Author: Puppy

Semper Puppy

Grimmsy Grimmling, Escort Of Souls – Number Two – Frame Three

Bird maintains its leisurely flight pattern.

Man still hasn’t moved his whole body, but his head has turned now about halfway to his right. Eyes appear much the same, perhaps a bit more narrowed and attentive (and curious), brow is still furrowed. Overall posture seems more attentive.

The VERY VERY edge of what could be the bottom (and out)-most part of Grimmsy’s cloak is in the far bottom-left of the frame, obviously there and obviously the exact type that Grimmsy previously “wore”, but barely-there enough that it could POSSIBLY be something else. Drawing makes clear indication it is his cloak, as if he is moving and is just entering the point of view of the frame.

Grimmsy Grimmling, Escort Of Souls – Number Two – Frame Two

The bird is still in flight, position and the way it’s drawn indicate a slow, leisurely pattern. Type is one common to park settings or suburban areas with lots of trees. (i.e. it’s not a seagull).

Man hasn’t moved position, but his head has lowered slightly. His eyes have narrowed, very slightly, and his brow is a bit furrowed; though his head has yet to turn to HIS right, his eyeballs seem to be leaning slightly in that direction and down, as if something is on the very edge of his vision/sense in some way and his eyes have taken notice but his head hasn’t realized and followed suit yet. The eyes indicate, along with his brow, both a slight change in mood (more attentive) and a bit of confusion.

Cloud pattern is normal, fairly generic. Formation, appearance, and speed of movement of the clouds is obviously different from strip one, though that is not made prominent: it’s there if “studied” but not designed to attract attention.

Partly sunny, a nice day, nothing particularly good or bad: neutral background of grass…again nothing of it made prominent (the bird is drawn/moving in an obviously peripheral manner) or exaggerated, but if studied closely obviously a different day.

Grimmsy Grimmling, Escort Of Souls – Number Two – Frame One

Plain box, just like strip one. Grass, “time of day”, everything are close enough that it may be the same place as before (or at least very close) or just a very similar ordinary-looking place somewhere else.

Man from strip one is again on the far right of the strip. His appearance is modified slightly (different clothes, hair not exactly the same but very close) to show that time has passed but close enough that it’s clear this is the same man.

He is in much the same position: just standing there, facing slightly to HIS left, seeming calm, perhaps even a bit bored.

A bird can be seen fairly close by, towards the “back” of the frame (drawn in a way to indicate that distance and direction). Nothing distinctive about it, nothing of note.

The Fly (1986)

Director David Cronenberg is linked to “body horror” films.

The thing is, unlike almost every other director linked to those, he has talent beyond camp cr@p and gore sh1t.

I did a little research (yeah, really!) and the general consensus is that Jeff Goldblum is great in this. I agree.

The way he portrays protagonist Seth Brundle – giving him a personality complete with quirks and mannerisms and an awkward sort of charm – makes you buy the character, and care about him. Always important in a lead, but especially here, where caring about Brundle is absolutely essential in having any interest in the film.

Unless, of course, you just enjoy seeing great creepy make-up and disturbing images. In that case, you may find some things here perplexing, so allow me to explain: the thing that operates throughout the film is called a “script”, the entities with real personalities are called “characters”, and the way in which the whole thing is portrayed is called “intelligence”.

Geena Davis is good as Brundle’s foil and love interest, but quite frankly Goldblum is so good as Brundle that she’s not even necessary: this could be a one-man show in Brundle’s unfashionable “home”/laboratory and it would still be interesting.

Goldblum is so sympathetic that even when he’s morphing he retains more humanity (and personality) than most probably would. And he plays each stage just as well as the original Brundle character, which, again, makes the transformation believable. And, since you care about Brundle, disturbing and creepy.

Again, if you’re just watching for the creepy makeup and images, an explanation: “humanity” in the manner I mean constitutes aspects of compassion, humor, sympathy, kindness, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and so on. Some people tend to look for that in characters, so they can have sympathy for them. If you still don’t understand, see Wiktionary entry “sympathy”.

The whole idea here is creepy, the mood is creepy, Goldblum himself (even as unassuming original-Brundle) has a tinge of creepiness mixed into his appearance and attitude, and the transformation happens slowly enough (and is portrayed convincingly enough, mentally as well as physically) to string that creepiness out over almost the entire movie.

The FX are 30 years old, so come on…it’s gonna be a LITTLE cheezy at times. And there are bits that seem disjointed, or unnecessary.

But I think it’s creepy as HELL.

Inspirational Quote: “Have you ever heard of insect politics?…Neither have I.”

Grade: B

Quote Interpretation

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: ‘It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.'” – Jim Jarmusch

Analysis:

What Jarmusch is saying here is not “take other peoples work and pretend it’s yours.”

He’s saying that there is NO idea that is completely and totally original: that NOONE has ever thought of before. Even if only subconsciously, there are other influences besides just “…it just came to me and I worked everything out on my own”.

Maybe it came to you because you saw something, read something, watched something, felt something, heard something…

As I point out quite clearly in my semi-recent post on the subject, there’s a difference between “homage” (which is what Jarmusch is referring to) and NOT homage.

‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ DIRECTLY takes ideas from H.P. Lovecraft; even quotes his stories verbatim at times. But it EXPANDS on those ideas, it uses them as inspiration, as the origin of a much broader and greater (and authentic) work.

L.F. Dibley…does not.

Every comic has comedians that “influenced” them. So does every writer, every painter, every critic…

“…Comedians borrowed, stole stuff, and even bought bits from one another. Milton Berle and Robin Williams were famous for it. This was different…”

The thing is to BE inspired…to have that inspiration be AUTHENTIC; something that touches you, not something you think is “commercial” or anything else. To be open to that inspiration, to accept it, and to not be ashamed of it – since every artist, to one extent or another, consciously or subconsciously, is using at least one small part of one idea that someone else already thought of.

And then to TAKE that inspiration, and with it, and your own ideas, create something new that is worthwhile; that pleases you artistically and enhances the world in doing so.

Be inspired not greedy.

Be authentic; because you can’t be “original”.

To claim a SPECIFIC work as your own is fine.

To claim an IDEA as your own, that noone else can draw from, be inspired by…is against the very nature of art itself. It’s corporate…and quite frankly if artists get to the point where they’re like corporations (“You can’t use X phrase because I copyrighted it”), that will be a sad day for artists…and the world in general, since it will destroy creativity.

Don’t be fascist about freedom of expression.

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 18

Man has turned away from Grimmsy, facing now back to HIS left, seeming to have lost interest in him, not even bothering to gloat as the whole thing was so easy. Grimmsy’s scythe is flying toward the “back” of the frame, indicating motion that the man has absently tossed it away. Grimmsy stares rather woefully half at the man, half at the scythe, eyes starting to become sad.

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 13

Grimmsy responds via “bubble” (as before) as the man listens carefully, lips pursed and obviously thoughtful. The man has, very briefly, taken a very mildly serious tone; as if he’s trying to solve a crossword or something.

Grimmsy seems very solemn and serious, as if he’s trying to be commanding and fully expects the man to cooperate now. The text reflects this in that the letters are even more elaborately drawn than before; radiating an importance and semi-majesty that Grimmsy himself simply does not. The letters are not any larger nor do they in any way reflect anger. Grimmsy’s eyes have taken on a somewhat more commanding appearance; as if he fully expects his words to be heeded and taken completely seriously, though even so they aren’t particularly scary or even commanding.

DIALOGUE: “I understand your apprehension, Sir, but it is my duty to take you onward. If you do not come willingly I shall be forced to usher you onward via other means.”

What is “Homage”?

This is homage:

This is not:

Somewhere WAY in between there’s a fine line.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – ‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ is a great homage to H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos. L.F. Dibley’s ‘If’ is NOT a great homage to anything, it just sucks. Also, this is a really bad review (criticism), but it IS a review.

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 10

Grimmsy betrays little reaction, explaining to the man as if he apparently had prepared for such an eventuality. The man has the look of the last frame, faded/changed only slightly, thoughtfulness just faintly crept in. The background is virtually unchanged; noone or nothing else has appeared in the frame(s), the clouds have very faintly drifted.

DIALOGUE: “It is my duty to journey with the essence of what is you; to assist and expedite your arrival and to make the transition as comfortable as possible, Sir.”

STUPID STUPID STUPID

Ok, ok…that’s it.

Enough with the STUPID beyond ABSURD vehicle commercials with some guy talking to people about really boring cr@p, and then he asks them a stupid, boring question and they pretend to care.

And they don’t. And…you know why. Because it’s stupid. And noone would care.

But the latest is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen.

The guy is talking to a bunch of kids, and asks who wants to play a video game. They all want to, but only one can! OH NO!

What to do? Well…

What if he told them that if they talked EACH of their parents into spending 30K on a car, they could ALL play a video game, TOGETHER!

Suggested realistic response by the kids, collectively:

“What are you, a moron?”

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 121)

I like ‘The Hunt For Red October’, but am I the only one that has to restrain a chuckle:

1) When some extra guy says “Emergency Blow!”
2) When James Earl Jones says “Mother of God”

and a WTF?:

When Alec Baldwin knows with ‘Professional’-age-omniscience accuracy (precision?) that the guy at the end is “THE cook” (as opposed to a cook, since I’d assume a cook’s assistant has to have a boss), and WHY he is so apparently shocked by that, since he NEVER MET THE COOK BEFORE.

Is he somehow affronted that the reputation of submarine cooks everywhere has been tarnished?

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 9

Man seems equal parts annoyed and confused at this point, as if the little being in front of him is becoming something of a pest. He responds in a voice that conveys that. Grimmsy’s posture and position are unchanged.

DIALOGUE: “What are you talking about?? I’m not dead…what the heck are you, anyway?”

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 120)

Very faintly related to ‘Film Imitates Hagakure – Part I-Don’t-Remember’.

Look through them all. *I* didn’t write them, they’re over 300 years old and they’re still relevant, in some ways.

“We may as individuals be rather fond of our own dialect. This should not make us think, though, that it is actually any better than any other dialect. Dialects are not good or bad, nice or nasty, right or wrong – they are just different from one another, and it is the mark of a civilised society that it tolerates different dialects just as it tolerates different races, religions and sexes.”

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 5

Grimmsy “speaks” – shown as text in a bubble above his figure, though without a “connection” to him…just a bubble by itself, as if it could be spoken, or thought, or magically induced. Text has a “gothic”, “formal”, and “old” look about it; in the way each letter is drawn, font, detail, etc.

The man seems even more confused as this tiny little thing addresses him.

DIALOGUE: “Excuse me, Sir. I have come to take your immortal being to its next destination.”

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 4

Grimmsy’s purple eyes gaze directly at the man’s eyes, the two seeming to take in the other. Grimmsy appears as if he is trying to be polite, “substantial” in a faintly commanding way, and quite solemn. The first and third succeed very well, the second comes across about the same as a kid threatening their parents with a plastic lightsaber. The man appears as if he is still just a bit confused and curious; mildly interested as they gaze at each other in silence.

U.S. Marshalls (1998)

Good: Jones

Pretty good: Snipes, Downey

Indifferent: Most of the rest

Really bad: The wig

If this came out by itself, on its own, it would be seen as a somewhat generic but decent chase/suspense/thriller/whodunit with a pretty good cast and a certain amount of intelligence.

As ‘The Fugitive 2’ it’s a huge disappointment.

So…if you’re gonna compare, don’t bother watching.

Without Harrison Ford, the focus shifts from “THE Fugitive” to “a fugitive”; Wesley Snipes is pretty good but he’s not Ford, and he can’t carry the movie.

The writer or writers probably realize this, which is why this is much less Snipes-centric than ‘The Fugitive’ was Ford-centric.

The addition of Robert Downey Jr helps, the lines are spread out more among Jones’ crew, and it becomes much more about the chase/suspense/thriller/whodunit aspect than the rooting-for-a-likeable-character aspect.

If you like TL Jones’ character and crew, give it a watch. If not, skip it.

Grade: C

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 2

Man’s head has turned slightly to HIS right, not quite directly towards the left side of the frame but enough to indicate something there has attracted mild interest in some way.

From stage left a very small being, no more than two feet high (in scale), has started to enter the frame.

Figure appears as follows: covered from “head” to “toe” in a long black garment; a cowl covering the “head” and draping down slightly from its apex but appearing held in place by something, and very neatly so. However nothing is visible under the cowl except for a pool of pure blackness, absolute and complete with the exception of two purple eyes that seem to glow slightly in an otherworldly fashion. The placement of the eyes indicates they may be attached to a “head” (and the relative distance from the top of the cowl indicates the same) of some sort, but nothing else is visible in that regard. The garment itself trails down from the cowl to the very top of the path: the appearance indicates the being may be either walking or floating, it’s impossible to determine. The fabric appears old, almost ancient, but is undamaged. The garment comes out from the bottom of the cowl in the front at a very slight angle, maintaining that until it reaches the same point as in the back; again suggesting a physical form may be there though none can be seen. The appearance is clearly supernatural but so tiny and with such cute big purple eyes that the effect is more “awwww” than fear.

Figure is holding a very real-looking scythe: appearance is of an extremely miniature version of what WOULD be, if much larger, a rather dangerous (and sharp) looking weapon. As it is, the relative size of it makes it rather underwhelming. How the scythe is being held is unclear: its appearance originates from the section of the garment where sleeves would be (and are drawn, again in the fashion of possibly containing a physical form), but the base of the weapon disappears into the sleeves near where “hands” might be, without showing whether they exist one way or the other.

There is a certain ominous air about the figure in all drawn aspects; the vast majority does not look “cute” in and of itself, but the size of the figure and the weapon it wields (as well as the purple eyes, which seem quite neutral, not sinister) combine to form a rather odd picture…unusual to say the least.

Grimmsy Grimmling – Number 1 – Frame 1

Plain box, grass in the background and a cobble path in front. Daytime, a very ordinary sky; a few happy clouds, pleasant, somewhat sedate.

Man standing on the right on the cobble path seeming fairly neutral, not doing anything, facing forward and slightly to HIS left in a manner indicating a calm, almost lackadaisical attitude.

Man is of average everything: height, weight, appearance. Quite generic, with just a few tiny touches to distinguish him from being completely clone-like.

Eugenics – A Travesty Of Science

Nazi Germany is the extreme example, but it makes the point: given the ability to interfere in any way with the reproductive process, even the slightest inroads to controlling what kind of people are born and what kind are not, ANY government with the wrong person or persons in power (which could occur in any government in the world) could – legally or illegally, hidden or visible, publicly condemned or publicly endorsed – wield enormous power over the “type” of people that they want…and do NOT want…born.

To suggest it’s not highly possible, and plausible, that this would eventually happen to some degree is naive. Science creates, it does NOT control. Power controls, government controls; and what is made to be benevolent can and always will have the potential to be used – by those with no interest in benevolence – to its worst possible extent. There are many examples in history of initially benevolent discoveries warped and twisted to be extremely malevolent.

It’s like the saying goes…

“First they came for…”

Even starting out with only the SLIGHTEST interference has very real potential to lead to, eventually, total control.

If you believe that any government, given the ability to in any way control reproduction in terms of filtering out “undesirable” elements…or to have any say in what “types” of people are born…would not potentially misuse this ability, you are either incredibly naive or you have a faith in the essential “Good” of humanity that is well-intentioned but false.

Thoughts that came so easily after a recent re…viewing of Star Trek:TOS ‘Space Seed’…

A suggested slogan: “Eugenics – For When You Want Your Accomplishments Created In A Test Tube”.

Really that’s all it is…nothing a “superman” has as ability is earned or worked for in any way, merely given. No accomplishment, no hardship, no effort…pride over how they happened, by pure chance, to be created.

Now that’s just sad.

Khan is pretty much the equivalent of Mr. Dingle, The Strong…except more dangerous. Given amazing ability (by pure chance), using that ability on petty, selfish, completely NON-“superior” actions and pursuits.

The brilliant idea of the eugenically enhanced super-mind:

Conquer the world.

Wow…noone’s ever thought of that before.

In fact, anyone that believes that by virtue of an enhanced ability to learn/improve/comprehend that they did NOTHING to acquire that they are in ANY way “superior” to others is actively INFERIOR…a completely illogical, self-deluded, LaVeyan-like idiot who would fail John Cleese’s school in the first year; worthy of pity if they weren’t dangerous by their inherent boorish, arrogant, petty “goals”.

Eugenics is a vicious, brutal, disgusting, totalitarian, fascist and complete violation of individuality and the rights, dignities, and worths of the individual.

Unless you stand to gain from this (wanting only the best, strongest, most intelligent genetically engineered I-hesitate-to-call-them-humans to make up your workforce) or unless you have absolutely no regard for individuality, liberty, or the concept of personal identity as sacred, I fail to see how any “intelligent” person cannot understand this. Assuming, of course, they have the basic morals of a non-sociopath.

People are born the way they are, and everything they do (assuming they aren’t in the .1 percent) requires at least SOME effort…an active desire to learn or improve, not an egotistical vegetable-like state of soaking in things because you can’t help it, like some sort of sponge or a parasitical being that required no apparatus.

In FACT, people born eugenically “perfect” would be an active detriment to the human race: perfection would become the norm, destroying individuality…among other things. Since only the most desirable traits are necessary, selective filtering would make mankind smarter, stronger, healthier…more homogenous, with fewer and fewer variations, closer and closer to simply clones of the one “perfect” example.

You can only make people perfect by taking away their humanity.

Knowledge or power gained without effort lacks wisdom.

Is the slow devolution of humanity into more perfect, more machine-like, more egotistical – the slow transformation from diversity to a more Borg or Landru inspired society something positive?

Let’s not make this statement accurate:

“This is a soulless society, Captain. It has no spirit, no spark. All is indeed peace and tranquility; the peace of the factory, the tranquility of the machine. All parts working in unison.”

HOW I WROTE THIS:

I think
I went to school
I’ve read books
I’ve read articles
I’ve undergone hardships
I’ve actively analyzed with the possibility of my premise being incorrect
I’ve expended effort
I have morals
I am not an elitist
And lastly and leastly, I was born with a certain degree of intelligence

Inspirational Quote: “Khan…I’m LAUGHING at the ‘superior’ intellect.”

And, of course, the “superior” intellect responds with arrogance and stupidity.

No surprize.

Also see:
‘Space Seed’
‘The Return Of The Archons’
‘Gattaca’
‘Brave New World’ (imagine it’s better written)
‘1984’
‘Minority Report’
‘The Hangman’
“Foot-In-The-Door Technique”
“Creeping Normality”

The Circle Of Death And Cute Purple Eyes

Since everyone else seems to find the idea of drawing for my comic really…interesting, I’ve decided to present it in pure written form.

That’s right, each frame will consist only of the pure, undiluted description of what happens. This brings to you a higher degree of authenticity, and is only being done because I can’t find an artist.

And I assure you, I am the best comic writer in this room.

I shall make you a comic. I shall call it…”Grimmsy Grimmling, Escort Of Souls”.

*boppy music…*
*finished, pushes it to the edge of your Circle Of Protection: Little Death*

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

The Lost Works Of Anna Dalton – Part Eight

Without the beginning and ending, of course.

Though the ending is still one of the most touching and genuine displays of devotion – to one very easily abandoned, and for nothing in return – I’ve ever seen.

That’s true friendship.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A short display of the best actor in a fairly cheezy movie.