.
Hey, want a sneak preview?
That's kinda too bad. We're not starting the thing from scratch, but what we did last year is kinda useless since it's just us two now. (We figured that it was more of a chore for our other friends when we got them involved, so it was better only to involve people who are passionate about the project).
You'd think that it would be harder with only two people playing every character and doing all the filming and everything, but it's really not! Actually, I legitimately think we're MORE productive when it's only us two. Last week we managed to film three scenes with a musical number each, throughout which I had four costume changes and Jacey had two, all in less than three hours. (And keep in mind that we had to do every scene and every musical number at least twice due to the costume changes.) I am damn proud of us.
But anyways, if you want a gist of what it looks like, I'll show you the original with our friend Alexis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZw0Or7mQuI
I'm actually proud of that scene, even if we're not going to end up using it. That was my first time I really utilized the transitions in order to adjust the mood of a scene. Also the first time I tinkered with lighting to adjust the mood.
Perhaps I'm just an artsy fartsy brat, but I legitimately think I'm growing as a filmmaker. Which makes me very happy. :)
Anywho, the point is, I'm going to be busy, and I know you all wait on the edge of your seat to read my stupid opinions, but odds are, they're going to be a lot more infrequent. Sorry. Do check back once in a while, because I haven't stopped writing them completely, it's just going to be more infrequent.
Ta ta for now.
I'm just saying that my blog posts are going to be a lot more infrequent because ME AND JACEY ARE FINALLY PUTTING A FILM PROJECT INTO ACTION!!!!!!! :D
So, due to the nature of the project (a spoofy Hunger Games, turned into a musical by using High School Musical songs [It shouldn't work as well as it does]) I'm going to be very occupied with other things. Jacey's writing the scripts, but I'm arranging all the music, which is effortful. One day a week we're going to be working on it, alternating between recording the music for the scenes one week and filming the scenes the next. So between arranging, recording, filming and holy freaking cow the editing, I'm going to be busy.
Also, I guess homework and martial arts and all that jazz. And riding my bike every day. Well, as soon as I have a functioning iPod that'll be happening again, anyways.
Hey, want a sneak preview?
That's kinda too bad. We're not starting the thing from scratch, but what we did last year is kinda useless since it's just us two now. (We figured that it was more of a chore for our other friends when we got them involved, so it was better only to involve people who are passionate about the project).
You'd think that it would be harder with only two people playing every character and doing all the filming and everything, but it's really not! Actually, I legitimately think we're MORE productive when it's only us two. Last week we managed to film three scenes with a musical number each, throughout which I had four costume changes and Jacey had two, all in less than three hours. (And keep in mind that we had to do every scene and every musical number at least twice due to the costume changes.) I am damn proud of us.
But anyways, if you want a gist of what it looks like, I'll show you the original with our friend Alexis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZw0Or7mQuI
I'm actually proud of that scene, even if we're not going to end up using it. That was my first time I really utilized the transitions in order to adjust the mood of a scene. Also the first time I tinkered with lighting to adjust the mood.
Perhaps I'm just an artsy fartsy brat, but I legitimately think I'm growing as a filmmaker. Which makes me very happy. :)
Anywho, the point is, I'm going to be busy, and I know you all wait on the edge of your seat to read my stupid opinions, but odds are, they're going to be a lot more infrequent. Sorry. Do check back once in a while, because I haven't stopped writing them completely, it's just going to be more infrequent.
Ta ta for now.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Narrow-Mindedness vs. Stupidity
Sometimes I'm not the nicest person around. There are some people in a few of my classes I can be a real know-it-all b*tch to. The thing, and I'm always telling my friends this, I simply can't stand stupid people.
Except I realized today that that actually wasn't true.
I've got nothing against people who may be kind and fun and a good person, but who may not be the brightest person around. While most of my friends can be deemed quite intelligent in one form or another, I have had less close friends who may not be the smartest people around, but were fun to talk to and nice and kind and not a bad person to be friends with. And I've got nothing against those people.
No, what I realized today was that it's not that I can't stand stupid people.
It's that I can't stand narrow-minded people.
Huge difference.
Stupid people, for the purposes of this post, are people who maybe don't think about what they say before they say it, people who don't know when they're doing anything wrong, no matter how often they do it, people who maybe don't do as well in school. None of these kinds of traits exclude actually being a nice and fun person, so for that I have nothing against them.
Narrow-minded people, on the other hand, are people who will never ever consider appreciating something that they hadn't been appreciating beforehand, people who dismiss what someone suggests as dumb before they even really learn about it, people who never try new things, either just to check it out, or for work, or whatever. These are the kinds of people that I simply cannot stand.
There's a kid in my English class. And he's an idiot. And that wouldn't bother me too much if he were a nice, well-meaning idiot. It might get irritating but I would endure. But the thing is that he is the kind of idiot who is convinced that he knows exactly what he's talking about, who is certain that everything worth doing he has already done, and if anyone disagrees with him they are wrong. Narrow-minded as hell.
Don't get me wrong, he's provided some good laughs. He once complained, "This book is so boring, god! It's like eating a sandwich full of nails!" Then he got up and walked away somewhere, so me and my fellow tablemates didn't have to hold in our laughter.
But the thing is that he complains all the time that the book is boring as hell and we're never going to use this in real life and blah blah blah. Uh, hello? It's English class. Communication is important, and believe it or not, so are the themes present in To Kill a Mockingbird.
"But I don't judge people by the colour of their skin!"
Well, what if someone you know does? What do you do then? Besides, believe it or not, that's not the only thing to be learned from To Kill a Mockingbird. Shocking, I know.
Oh, and you say the book is boring? Well, that's very interesting, seeing as you've never read an entire paragraph of the damned thing. God, at least give it a chance.
Narrow-minded people. That's the thing. It's all starting to make sense to me. People who dismiss what I like as stupid just make me so mad. Hence my fairly consistent rage at my brother. Narrow-mindedness is my Berserk Button.
I just thought that was interesting to discover about myself, since I'd always attributed my irritation towards stupid people.
Anyways, just to wrap up this post, I think I'll end it with something to make you laugh.
The same kid in my english class who I'm probably going to kill by the end of the semester
once argued with me and the teacher
that Abraham Lincoln was like Hitler.
Thank you, you've been a lovely audience, goodbye.
Except I realized today that that actually wasn't true.
I've got nothing against people who may be kind and fun and a good person, but who may not be the brightest person around. While most of my friends can be deemed quite intelligent in one form or another, I have had less close friends who may not be the smartest people around, but were fun to talk to and nice and kind and not a bad person to be friends with. And I've got nothing against those people.
No, what I realized today was that it's not that I can't stand stupid people.
It's that I can't stand narrow-minded people.
Huge difference.
Stupid people, for the purposes of this post, are people who maybe don't think about what they say before they say it, people who don't know when they're doing anything wrong, no matter how often they do it, people who maybe don't do as well in school. None of these kinds of traits exclude actually being a nice and fun person, so for that I have nothing against them.
Narrow-minded people, on the other hand, are people who will never ever consider appreciating something that they hadn't been appreciating beforehand, people who dismiss what someone suggests as dumb before they even really learn about it, people who never try new things, either just to check it out, or for work, or whatever. These are the kinds of people that I simply cannot stand.
There's a kid in my English class. And he's an idiot. And that wouldn't bother me too much if he were a nice, well-meaning idiot. It might get irritating but I would endure. But the thing is that he is the kind of idiot who is convinced that he knows exactly what he's talking about, who is certain that everything worth doing he has already done, and if anyone disagrees with him they are wrong. Narrow-minded as hell.
Don't get me wrong, he's provided some good laughs. He once complained, "This book is so boring, god! It's like eating a sandwich full of nails!" Then he got up and walked away somewhere, so me and my fellow tablemates didn't have to hold in our laughter.
But the thing is that he complains all the time that the book is boring as hell and we're never going to use this in real life and blah blah blah. Uh, hello? It's English class. Communication is important, and believe it or not, so are the themes present in To Kill a Mockingbird.
"But I don't judge people by the colour of their skin!"
Well, what if someone you know does? What do you do then? Besides, believe it or not, that's not the only thing to be learned from To Kill a Mockingbird. Shocking, I know.
Oh, and you say the book is boring? Well, that's very interesting, seeing as you've never read an entire paragraph of the damned thing. God, at least give it a chance.
Narrow-minded people. That's the thing. It's all starting to make sense to me. People who dismiss what I like as stupid just make me so mad. Hence my fairly consistent rage at my brother. Narrow-mindedness is my Berserk Button.
I just thought that was interesting to discover about myself, since I'd always attributed my irritation towards stupid people.
Anyways, just to wrap up this post, I think I'll end it with something to make you laugh.
The same kid in my english class who I'm probably going to kill by the end of the semester
once argued with me and the teacher
that Abraham Lincoln was like Hitler.
Thank you, you've been a lovely audience, goodbye.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Your Argument Is Invalid: Joss Whedon, Suckas!
I am a Whedonite. Joss Whedon is my ruler and I will watch anything with his name on it.
Some people question this.
So I'd just like to explain why Joss Whedon is made of epic.
My first thought off the top of my head is that his work is.... storytelling. I mean, that's it. Every show he does there is a story, and there are stakes, and it's not always predictable, and it's a story you have to pay attention to and enjoy the adventure with, and I love that. There's not a whole lot of TV like that these days. I'm not gonna lie, even shows that I like that are still currently on TV are not shows I love for the storytelling aspect. I might love them for a different reason, but I admire Whedon's work because it is pure storytelling.
But Megan, what exactly does that mean?
I mean that Whedon knows how to get an audience invested. I mean there's always a plot, a conflict, and it's always interesting in some way, if you're paying attention. People say that TV is mindless, but I don't find that Whedon television is. I mean, I read far too much into anything, but you think about Buffy or Firefly or Angel. There's symbolism (such as, for example, Angel giving Buffy a cross necklace..... and then Buffy wore it when she had to kill him. Or how about the vamp face? There's a reason that Whedon gave his vampires the vamp face, and that is because he wanted to make it clear that they were, in fact, monsters, and not to be sympathized with as people. I don't know about you, but I am for the anti sexy-hot-vampire approach) and you better believe there are important themes, and.... he's just telling a story. I guess I'm saying that all his work that I've seen is just really....... authentic, if that makes sense. It's very sincere. And you've gotta love a TV show like that.
I also love Whedon's sense of humour. I don't even know how to explain it, it's quirky and different and freakin' hilarious. Xander, Spike, Wash, they're some of the most.... ridiculously funny characters ever.
But Megan, what exactly does that mean?
I mean that Whedon knows how to get an audience invested. I mean there's always a plot, a conflict, and it's always interesting in some way, if you're paying attention. People say that TV is mindless, but I don't find that Whedon television is. I mean, I read far too much into anything, but you think about Buffy or Firefly or Angel. There's symbolism (such as, for example, Angel giving Buffy a cross necklace..... and then Buffy wore it when she had to kill him. Or how about the vamp face? There's a reason that Whedon gave his vampires the vamp face, and that is because he wanted to make it clear that they were, in fact, monsters, and not to be sympathized with as people. I don't know about you, but I am for the anti sexy-hot-vampire approach) and you better believe there are important themes, and.... he's just telling a story. I guess I'm saying that all his work that I've seen is just really....... authentic, if that makes sense. It's very sincere. And you've gotta love a TV show like that.
I also love Whedon's sense of humour. I don't even know how to explain it, it's quirky and different and freakin' hilarious. Xander, Spike, Wash, they're some of the most.... ridiculously funny characters ever.
^Xander
^Spike (forgive the consistency, Blogger's being an idiot)
^Wash
Also, have I mentioned that Giles and Mal are the best deadpanners ever?
^Mal
^Giles
I haven't seen a whole lot of television shows that can pull off being so damn funny without dismissing the gravity of whatever situation they happen to find themselves in. Which brings me to my next point:
Joss Whedon understands badassery.
Every character on every single one of his shows is a badass in their own right. Xander, being the only one without special powers of any kind, still fights demons alongside his magical friends. Giles has the protective instinct of a mother bear, and the temper of one too, along with the fact that no one knows everything about everything the way Giles does. Buffy is totally willing to sacrifice herself for the greater good, and has, in fact, done just that a few times. Willow is an amazingly powerful witch, and is also incredibly smart. Mal and Zoe are the definition of badass, Shepherd Book is the strange preacher who isn't afraid to shoot people if he has to, Inara knows that her identity and knowledge can be a weapon, and knows precisely how to wield it, Kaylee, the sweet innocent girl who knows how to fix an engine just by listening to it, Jayne, who's got more heart than he's got smarts, Simon who would literally do anything for his sister, Wash who is definitely comic relief, also is ridiculously intuitive when it comes to ships, and River, who is insanely intuitive and smart when it comes to just about everything. She's also just plain insane, which is cool too. And don't even get me started on Spike. He is badassery personified.
It's just that, even characters like Xander, who a lot of people dismiss as the typical.... "butt-monkey" (look it up on the TV Tropes and Idioms wiki, it's a thing) are still badasses in their own right, while other writers don't tend to go beyond that schtick. Come on, buttmonkeys exist in every sitcom EVER. If we go back to M*A*S*H even, Frank Burns is arguably the buttmonkey. In MyMusic it's clearly Intern 2. In Community it's clearly Britta (they use her name as a synonym for screwing up). On Big Bang Theory, sadly enough, it's Leonard. Point is, every sitcom has one, but do those characters ever really develop beyond that one schtick? Could Frank Burns or Leonard Hofstaedter sustain an episode that revolves solely around them? Xander has. I give you The Zeppo, I give you The Replacement. And not only does he get awesome moments of badassery, as well as awesome moments of hilarity:
http://youtu.be/57M4OhdsAFM?t=7m27s (you can just ignore the rest of the video after the one clip is done. Or not, it's your life).
But, ESPECIALLY in The Replacement, it is so clear that this character is more than just a buttmonkey. He's so three-dimensional, which brings me to my next point:
Joss Whedon makes three-dimensional characters. There is no character on his show that is ever just one thing. I was watching a Youtube video in which two friends sort characters from other fandoms into Hogwarts houses, Slytherin, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, and they did Buffy, and neither of them could agree because the characters all have so many layers to them. "Joss Whedon probs!" they said, because none of the characters fit into one house. And that's how you know the character is layere. And in my humble opinion, a character is infinitely more interesting when they become.... like an onion ("WE'RE LIKE AN ONION BECAUSE WE HAVE LAYERS!" - yeah, I quoted Shrek, what are you going to do about it?). It's just good writing, and I dare you to argue with me on that.
Joss Whedon was constantly challenging himself, and he always pulled it off. Oh, you like my writing for the dialogue? I'll write an episode with no dialogue in it at all (thus giving us Buffy's "Hush"). You like the humour in my writing? I'll write an episode with no jokes (thus Buffy's devastating "The Body"). And the thing is? These episodes are LEGENDARY among Whedonites. They are not regarded as boring or unsatisfying at all. They are regarded as brilliant, and only someone who misunderstands the show entirely would say otherwise. Joss Whedon is not a one-trick pony, and when he fears he might become one, he stops and finds a way to challenge himself. And you've gotta admire that, especially when he consistently pulls it off.
Joss Whedon calls himself a feminist. The whole idea of Buffy was based on the idea of that blonde in those horror movies that always gets killed in a dark alley finally holding her own, instead of being a helpless bimbo. And I know that Joss's feminist claim has been declared as sort of hokey by some - it's been pointed out that while the fight scenes are good, Joss seems to thrive when Buffy (or whoever) is reduced to crying and feeling hopeless. I, personally, don't see that as anti-feminist, because he's shown male characters in just as much distress. The thing is, and this, I find is generally true of the world, is that when male characters get upset they tend to get needlessly agressive rather than sitting and letting themselves cry, as women tend to. I'm not saying that's true of every male or female - Angel, Shepherd Book, are male characters who tend to do the latter, while Faith or Zoe are female characters, who tend to resort to the former. But saying that Joss's scenes in which his female characters are distressed are anti-feminist seems ridiculous to me, because being feminist doesn't mean that she can't be feminine. That's part of the whole point, isn't it? She can be feminine and heroic and strong all at the same time. While I will admit that some of Joss's claims of... progressiveness are a little problematic (partly just by the nature of the business he's in), I really don't think feminism is one of them. Anyway, the fact that he has such strong female characters who can hold their own in a fight and take care of themselves is always a plus in my book. Also, it's widely accepted that Buffy pretty much paved the way for strong female heroines. So make what you will of that.
He's loyal to his friends. I mean, if you needed any proof that half of show business is who you know, it's Whedon. First of all, Nathan Fillion has been in every single Whedon thing ever (save for Angel, but Whedon wasn't actually all that involved in Angel in the first place, that was more the brain-child of Buffy co-creator David Greenwalt). Think about it. He played Mal on Firefly, then when that was cancelled he played Caleb on Buffy, he played Captain Hammer on Dr Horrible, and now he's in Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing (which I geek out about on a regular basis, Shakespeare and Whedon together, my dream is coming true).
Not only that, but other characters from Firefly mysteriously started appearing in the Buffyverse after Firefly was cancelled. Like I said, Fillion was in Buffy, but I also know that Alan Tudyk (Wash), Gina Torres (Zoe), and Adam Baldwin (Jayne) all began playing characters on Angel thereafter as well. (Fun fact: Whedon was uncertain of this course of action, having all these actors introduced into the Buffyverse. He said it seemed incestuous. The others told him not to worry, no one would notice since no one watched Firefly anyways.) Also, I know Eliza Dushku, who played Faith, became the main character on a project of his called Dollhouse, which I have yet to watch.
And if we return to Much Ado About Nothing, every actor who I've seen an interview with has been a character in a different Whedon project. Fillion, the girl who played Fred on Angel, the guy who played Wesley on Buffy/Angel, a dude from Dollhouse (which, again, I have yet to watch). Point is, if you've got a connection with Whedon and he, y'know, likes ya, you're pretty much set for life.
And there was one other thing.... what was it? Oh, right!
He's completely insane.
I really admire insane people. It's always the crazies that turn out to be brilliant somehow. I think that's because you have to be thinking and acting and living outside of the norm in order to discover something remarkable (yes I've spent time contemplating this) but anyways.
In every interview with him ever he just comes off like he's in his own world, which he probably is, and that's cool. So here's a bunch of Whedon quotes from interviews, panels, and other things of that nature just to illustrate my point. It's basically all his quirky sense of humour, but he pulls it off the way I do (meaning it leaves the average watcher going "....wait, is he serious?")
"When Firefly was cancelled, I felt so great.... no, wait, the other thing."
Fan: "Was Spike trying to get the chip out of his head?"
Whedon: "No. You were supposed to think he was, but he wasn't. It's this thing I invented called a 'plot twist'." (The way he says this one is just hysterical, like he's still trying to wrap his mouth around these words that are so new to his vocabulary.)
"The episode Family, with the two of them dancing in the air could be the closest to my heart, I mean, it is, just... y'know, breaks me up enormously. I mean, not in a laughing way. More with the crying."
That's all off the top of my head, but I also know that before Firefly was cancelled, he was working hard on that while simultaneously running season six of Buffy. So he'd told his writers for Buffy that he'd be less involved as the show continued, but they kept needing help to the point where he printed out a little line graph illustrating the deceleration of his involvement in Buffy, laminated it and kept it in his wallet so that he could physically show them how (un)involved he was supposed to be in a week, or two weeks, or whatever. Which is awesome. And also insane.
He also killed Buffy off in season five, and when people (including Spike actor James Marsters) told him that he couldn't kill off the main character, at least not permanently, he told them "I run this show! I can do whatever I want!"
While on that subject, James Marsters likes to tell a story where after Spike reappeared for the fourth season of Buffy he developed a massive fanbase because the character was just so freakin' hilarious. Joss didn't like that Spike had a fanbase, because Spike was a vampire, and vampires (and demons) represent struggles and badness and things to be overcome, so from that perspective it was wrong for him to have a fanbase, especially one as large as the one Spike had. So one day he cornered James Marsters and basically said "I don't care how popular you are, I don't care how big your fanbase is, I will kill you off. You are only here so that we aren't reduced to Scooby Doo, and the moment you outlive your purpose you are getting killed."
Which again, makes him come off as completely insane.
And I've already showed you the excerpts from the scripts. If you needed any more proof that Joss Whedon is kinda crazy, I think this is it.
So, if after this entire post you are still unimpressed with Whedon, you probably don't have a soul. Try to acquire one, and then get back to me. Okay?
Okay.
Joss Whedon understands badassery.
Every character on every single one of his shows is a badass in their own right. Xander, being the only one without special powers of any kind, still fights demons alongside his magical friends. Giles has the protective instinct of a mother bear, and the temper of one too, along with the fact that no one knows everything about everything the way Giles does. Buffy is totally willing to sacrifice herself for the greater good, and has, in fact, done just that a few times. Willow is an amazingly powerful witch, and is also incredibly smart. Mal and Zoe are the definition of badass, Shepherd Book is the strange preacher who isn't afraid to shoot people if he has to, Inara knows that her identity and knowledge can be a weapon, and knows precisely how to wield it, Kaylee, the sweet innocent girl who knows how to fix an engine just by listening to it, Jayne, who's got more heart than he's got smarts, Simon who would literally do anything for his sister, Wash who is definitely comic relief, also is ridiculously intuitive when it comes to ships, and River, who is insanely intuitive and smart when it comes to just about everything. She's also just plain insane, which is cool too. And don't even get me started on Spike. He is badassery personified.
It's just that, even characters like Xander, who a lot of people dismiss as the typical.... "butt-monkey" (look it up on the TV Tropes and Idioms wiki, it's a thing) are still badasses in their own right, while other writers don't tend to go beyond that schtick. Come on, buttmonkeys exist in every sitcom EVER. If we go back to M*A*S*H even, Frank Burns is arguably the buttmonkey. In MyMusic it's clearly Intern 2. In Community it's clearly Britta (they use her name as a synonym for screwing up). On Big Bang Theory, sadly enough, it's Leonard. Point is, every sitcom has one, but do those characters ever really develop beyond that one schtick? Could Frank Burns or Leonard Hofstaedter sustain an episode that revolves solely around them? Xander has. I give you The Zeppo, I give you The Replacement. And not only does he get awesome moments of badassery, as well as awesome moments of hilarity:
http://youtu.be/57M4OhdsAFM?t=7m27s (you can just ignore the rest of the video after the one clip is done. Or not, it's your life).
But, ESPECIALLY in The Replacement, it is so clear that this character is more than just a buttmonkey. He's so three-dimensional, which brings me to my next point:
Joss Whedon makes three-dimensional characters. There is no character on his show that is ever just one thing. I was watching a Youtube video in which two friends sort characters from other fandoms into Hogwarts houses, Slytherin, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, and they did Buffy, and neither of them could agree because the characters all have so many layers to them. "Joss Whedon probs!" they said, because none of the characters fit into one house. And that's how you know the character is layere. And in my humble opinion, a character is infinitely more interesting when they become.... like an onion ("WE'RE LIKE AN ONION BECAUSE WE HAVE LAYERS!" - yeah, I quoted Shrek, what are you going to do about it?). It's just good writing, and I dare you to argue with me on that.
Joss Whedon was constantly challenging himself, and he always pulled it off. Oh, you like my writing for the dialogue? I'll write an episode with no dialogue in it at all (thus giving us Buffy's "Hush"). You like the humour in my writing? I'll write an episode with no jokes (thus Buffy's devastating "The Body"). And the thing is? These episodes are LEGENDARY among Whedonites. They are not regarded as boring or unsatisfying at all. They are regarded as brilliant, and only someone who misunderstands the show entirely would say otherwise. Joss Whedon is not a one-trick pony, and when he fears he might become one, he stops and finds a way to challenge himself. And you've gotta admire that, especially when he consistently pulls it off.
Joss Whedon calls himself a feminist. The whole idea of Buffy was based on the idea of that blonde in those horror movies that always gets killed in a dark alley finally holding her own, instead of being a helpless bimbo. And I know that Joss's feminist claim has been declared as sort of hokey by some - it's been pointed out that while the fight scenes are good, Joss seems to thrive when Buffy (or whoever) is reduced to crying and feeling hopeless. I, personally, don't see that as anti-feminist, because he's shown male characters in just as much distress. The thing is, and this, I find is generally true of the world, is that when male characters get upset they tend to get needlessly agressive rather than sitting and letting themselves cry, as women tend to. I'm not saying that's true of every male or female - Angel, Shepherd Book, are male characters who tend to do the latter, while Faith or Zoe are female characters, who tend to resort to the former. But saying that Joss's scenes in which his female characters are distressed are anti-feminist seems ridiculous to me, because being feminist doesn't mean that she can't be feminine. That's part of the whole point, isn't it? She can be feminine and heroic and strong all at the same time. While I will admit that some of Joss's claims of... progressiveness are a little problematic (partly just by the nature of the business he's in), I really don't think feminism is one of them. Anyway, the fact that he has such strong female characters who can hold their own in a fight and take care of themselves is always a plus in my book. Also, it's widely accepted that Buffy pretty much paved the way for strong female heroines. So make what you will of that.
He's loyal to his friends. I mean, if you needed any proof that half of show business is who you know, it's Whedon. First of all, Nathan Fillion has been in every single Whedon thing ever (save for Angel, but Whedon wasn't actually all that involved in Angel in the first place, that was more the brain-child of Buffy co-creator David Greenwalt). Think about it. He played Mal on Firefly, then when that was cancelled he played Caleb on Buffy, he played Captain Hammer on Dr Horrible, and now he's in Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing (which I geek out about on a regular basis, Shakespeare and Whedon together, my dream is coming true).
Not only that, but other characters from Firefly mysteriously started appearing in the Buffyverse after Firefly was cancelled. Like I said, Fillion was in Buffy, but I also know that Alan Tudyk (Wash), Gina Torres (Zoe), and Adam Baldwin (Jayne) all began playing characters on Angel thereafter as well. (Fun fact: Whedon was uncertain of this course of action, having all these actors introduced into the Buffyverse. He said it seemed incestuous. The others told him not to worry, no one would notice since no one watched Firefly anyways.) Also, I know Eliza Dushku, who played Faith, became the main character on a project of his called Dollhouse, which I have yet to watch.
And if we return to Much Ado About Nothing, every actor who I've seen an interview with has been a character in a different Whedon project. Fillion, the girl who played Fred on Angel, the guy who played Wesley on Buffy/Angel, a dude from Dollhouse (which, again, I have yet to watch). Point is, if you've got a connection with Whedon and he, y'know, likes ya, you're pretty much set for life.
And there was one other thing.... what was it? Oh, right!
He's completely insane.
I really admire insane people. It's always the crazies that turn out to be brilliant somehow. I think that's because you have to be thinking and acting and living outside of the norm in order to discover something remarkable (yes I've spent time contemplating this) but anyways.
In every interview with him ever he just comes off like he's in his own world, which he probably is, and that's cool. So here's a bunch of Whedon quotes from interviews, panels, and other things of that nature just to illustrate my point. It's basically all his quirky sense of humour, but he pulls it off the way I do (meaning it leaves the average watcher going "....wait, is he serious?")
"When Firefly was cancelled, I felt so great.... no, wait, the other thing."
Fan: "Was Spike trying to get the chip out of his head?"
Whedon: "No. You were supposed to think he was, but he wasn't. It's this thing I invented called a 'plot twist'." (The way he says this one is just hysterical, like he's still trying to wrap his mouth around these words that are so new to his vocabulary.)
"The episode Family, with the two of them dancing in the air could be the closest to my heart, I mean, it is, just... y'know, breaks me up enormously. I mean, not in a laughing way. More with the crying."
That's all off the top of my head, but I also know that before Firefly was cancelled, he was working hard on that while simultaneously running season six of Buffy. So he'd told his writers for Buffy that he'd be less involved as the show continued, but they kept needing help to the point where he printed out a little line graph illustrating the deceleration of his involvement in Buffy, laminated it and kept it in his wallet so that he could physically show them how (un)involved he was supposed to be in a week, or two weeks, or whatever. Which is awesome. And also insane.
He also killed Buffy off in season five, and when people (including Spike actor James Marsters) told him that he couldn't kill off the main character, at least not permanently, he told them "I run this show! I can do whatever I want!"
While on that subject, James Marsters likes to tell a story where after Spike reappeared for the fourth season of Buffy he developed a massive fanbase because the character was just so freakin' hilarious. Joss didn't like that Spike had a fanbase, because Spike was a vampire, and vampires (and demons) represent struggles and badness and things to be overcome, so from that perspective it was wrong for him to have a fanbase, especially one as large as the one Spike had. So one day he cornered James Marsters and basically said "I don't care how popular you are, I don't care how big your fanbase is, I will kill you off. You are only here so that we aren't reduced to Scooby Doo, and the moment you outlive your purpose you are getting killed."
Which again, makes him come off as completely insane.
And I've already showed you the excerpts from the scripts. If you needed any more proof that Joss Whedon is kinda crazy, I think this is it.
So, if after this entire post you are still unimpressed with Whedon, you probably don't have a soul. Try to acquire one, and then get back to me. Okay?
Okay.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Six Word Memoirs
Usually I wouldn't bother talking about school assignments on my blog. After all, I come to the Internet and all that to get away from all that academic crap.
But the thing is that I really liked this assignment. I thought it was fun and challenging.
It's a memoir. In six words.
For example:
Ernest Hemingway: For sale: baby shoes, never worn.
Molly Ringwald: Acting is not all I am.
And so on.
But the thing is that I wrote about a billion of them for myself, so even though I could only choose one for the final product of the thing, I just thought I'd post a bunch of them on here, just for the heck of it. So here we go.
It all makes sense in theory.
Laughter makes darkness a little brighter.
My questions come after the answers.
Not shy, just prefer my world.
Zoned out. Damn, what'd I miss?
All I do is improvise. Badly.
I'm unique, but so is everyone.
Pen of silver, tongue of trash.
Nothing that matters seems worth it.
It's easier to create my reality.
And finally, the one I ultimately decided on:
Camera's rolling, what are my lines?
Just thought that was a fun little assignment that might interest you. It interested me, anyways.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Spike's Character Study: Part 2 (Regarding Newly Gathered Information)
[This was written before my post about The Gift or my review thingy of Once More With Feeling, I've just been too lazy to figure out how to finish it. So the "newly gathered information" is actually from like fifteen episodes ago or something. Anyways, just read the thing if you want to and forget this message was even here, 'kay?]
Spike...... is........ twisted.
Delightfully twisted.
Having just watched the episode "Crush" in which Spike admits he has a thing for Buffy, and then Drusilla returns just as that happens, I have to say that while nothing of my previous post has changed, really - all the characteristics still apply - it's important to acknowledge another evident characteristic of Spike.
He's twisted. And evil. And when it comes to being around Buffy he seriously tries not to be, but it really can't be helped.
And when I say twisted, what I mean is.... well, twisted. Not only is he ruthless, but he follows a bizarre (and almost sadistic) reasoning where the more pain he causes (to others or himself) the more respect he can earn (from others or himself). We caught a glimpse of this in "Doomed" (he couldn't hurt people, he tried to stake himself - he could hurt demons, all of a sudden it was "I'm back, and I'm a BLOODY ANIMAL!!") but just not to the same extent. Because you have to realize now that it isn't just a demon ego thing. He does it with the people he loves as well. And that's just........ well, twisted.
And it's interesting, because he's the opposite of what he was pre-vampire. Pre-vampire Spike sought out light and closed his eyes to the darkness. He wrote poetry - and yeah it was bad (effulgent? Really?) - but it's what he did to make himself feel like he was creating something good.
And now Spike is offended and ashamed to be regarded as unthreatening and unmenacing, or in any way remotely good.
And I mean, it's always been that way with Spike. In season 4 he nearly staked himself because he was convinced he was worth nothing when he couldn't hurt people. It's a vampire thing. And it's an ego thing. Vampires are DEMONS, their calling is to cause PAIN. It makes perfect sense.
And Spike is no Angelus - he doesn't engage in all that, what TV Tropes and Idioms calls "Mind Rape" stuff (what Angelus did to Drusilla pre-vampire and Buffy........ to Drusilla to the point where she literally went insane, and she never quite recovered). But he is twisted, have no doubt of that.
But.... I don't think he tries to be, in the same way Angelus did. The thing is, he's been doing evil for so long (he's 126 years old, after all) that every act of restraint, for him, is the same as an act of good. Which is not the same as Scooby Gang good, because they're actively saving the world on a regular basis, so it's difficult for them to appreciate when Spike is trying to help, especially given the fact that he is a demon. No one wants to thank a demon.
What Spike is, is a few things that sometimes combine so that he ends up more twisted than the average vamp. Impulsive, uninhibited (mentally - the chip in his head inhibits him, but if it were his choice he wouldn't shy away from anything), emotional and confused.
Confused?
Yeah, confused.
Because everything about Spike contradicts itself. He has a right to be confused. He's got a thing for the Slayer, first of all, and that's just....... wrong. And he knows it, certainly, but being love's bitch, it's one of those things he can't help. And Buffy believes that no creature with a soul can know love, but Spike loves. He does. "We love well, if not wisely," to quote Drusilla. And he's a vampire who's trying to be good, and there's all this contradiction about him that he can't really find a course of action that makes sense to him.
This is kind of what makes Spike Angelus's counterpart. Angelus wasn't impulsive. He thought everything he did through. He believed it's what separated vampires from animals, is to be very DELIBERATE and very CAREFUL about your actions. Spike, meanwhile, was perfectly happy to follow his impulses and have what to Spike was probably just a good time. Angelus was never emotional. Just cold. I'm not saying he didn't have emotions, he did, but he didn't show them. Self-discipline, right? Separates them from the animals. Meanwhile, Spike's always been emotional. That's just how he is. Always has been, right from the beginning, and that hasn't changed. I'm not saying he's always crying or whatever, but he just wears his heart on his sleeve.
Anyways - Impulsive, uninhibited, emotional and confused.
And confusion plays a large role in this because, if we look back, Spike's always been at his most dangerous when he's in some way confused (remember, season 3, drunken Spike kidnapped Willow and Xander? "Well, if at first you don't succeed..... I'll kill him, and you try again."?) That's where being emotional comes in. Because Spike's so emotional, he can't just handle his confusion internally, it ALWAYS comes out in his actions. And since he's so impulsive and uninhibited, his confusion comes out in his actions usually to some of the most drastic extremes. Like, for instance (SPOILER ALERT) threatening to kill Drusilla. And sadly enough, he couldn't bring himself to follow through on either of his threats - he couldn't kill Drusilla or Buffy. And it wasn't the chip that was getting in his way. It was his own - forgive me, Spike - humanity.
God, Spike's just..... a heart-wrencher. I mean, yeah he almost killed Buffy (and he almost killed Drusilla, which was just as, if not more, upsetting to me) but you still come away from that episode going "Poor Spike". Because... we understand Spike's confusion, I think. And maybe I just have a soft spot for Spike - the character's freakin' awesome - but I think we're able to forgive him for his.... yeah, undeniably twisted actions. Because we do understand him, at least a little bit.
I read somewhere that some people were..... sickened... when they found out that Spike's iconic leather jacket came from the body of a Slayer he'd killed. I mean, I get that, to a certain degree. But Spike's always been like that. He got off on killing Slayers, that's been established literally since the first episode he appeared in. ("Well, I don't like to brag... oh, who am I kidding, I love to brag!") And it shows his pride and arrogance that he kept the jacket. No, Spike's not just a fluffy puppy with bad teeth, guys. Some of the Scoobies seem to be convinced, but no, he's not. No matter what gadgetry the Initiative put in his head, Spike's always been, and always will be, dangerous. It's part of what makes him so damn cool. I almost think taking the jacket off the Slayer was one of the least twisted things he's done as a vampire. I mean, other killers steal from their victims after they kill them as well. That doesn't make Spike special in any way. Why do you expect him to be remorseful? Has he ever been remorseful? No, never. He's got no soul, so why would he be? I guess that I'm just thinking that at least part of your being so sickened by the jacket's origins comes from your surprise, and it really shouldn't be surprising. I mean, when I saw it, I just thought "Huh. It was a Slayer's. No kidding." It's a trophy. Spike takes pride in his accomplishments (killing a Slayer is an accomplishment for any vampire), so he likes to have a trophy. Yeah, it's dark and completely in bad taste. But Spike has never claimed to be anything BUT bad (in fact he's really defensive about that. Hilariously so. Dawn: I feel safe with you. Spike: *chokes on his drink* Take that back!). So I'm not sure why this should be such a shock.
I guess all that I'm saying is that, yes, Spike is now trying to be good, for Buffy's sake. But it's foolish for anyone to forget that he is a demon in origin, a monster, and he is inherently evil. (Need I remind you that one of the only reasons he's fighting demons now is because it's the only thing he CAN fight?) It's in his nature. What makes him remarkable is the contrast between the monster and the man inside of him. THAT'S what makes him particularly twisted.
Spike is by far the most interesting character on the show.
Just sayin'.
Spike...... is........ twisted.
Delightfully twisted.
Having just watched the episode "Crush" in which Spike admits he has a thing for Buffy, and then Drusilla returns just as that happens, I have to say that while nothing of my previous post has changed, really - all the characteristics still apply - it's important to acknowledge another evident characteristic of Spike.
He's twisted. And evil. And when it comes to being around Buffy he seriously tries not to be, but it really can't be helped.
And when I say twisted, what I mean is.... well, twisted. Not only is he ruthless, but he follows a bizarre (and almost sadistic) reasoning where the more pain he causes (to others or himself) the more respect he can earn (from others or himself). We caught a glimpse of this in "Doomed" (he couldn't hurt people, he tried to stake himself - he could hurt demons, all of a sudden it was "I'm back, and I'm a BLOODY ANIMAL!!") but just not to the same extent. Because you have to realize now that it isn't just a demon ego thing. He does it with the people he loves as well. And that's just........ well, twisted.
And it's interesting, because he's the opposite of what he was pre-vampire. Pre-vampire Spike sought out light and closed his eyes to the darkness. He wrote poetry - and yeah it was bad (effulgent? Really?) - but it's what he did to make himself feel like he was creating something good.
And now Spike is offended and ashamed to be regarded as unthreatening and unmenacing, or in any way remotely good.
And I mean, it's always been that way with Spike. In season 4 he nearly staked himself because he was convinced he was worth nothing when he couldn't hurt people. It's a vampire thing. And it's an ego thing. Vampires are DEMONS, their calling is to cause PAIN. It makes perfect sense.
And Spike is no Angelus - he doesn't engage in all that, what TV Tropes and Idioms calls "Mind Rape" stuff (what Angelus did to Drusilla pre-vampire and Buffy........ to Drusilla to the point where she literally went insane, and she never quite recovered). But he is twisted, have no doubt of that.
But.... I don't think he tries to be, in the same way Angelus did. The thing is, he's been doing evil for so long (he's 126 years old, after all) that every act of restraint, for him, is the same as an act of good. Which is not the same as Scooby Gang good, because they're actively saving the world on a regular basis, so it's difficult for them to appreciate when Spike is trying to help, especially given the fact that he is a demon. No one wants to thank a demon.
What Spike is, is a few things that sometimes combine so that he ends up more twisted than the average vamp. Impulsive, uninhibited (mentally - the chip in his head inhibits him, but if it were his choice he wouldn't shy away from anything), emotional and confused.
Confused?
Yeah, confused.
Because everything about Spike contradicts itself. He has a right to be confused. He's got a thing for the Slayer, first of all, and that's just....... wrong. And he knows it, certainly, but being love's bitch, it's one of those things he can't help. And Buffy believes that no creature with a soul can know love, but Spike loves. He does. "We love well, if not wisely," to quote Drusilla. And he's a vampire who's trying to be good, and there's all this contradiction about him that he can't really find a course of action that makes sense to him.
This is kind of what makes Spike Angelus's counterpart. Angelus wasn't impulsive. He thought everything he did through. He believed it's what separated vampires from animals, is to be very DELIBERATE and very CAREFUL about your actions. Spike, meanwhile, was perfectly happy to follow his impulses and have what to Spike was probably just a good time. Angelus was never emotional. Just cold. I'm not saying he didn't have emotions, he did, but he didn't show them. Self-discipline, right? Separates them from the animals. Meanwhile, Spike's always been emotional. That's just how he is. Always has been, right from the beginning, and that hasn't changed. I'm not saying he's always crying or whatever, but he just wears his heart on his sleeve.
Anyways - Impulsive, uninhibited, emotional and confused.
And confusion plays a large role in this because, if we look back, Spike's always been at his most dangerous when he's in some way confused (remember, season 3, drunken Spike kidnapped Willow and Xander? "Well, if at first you don't succeed..... I'll kill him, and you try again."?) That's where being emotional comes in. Because Spike's so emotional, he can't just handle his confusion internally, it ALWAYS comes out in his actions. And since he's so impulsive and uninhibited, his confusion comes out in his actions usually to some of the most drastic extremes. Like, for instance (SPOILER ALERT) threatening to kill Drusilla. And sadly enough, he couldn't bring himself to follow through on either of his threats - he couldn't kill Drusilla or Buffy. And it wasn't the chip that was getting in his way. It was his own - forgive me, Spike - humanity.
God, Spike's just..... a heart-wrencher. I mean, yeah he almost killed Buffy (and he almost killed Drusilla, which was just as, if not more, upsetting to me) but you still come away from that episode going "Poor Spike". Because... we understand Spike's confusion, I think. And maybe I just have a soft spot for Spike - the character's freakin' awesome - but I think we're able to forgive him for his.... yeah, undeniably twisted actions. Because we do understand him, at least a little bit.
I read somewhere that some people were..... sickened... when they found out that Spike's iconic leather jacket came from the body of a Slayer he'd killed. I mean, I get that, to a certain degree. But Spike's always been like that. He got off on killing Slayers, that's been established literally since the first episode he appeared in. ("Well, I don't like to brag... oh, who am I kidding, I love to brag!") And it shows his pride and arrogance that he kept the jacket. No, Spike's not just a fluffy puppy with bad teeth, guys. Some of the Scoobies seem to be convinced, but no, he's not. No matter what gadgetry the Initiative put in his head, Spike's always been, and always will be, dangerous. It's part of what makes him so damn cool. I almost think taking the jacket off the Slayer was one of the least twisted things he's done as a vampire. I mean, other killers steal from their victims after they kill them as well. That doesn't make Spike special in any way. Why do you expect him to be remorseful? Has he ever been remorseful? No, never. He's got no soul, so why would he be? I guess that I'm just thinking that at least part of your being so sickened by the jacket's origins comes from your surprise, and it really shouldn't be surprising. I mean, when I saw it, I just thought "Huh. It was a Slayer's. No kidding." It's a trophy. Spike takes pride in his accomplishments (killing a Slayer is an accomplishment for any vampire), so he likes to have a trophy. Yeah, it's dark and completely in bad taste. But Spike has never claimed to be anything BUT bad (in fact he's really defensive about that. Hilariously so. Dawn: I feel safe with you. Spike: *chokes on his drink* Take that back!). So I'm not sure why this should be such a shock.
I guess all that I'm saying is that, yes, Spike is now trying to be good, for Buffy's sake. But it's foolish for anyone to forget that he is a demon in origin, a monster, and he is inherently evil. (Need I remind you that one of the only reasons he's fighting demons now is because it's the only thing he CAN fight?) It's in his nature. What makes him remarkable is the contrast between the monster and the man inside of him. THAT'S what makes him particularly twisted.
Spike is by far the most interesting character on the show.
Just sayin'.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Your Argument is Invalid: Internetting
So I get a lot of guilt-tripping - from others and myself - about being on the Internet as much as I am.
But the thing about it is that the Internet is NOT a horrible thing. I mean, no, it's not active, granted, and no, it's not outside, and yes, actually talking to someone in person is infinitely more rewarding and satisfying. But we can't ignore the fact that the Internet has a lot of value that people sometimes dismiss.
First of all, the obvious thing - the Internet is full of people. And you can meet people who have things in common with you, which is always a tempting aspect for me, since I have some of the most niche interests ever. And I joined Wattpad, and know what? I like the Wattpad community. And I did chat with people I hadn't before met. And I haven't yet been kidnapped.
But since, besides Wattpad, I really don't engage myself in the social media scene (yep, no Facebook, no Twitter, no Tumblr, no nothin'!) I'm just going to skip right over that one, since I don't really have a whole lot of personal experience.
But what I really like about the Internet is that it is a creative place. The Internet is full of content, getting more every single day, and some of it's videos and some of it's drawings and some of it's writing and some of it's music but everyday there is more content being added. And that's awesome. If we can make sharing and viewing art easier then there's nothing wrong with that.
And not only the content itself, but for all the content you like (*cough* TV shows *cough*) there's also commentary on how it was made. On like 80% of Internet drawings there's a whole explanation on how they did it and what technique they used, how long it took them, on maybe 60% of the music uploaded you can see them playing the instruments and singing, on maybe 50-60% of writing uploaded there's an author's note talking about what they did with their writing and on like 80% of original videos uploaded you can see how much effort they put in because we know they're not Hollywood done and yet it looks good and that doesn't happen in a night. Plus for every non-Internet thing you like there's some interview with someone about it or a review or a panel or something. So I actually think that the Internet is really helping us to see how much effort and how much time it takes to produce art, and I think with that knowledge also comes a more deep appreciation for art.
The Internet is really just an extremely large community. Once you're logged in, and using the Internet the way it's meant to be used, you're part of the community. And, if you're using it right, the community can be safe, and it's generally very accepting. I mean, sure, you've got your school yard bullies (on the Internet we refer to them as "trolls") and you've got your stuck-up know-it-alls (generally grammar nazis, or something like them), but in general everyone's just absorbing the content and being inspired, in their own way.
The Internet lets you be who you are.
I mean, just because of the sheer hugeness of the Internet, and the amount of content on it, there's something for everyone. You know how many videos are uploaded to Youtube per day? Neither do I. I do know that a hundred hours worth of videos are uploaded to Youtube PER MINUTE, so you do the math, I guess.
And you're not going to watch it all, of course. But somewhere in there will be something that appeals to you, that you'll really enjoy. And I, personally, like the idea of being able to really find something that definitely really appeals to you, rather than scouring the TV looking among the limited options for something you find even vaguely interesting, or hunting in bookstores for books that aren't a dumb teen romance (and people wonder why I still read Artemis Fowl and The Mysterious Benedict Society). And don't get me wrong, I will never EVER be reading something more online or on Kindles than out of a real, physical book. Books are the greatest. The turn of pages, the smell of ink and paper, there's something great about having it physically there. My point, though, is that the Internet is somewhere where you can come as close to personalizing your entertainment as you can possibly get.
And not only that, but, especially for me with my weird, obscure, culty interests/obsessions, and my strange thoughts and speculations, it's difficult to find people that I can relate to. I love my friends, but sometimes constantly not being understood or dancing around what I really want to talk about for the sake of avoiding awkwardness gets tiresome and lonely. But online, I find people like me. And even if I don't interact with them, since I'm not into all the social media stuff, it's nice just to know that they exist, and I am not actually as much of a freak as I let myself believe.
Internet addictions, are of course common. But that can't be blamed on the Internet itself. The problem with the Internet is not that it is dangerous (though it can be if you really don't know the rules), or that it is addictive. The Internet is only addictive the way alcohol can be addictive. If you're an alcoholic then you're going to get addicted to alcohol, because an alcoholic is not just someone who drinks to excess. An alcoholic is someone who has it coded in their DNA that they will get addicted to alcohol. Even if you never drink in your life, somehow, you can still be an alcoholic, you may just never find out.
Well, I'm almost completely certain that there are people who are exactly the same way about content and entertainment and consumption of these things. Content-aholics, if you will. The thing is that they're sort of a new breed because content has never been at this level of ease to access before now. I mean, sure, you had television, but then you were just consuming what people assumed you wanted (And even then, you wanna tell me there wasn't anyone addicted to television before now?). Now, having that instant feedback to the creators via comments/reviews/whatever the case may be, people know what you want, you're impacting your entertainment and so you're going to consume more of it. Cause you're invested in it now, so why wouldn't you?
The Internet isn't the problem. The problem is that people get addicted to content and the Internet just happens to be the most convenient "dealer" if you will. I mean, you wouldn't blame the liquor store for alcoholics, so why would you blame the invention of the Internet for content-aholics? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
And it's just foolish to overlook the fact that the Internet is kind of an incredible resource to have. I learn so much when I'm on the Internet. No, really. I research information for the stories I write (recently had to learn the story of Agamemnon, Cassandra and Clytemnestra in great detail to incorporate it properly), and I learn things about myself when I examine my own opinions in comparison to other people online. Never has writing, research, sharing or learning ever been more easy, and things like that can't be overlooked.
But I will, however, be the first one to admit:
Hi, I'm Megan and I am a content-aholic.
[Hi Megan]
I spend far more time online than is probably healthy. I will be the first to admit that.
But we shouldn't forget that the Internet is not inherently evil, just as alcohol is not inherently evil. So please just stop the guilt-tripping.
Thanks.
P.S I will now share a line from MyMusic which is kind of great on a bunch of different levels (it's funny, true, freakin' difficult to memorize - I mean, well done).
Intern 2: Hey guys, we just got a call from the telephone company. They said we hadn't paid our bills, and they were going to
Indie and Loco Una : ...
Intern 2: ...
Indie: ...going to what?
Intern 2: I'm not sure. Our phone service got cut before they could finish.
Loco Una: We live in a texting, emailing, facebooking, G-chatting, tumbling, tweeting, pinging, Words-with-Friendsing, Draw-Somethinging society. I say we're better off without phone service.
Personally, I like the idea of directly talking to people - I would much rather phone someone than email them if I really want to talk to them. But as far as proving the point that the Internet is a useful tool, this pretty much says it all.
P.S.S I read somewhere that it was recommended that, in order to maintain a learning life, one should read, brainstorm, and browse the Net. "Watching tutorials and conducting research increases your capabilities." And since I brainstorm and read on a regular basis as well, I'm learning constantly apparently. And I can't say I disagree with that, either.
Just sayin'.
But the thing about it is that the Internet is NOT a horrible thing. I mean, no, it's not active, granted, and no, it's not outside, and yes, actually talking to someone in person is infinitely more rewarding and satisfying. But we can't ignore the fact that the Internet has a lot of value that people sometimes dismiss.
First of all, the obvious thing - the Internet is full of people. And you can meet people who have things in common with you, which is always a tempting aspect for me, since I have some of the most niche interests ever. And I joined Wattpad, and know what? I like the Wattpad community. And I did chat with people I hadn't before met. And I haven't yet been kidnapped.
But since, besides Wattpad, I really don't engage myself in the social media scene (yep, no Facebook, no Twitter, no Tumblr, no nothin'!) I'm just going to skip right over that one, since I don't really have a whole lot of personal experience.
But what I really like about the Internet is that it is a creative place. The Internet is full of content, getting more every single day, and some of it's videos and some of it's drawings and some of it's writing and some of it's music but everyday there is more content being added. And that's awesome. If we can make sharing and viewing art easier then there's nothing wrong with that.
And not only the content itself, but for all the content you like (*cough* TV shows *cough*) there's also commentary on how it was made. On like 80% of Internet drawings there's a whole explanation on how they did it and what technique they used, how long it took them, on maybe 60% of the music uploaded you can see them playing the instruments and singing, on maybe 50-60% of writing uploaded there's an author's note talking about what they did with their writing and on like 80% of original videos uploaded you can see how much effort they put in because we know they're not Hollywood done and yet it looks good and that doesn't happen in a night. Plus for every non-Internet thing you like there's some interview with someone about it or a review or a panel or something. So I actually think that the Internet is really helping us to see how much effort and how much time it takes to produce art, and I think with that knowledge also comes a more deep appreciation for art.
The Internet is really just an extremely large community. Once you're logged in, and using the Internet the way it's meant to be used, you're part of the community. And, if you're using it right, the community can be safe, and it's generally very accepting. I mean, sure, you've got your school yard bullies (on the Internet we refer to them as "trolls") and you've got your stuck-up know-it-alls (generally grammar nazis, or something like them), but in general everyone's just absorbing the content and being inspired, in their own way.
The Internet lets you be who you are.
I mean, just because of the sheer hugeness of the Internet, and the amount of content on it, there's something for everyone. You know how many videos are uploaded to Youtube per day? Neither do I. I do know that a hundred hours worth of videos are uploaded to Youtube PER MINUTE, so you do the math, I guess.
And you're not going to watch it all, of course. But somewhere in there will be something that appeals to you, that you'll really enjoy. And I, personally, like the idea of being able to really find something that definitely really appeals to you, rather than scouring the TV looking among the limited options for something you find even vaguely interesting, or hunting in bookstores for books that aren't a dumb teen romance (and people wonder why I still read Artemis Fowl and The Mysterious Benedict Society). And don't get me wrong, I will never EVER be reading something more online or on Kindles than out of a real, physical book. Books are the greatest. The turn of pages, the smell of ink and paper, there's something great about having it physically there. My point, though, is that the Internet is somewhere where you can come as close to personalizing your entertainment as you can possibly get.
And not only that, but, especially for me with my weird, obscure, culty interests/obsessions, and my strange thoughts and speculations, it's difficult to find people that I can relate to. I love my friends, but sometimes constantly not being understood or dancing around what I really want to talk about for the sake of avoiding awkwardness gets tiresome and lonely. But online, I find people like me. And even if I don't interact with them, since I'm not into all the social media stuff, it's nice just to know that they exist, and I am not actually as much of a freak as I let myself believe.
Internet addictions, are of course common. But that can't be blamed on the Internet itself. The problem with the Internet is not that it is dangerous (though it can be if you really don't know the rules), or that it is addictive. The Internet is only addictive the way alcohol can be addictive. If you're an alcoholic then you're going to get addicted to alcohol, because an alcoholic is not just someone who drinks to excess. An alcoholic is someone who has it coded in their DNA that they will get addicted to alcohol. Even if you never drink in your life, somehow, you can still be an alcoholic, you may just never find out.
Well, I'm almost completely certain that there are people who are exactly the same way about content and entertainment and consumption of these things. Content-aholics, if you will. The thing is that they're sort of a new breed because content has never been at this level of ease to access before now. I mean, sure, you had television, but then you were just consuming what people assumed you wanted (And even then, you wanna tell me there wasn't anyone addicted to television before now?). Now, having that instant feedback to the creators via comments/reviews/whatever the case may be, people know what you want, you're impacting your entertainment and so you're going to consume more of it. Cause you're invested in it now, so why wouldn't you?
The Internet isn't the problem. The problem is that people get addicted to content and the Internet just happens to be the most convenient "dealer" if you will. I mean, you wouldn't blame the liquor store for alcoholics, so why would you blame the invention of the Internet for content-aholics? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
And it's just foolish to overlook the fact that the Internet is kind of an incredible resource to have. I learn so much when I'm on the Internet. No, really. I research information for the stories I write (recently had to learn the story of Agamemnon, Cassandra and Clytemnestra in great detail to incorporate it properly), and I learn things about myself when I examine my own opinions in comparison to other people online. Never has writing, research, sharing or learning ever been more easy, and things like that can't be overlooked.
But I will, however, be the first one to admit:
Hi, I'm Megan and I am a content-aholic.
[Hi Megan]
I spend far more time online than is probably healthy. I will be the first to admit that.
But we shouldn't forget that the Internet is not inherently evil, just as alcohol is not inherently evil. So please just stop the guilt-tripping.
Thanks.
P.S I will now share a line from MyMusic which is kind of great on a bunch of different levels (it's funny, true, freakin' difficult to memorize - I mean, well done).
Intern 2: Hey guys, we just got a call from the telephone company. They said we hadn't paid our bills, and they were going to
Indie and Loco Una : ...
Intern 2: ...
Indie: ...going to what?
Intern 2: I'm not sure. Our phone service got cut before they could finish.
Loco Una: We live in a texting, emailing, facebooking, G-chatting, tumbling, tweeting, pinging, Words-with-Friendsing, Draw-Somethinging society. I say we're better off without phone service.
Personally, I like the idea of directly talking to people - I would much rather phone someone than email them if I really want to talk to them. But as far as proving the point that the Internet is a useful tool, this pretty much says it all.
P.S.S I read somewhere that it was recommended that, in order to maintain a learning life, one should read, brainstorm, and browse the Net. "Watching tutorials and conducting research increases your capabilities." And since I brainstorm and read on a regular basis as well, I'm learning constantly apparently. And I can't say I disagree with that, either.
Just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)