Month: March 2016

The Great White Hype (1996)

Like ‘Thinner’ (and ‘The Arrival’, and ‘The Rock’, and ‘The Puppet Masters’…) in that it isn’t all THAT good, but I have watched it several times and enjoyed it. Just somethin’ about it…I don’t know…

Basically it’s a satire on boxing, corruption, and racism.

It’s got an “ensemble cast” (the best way to describe a bunch of actors you know from when they WERE good and/or have always been B List) as well as Samuel L. Jackson (You’ll guess who he’s supposed to be in about 2 seconds), Jamie Foxx (who is quite good in a small role), Damon Wayans (who is kinda grumpy), and some guy named Peter Berg as the white heavyweight (who may have never appeared in a major movie before or since, but is actually good in this).

The show so far:

Yes, the, uh, show so far. Well…there’s two black boxers, and one of them wins. Then there’s a group that wants more money, and they want to get a white challenger. Then they get the white challenger, and white people love him. Then he becomes well-trained enough to give a sliver of hope (or fear, depending) he might win. Then they fight. Ding.

Grade: C

The Importance Of Characters Having Character

If they don’t, Little Bill describes them pretty well:

“…but without any…character. Not even bad character…”

Meaning: They are so fake and cardboard-ish that they make suspension of disbelief IMPOSSIBLE.

Using redundancy, allow me to elucidate:

Now, what would a young James T. Kirk be like? Well…he probably wouldn’t be EXACTLY THE SAME as an adult James T. Kirk, who also probably wouldn’t be EXACTLY THE SAME as an older adult James T. Kirk.

How do I know this? It’s called “life”. Are you exactly the same person now that you were 20 years ago? If so, that’s kinda sad.

So as a writer, you consider: “What would Kirk be, with the same courage, stubbornness, intelligence…but WITHOUT the purpose, wisdom or self-control?”

And you get this:

And later, this:

Now, when all you do is look for an actor that physically resembles a younger version of a character, who has the same “basic” personality quirks but is really just a caricature, the equivalent of an actual cardboard cutout being placed on set and some guy doing a voiceover for it, you get a related video, “Kirk Meets Bones”.

Or Scotty. Or Chekov.

Blow up all the sh1t you want, that ain’t Bones, Spock ain’t that good, noone else really matters and your movie sucks.

Ah. A bit of inspiration.

Now if only someone would tell me how stupid my X, Y, and/or Z is, I could write some really good sh1t.

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clips from a bad movie. (housekeeping)

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 118)

To those that object to my arguing “against intellect”, that’s not really accurate. I’m arguing against intellect as morality…I’m arguing against intellectual bullying (as opposed to “cowardice”)…I’m arguing against the violent change from an undesirable society that demeans intelligence and glorifies anything “common” to an undesirable society that demeans athletics, slang – anything “common” – and glorifies intelligence and pure scientific methodology as the defining virtues of the best of society.

I’m arguing that the best of society are neither smart nor dumb, neither athletic nor geeky, neither formal nor informal, neither abstract nor concrete, neither demeanors of intellect nor kneeling worshippers of it, neither atheists nor theists, neither male nor female, neither any race vs. any other race, neither rich nor poor…

The best of society are good and decent vs. sorely lacking in morality. And that is all.

Besides…if the people you’re talking to are so stupid, and you’re so smart, why do you need to use (and I quote) “an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined”?

If you’re so smart, can’t you win your argument on any level? With or without formal adherence to logical fallacy policy?

Can’t you be smart enough to understand – and out-argue – a dumb person on any level they choose? Can’t you drop your rigid, programmed, computerized comments and responses for something a bit more emotional (i.e. human)?

Better put:

“…My intellectual work forms only an insignificant part…love and personal understanding are much more important. Leading intellectuals with their zeal for objectivity kill these personal elements…”

“…Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient, or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge…”

– Paul Feyerabend