It is currently Saturday, right after 1. I have Dollhouse episode 7 cued up and waiting for me to watch it. And I realize just how much I've been wanting to watch this episode.
I've heard people complain about Dollhouse. It isn't your standard Joss Whedon show, it doesn't have a lot of the things that makes a Joss Whedon show his show. And I call bullshit on this. People complain about the lack of witty dialogue and 4th-wall-burning banter. Some crave the intense and twisty romantic entanglements of the main characters, which we are just barely seeing. Some even call him a hack because all the new characters are the same, or fill the same roles, as previous characters, the best and most distinctive one being the relationship of Echo and her handler Boyd as compared to Buffy and Giles, her watcher.
And I call bullshit.
None of those things are what make a "Joss Whedon show" a "Joss Whedon show." Those might be some of the things that tie together the three (and a half, if you include Dr. Horrible) shows we have seen, but there is something deeper to it. I am a writer. I am a creator. I look at things a lot harder, longer, and more theoretically than most. And I guarantee you, Joss Whedon does as well. Especially for his creation.
So, what makes Dollhouse a "Joss Whedon show?"
It is intensely character based. Or at least, it is finally turning that way. The show suffered from having to explain the world to its viewers. It is truely the viewers fault that the show was not immediately excessable. It is hard to jump into a show like this, and instead of doing it as the original intention was, to jump in with both feet and let those who could swim in the deep end of the show drown, and those who could drink it in deep, they took an easier approach with some shallow pool action.
I am not condemning this idea, nor am I condoning. I am a smarter viewer than average, and would have liked the jump-in approach, as I think it makes for a better story. But that is the past.
It is also intensely changing. Every episode matters, in the long run. Dollhouse had a VERY hard time making me believe this until episode 4. This is all one part of a bigger narrative. A bigger story, centered around our characters, specifically Ballard and Echo, and then rippling out from them to touch everyone else.
The world of Dollhouse has lots of rules. And more importantly, it has lots of rules that need to be broken, and our viewers need to know these. It wasn't truely until two episodes ago that I felt that the show started flourishing.
Rachel and I watch together, and as I read online and talk with her, it seems that I am the only person who really loves the character of Dominic, head of security. To me, this man is the most Joss-Whedon of the characters. He is dark, powerful, smart, and passionate about his own feelings. So much so that he would endanger his life, his company, and his mission to kill Echo when he thought he had a chance because he views her as a threat to his own life, company, and mission! I love the play, I love the actors portrayal, and I love the fact that he has been in every episode with a strong appearance and a strong role, yet is only a recurring character.
Actually, looking at the show now, the recurring characters ARE stronger characters at this point. Which is mind boggling from a show-watcher standpoint. I see the few characters who are getting regular billing, and find myself wanting to see more of Dominic, Dr. Sanders, and Millie (even though I hated her for SO long until last episode).
Man, last episode. I've told my friends, and now I tell you. If you do not jump on this show immediately, you will be lost. Not in the good way. Not even in the bad way. Just inexplicable and totally lost. Even if you can catch up and watch everything, you are missing the very important absorption time, especially after S01E06. Holy shit.
I ramble on and on, not making a lot of coherent progress from one point to another, to get to my main point. Dollhouse is definitively a Joss-Whedon show. And one all of you should be watching. Including me. Right now. Bye.
28.3.09
26.3.09
On 4e Rangers
I remember when 4e Dungeons and Dragons was announced, and they told us how they were doings things (power sources, 4 roles). I looked to Martial Striker and smiled. Look, me, here is the guy who deals damage by being purely awesome. This is gotta be the Rogue. That is sneak attack to a T. Wait, Rangers? Well ... ok.
I also remember picking up my first DnD book ever, the Ravenloft Domains and Dread book for AD&D 2nd edition. And seeing the great Defenders of the Woods, the Ranger! How has this great hero archetype, created for Strider from the Lord of the Rings, been reduced to a not-quite-as-cool-as-a-Warlock clone?
Let me break it down for you.
2nd Edition Rangers // 4e Rangers
- Class Grouping/Power Source: Warriors // Martial
So far so good. This is the same class so far.
- Statistics: Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom // Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom
Wow, still the same. This is exciting.
- Alignment: Only Good // Any
Wait a minute, our first snag. Rangers are warriors of good, not bidden by ethics, just morality in 2nd Edition. Where is that flavor in 4e? Well, as a general rule, 4e didn't want alignment forced on anyone (Paladin, I'm pointing at you). So I guess that is cool. Well, not cool, but adequate.
- Armor: Class abilities work in leather or lighter // Cloth, Leather, Hide
Ok, ok, I'm good with this. This is still the same.
- Weapons: Two weapon fighting and archery // Two weapon fighting OR archery
Huh? So you mean I have to pick? And if I have high strength, it doesn't benefit my archery? And if I have high Dex, it doesn't benefit two weaponf ighting? And I can use crossbows? So, instead of being versitle, and a fighting force, I have to pick my role. ::sigh:: ok, this is still just kinda the ideas that 4e wants, so I guess I'm cool with it. Let's keep going.
- Magic: Starts at level 8, and is Divine // None.
Ok, hold up. Not only do I have to pick what I'm good with, I don't get magic anymore? Rangers have always had magic. That's their schtick. They even have a specific magic school: Ranger Magic! What's up with this? I understand that Encounter Powers and Dailies are supposed to give the effect of spells to non-spellcasters. TOO BAD RANGERS ARE FUCKING SPELLCASTERS! ... Let's continue.
- Tracking: Free Tracking Proficency // Free Skill Training in Dungeoneering or Nature.
Ok, this seems fine and dandy ... until you realize once again, I have to pick what I'm good at tracking. Rangers used to be able to find tracks ANYWHERE! FOR FREE! Now I gotta pick. Ok. Let's just call it customization and leave it at that. Next.
- Stealth: Upgrading Percentiles to 99% // Stealth is class skill.
Ok, this is a fundamental problem. Now, because of customization or whatever, Rangers are no longer the stealth machines in the woods they were. They no longer act like protective panthers, hunting their quarry and then jumping down with two daggers, or shooting it from up in a tree. You gotta waste Class Skills on it. I know what your thinking: Justin, you're being a douche. Why are you trying to compare things like that? They are Class Skills for a reason.
Ok, fine. Let's take a look at skills:
Skills: Free Tracking Proficiency, Free Percentile Hide in Shadows and Move Silently, Proficiencies equal to your Int bonus // Nature or Dungeoneering for free, then pick 4 from Acrobatics, Athletics, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, Nature, Perception, Stealth.
What happened to Bowyer/Fletcher? What happened to simple Cooking? Not important to combat so removed from the class options? This is absurd ... Let's go on.
Extra damage: Special Enemies // Hunter's Quarry
So ... instead of just dealing extra damage to all orcs, goblins, cats, ghosts, whatever ... I deal extra damage to one guy on the battlefield ... the closest one to me on the battlefield, and it doesn't matter which one. I guess this is the ability that made Wizards think that Rangers were Strikers. Yeah, that extra 2 damage REALLY is equivalent to Backstab. Oops, I mean Sneak Attack. And to make it worse, look at fucking Warlocks! They get magic, cool effects from their curse, even though it is mechanically the same thing as Quarry but BETTER, AND THEY FUCKING GET SHADOW WALK?! RANGERS DO FUCKING SHADOW WALK! THAT IS WHAT THEY DID! 99% of the Time, they hide and were silently 100% of the time!
Animal Empathy: Changes Reaction rolls with animals // Zilch
Fuck this. Now, instead of a group of wild animals coming on the party and the Ranger stepping forward to change they animal's reactions from snarling to purring, they step forward to get +1 to attack and shoot an arrow at it. What the fuck is that?!
Non-damage, non-magic abilities: Cure Lycanthropy // Zilch
Fuck this.
Oh, and with the Martial Power book, they are bringing about Tempest Fighters. That's right one of the best built classes, and a very cool one, is going to start DOING TWF BETTER THAN RANGERS?! WHAT THE HELL?
The only hope I have for this class as it was is whatever the Primal Defender or Leader is. Perhaps called Warden. But until then, the Ranger has been screwed. It is now a flavor-less filler that I wish they had waited on. The only reason it is even IN core is because they needs a martial ranged user, and they didn't want Marking to be ranged.
I also remember picking up my first DnD book ever, the Ravenloft Domains and Dread book for AD&D 2nd edition. And seeing the great Defenders of the Woods, the Ranger! How has this great hero archetype, created for Strider from the Lord of the Rings, been reduced to a not-quite-as-cool-as-a-Warlock clone?
Let me break it down for you.
2nd Edition Rangers // 4e Rangers
- Class Grouping/Power Source: Warriors // Martial
So far so good. This is the same class so far.
- Statistics: Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom // Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom
Wow, still the same. This is exciting.
- Alignment: Only Good // Any
Wait a minute, our first snag. Rangers are warriors of good, not bidden by ethics, just morality in 2nd Edition. Where is that flavor in 4e? Well, as a general rule, 4e didn't want alignment forced on anyone (Paladin, I'm pointing at you). So I guess that is cool. Well, not cool, but adequate.
- Armor: Class abilities work in leather or lighter // Cloth, Leather, Hide
Ok, ok, I'm good with this. This is still the same.
- Weapons: Two weapon fighting and archery // Two weapon fighting OR archery
Huh? So you mean I have to pick? And if I have high strength, it doesn't benefit my archery? And if I have high Dex, it doesn't benefit two weaponf ighting? And I can use crossbows? So, instead of being versitle, and a fighting force, I have to pick my role. ::sigh:: ok, this is still just kinda the ideas that 4e wants, so I guess I'm cool with it. Let's keep going.
- Magic: Starts at level 8, and is Divine // None.
Ok, hold up. Not only do I have to pick what I'm good with, I don't get magic anymore? Rangers have always had magic. That's their schtick. They even have a specific magic school: Ranger Magic! What's up with this? I understand that Encounter Powers and Dailies are supposed to give the effect of spells to non-spellcasters. TOO BAD RANGERS ARE FUCKING SPELLCASTERS! ... Let's continue.
- Tracking: Free Tracking Proficency // Free Skill Training in Dungeoneering or Nature.
Ok, this seems fine and dandy ... until you realize once again, I have to pick what I'm good at tracking. Rangers used to be able to find tracks ANYWHERE! FOR FREE! Now I gotta pick. Ok. Let's just call it customization and leave it at that. Next.
- Stealth: Upgrading Percentiles to 99% // Stealth is class skill.
Ok, this is a fundamental problem. Now, because of customization or whatever, Rangers are no longer the stealth machines in the woods they were. They no longer act like protective panthers, hunting their quarry and then jumping down with two daggers, or shooting it from up in a tree. You gotta waste Class Skills on it. I know what your thinking: Justin, you're being a douche. Why are you trying to compare things like that? They are Class Skills for a reason.
Ok, fine. Let's take a look at skills:
Skills: Free Tracking Proficiency, Free Percentile Hide in Shadows and Move Silently, Proficiencies equal to your Int bonus // Nature or Dungeoneering for free, then pick 4 from Acrobatics, Athletics, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, Nature, Perception, Stealth.
What happened to Bowyer/Fletcher? What happened to simple Cooking? Not important to combat so removed from the class options? This is absurd ... Let's go on.
Extra damage: Special Enemies // Hunter's Quarry
So ... instead of just dealing extra damage to all orcs, goblins, cats, ghosts, whatever ... I deal extra damage to one guy on the battlefield ... the closest one to me on the battlefield, and it doesn't matter which one. I guess this is the ability that made Wizards think that Rangers were Strikers. Yeah, that extra 2 damage REALLY is equivalent to Backstab. Oops, I mean Sneak Attack. And to make it worse, look at fucking Warlocks! They get magic, cool effects from their curse, even though it is mechanically the same thing as Quarry but BETTER, AND THEY FUCKING GET SHADOW WALK?! RANGERS DO FUCKING SHADOW WALK! THAT IS WHAT THEY DID! 99% of the Time, they hide and were silently 100% of the time!
Animal Empathy: Changes Reaction rolls with animals // Zilch
Fuck this. Now, instead of a group of wild animals coming on the party and the Ranger stepping forward to change they animal's reactions from snarling to purring, they step forward to get +1 to attack and shoot an arrow at it. What the fuck is that?!
Non-damage, non-magic abilities: Cure Lycanthropy // Zilch
Fuck this.
Oh, and with the Martial Power book, they are bringing about Tempest Fighters. That's right one of the best built classes, and a very cool one, is going to start DOING TWF BETTER THAN RANGERS?! WHAT THE HELL?
The only hope I have for this class as it was is whatever the Primal Defender or Leader is. Perhaps called Warden. But until then, the Ranger has been screwed. It is now a flavor-less filler that I wish they had waited on. The only reason it is even IN core is because they needs a martial ranged user, and they didn't want Marking to be ranged.
25.3.09
On Opportunity
There are stupid things people say. Lots of them. But none of them piss me off more than "opportunity knocking on your door" or however you want to state it.
I have lived a good fourth of the full life of man. And in that fourth, I'll say a good half of it was spent trying to further any sort of career I would want. I spend the vast majority of my time writing, creating, and spending time in my mediums, be it comic books, films, or poetry and theatre and novels. I have worked diligently to continue on my course, writing scripts, understanding the theory behind comic books as a communication medium, developing nuances in character voice and plot structure. Every step I have taken has made me a better writer.
Then I look around. I see people around me, who have spent nowhere near the same amount of time. Have nowhere near the knowledge or talent. Have nothing close to the ambition. And somehow they are making it, in the mediums I am hacking my way through to get at. For them, some mysterious entity has come by and offered them a chance to make their dreams come true. And it has left me back in the brush, hacking my way to any semblance of what I want my life to be.
What kind of fucker is Opportunity? What makes one person more likely to have someone come up and say to them "Hey, I saw that comment you made on facebook, and it intrigued me" or "That sketch on deviantart that you didn't try hard on reminds me of what I was looking for"! How is it that I've been working this long, and have never gotten an opportunity? Why do others get things placed in their laps while I am the only one working to get my opportunity lap-dance.
I know I sound bitter. I AM bitter. I cannot fathom how this works.
As I look upon all that I just wrote, I can help but scowl. I know I am better than those people that opportunity offers her hand, and I know it because I have been hacking. I have been writing, and working, and understanding. I've put in the work. So fuck opportunity. I'll have to make it happen. And when or if she comes knocking, I'll just tell her to fuck off!
...
...
Well, I mean I'll listen to what she has to say first. I'm not a total dick.
I have lived a good fourth of the full life of man. And in that fourth, I'll say a good half of it was spent trying to further any sort of career I would want. I spend the vast majority of my time writing, creating, and spending time in my mediums, be it comic books, films, or poetry and theatre and novels. I have worked diligently to continue on my course, writing scripts, understanding the theory behind comic books as a communication medium, developing nuances in character voice and plot structure. Every step I have taken has made me a better writer.
Then I look around. I see people around me, who have spent nowhere near the same amount of time. Have nowhere near the knowledge or talent. Have nothing close to the ambition. And somehow they are making it, in the mediums I am hacking my way through to get at. For them, some mysterious entity has come by and offered them a chance to make their dreams come true. And it has left me back in the brush, hacking my way to any semblance of what I want my life to be.
What kind of fucker is Opportunity? What makes one person more likely to have someone come up and say to them "Hey, I saw that comment you made on facebook, and it intrigued me" or "That sketch on deviantart that you didn't try hard on reminds me of what I was looking for"! How is it that I've been working this long, and have never gotten an opportunity? Why do others get things placed in their laps while I am the only one working to get my opportunity lap-dance.
I know I sound bitter. I AM bitter. I cannot fathom how this works.
As I look upon all that I just wrote, I can help but scowl. I know I am better than those people that opportunity offers her hand, and I know it because I have been hacking. I have been writing, and working, and understanding. I've put in the work. So fuck opportunity. I'll have to make it happen. And when or if she comes knocking, I'll just tell her to fuck off!
...
...
Well, I mean I'll listen to what she has to say first. I'm not a total dick.
23.3.09
On Online TV Shows
With the rise of easier access to technology, a younger age of becoming comfortable with it, and a growing online society and culture, it is only a natural response for entertainment to turn to this new media of communication. From reading blogs like this one, recapping things in real life, to forums where people create and work together, art sites where you can now share what only your mother cared about, entertainment can be found everyone online. But the thing that really intrigues me are the concept of televised programs online.
The beauty of television was the intimacy. When it first hit households, it replaced the fireplace as the centerpiece of the parlor and living rooms. It become centerfold for entire families for many years, who would gather around and collectively find something on the five or so channels that broadcast anything and enjoy life together. It was there, like another member of the household. Collectively, you cared about the happenings of the characters, the plights of their narratives.
This idea held true for decades, as the television continued to create new versions of itself, from the introduction of cable, to adult specific entertainment (not just porno, kiddies, thought that is a part of it), to eventually cauterizing into so many different channels with the advent of further broadcasting and satellite television that you have to pick what your mood is. Comedy? They got a channel. Cartoons? What decade? They got one for each decade starting with the 70's, with litterings of older shows on other channels.
I cannot as a historian (as I am not one) say with an form of definitive answer when the television moved from being the centerpiece of the home, but it did, to be replaced with the computer. Now, each household had multiple televisions. Hell, the average number of televisions per household is 2.4. Now, not only have the channels become cauterized and separated, but so have the viewers. Don't want to watch CSI with mom? Go upstairs and plug in the X-Box 360. But still, there was only one computer. For awhile.
All this history and theoretics of history aside, now a new society has erupted and become the norm. It started with Livejournal, moved to Myspace, continued to Facebook, and now exists strongly as the Youtube community.
Ah, Youtube. A place to find stupid people doing stupid things, rare videos, fan-made AMVs, and more recently, actual television. It didn't take long, but now there are many actual televison shows, even one specifically created with Youtube Celebrities as the cast, and to be honest, there is some really good content among the v-logs and copycats:
- Man in the Box: An office comedy show that has me laughing harder in two minute segments than The Office ever did.
- I'm a Marvel ... and I'm a DC: Created at first as just a pardoy of the popular Mac vs. PC commercials, it turned into a life of its own, giving commentary on the wave of comic book and superhero movies that have been flooding the media (I have an opinion on that, trust me) and then from there into actual plot and narrative. All in stop motion by one RandomGuy and a RandomGirl, with sometimes a RandomCat.
- Barack Paper Scissors: The first really well made Youtube Gameshow! Inspired by the new president (but not truely about him, you staunch Republicans, so give it a shot) and taken to ridiculous lengths, with weekly winners and new competitions weekly.
- Hooking Up: The aforementioned first actual Youtube television show with Youtube Celebrities.
But just like with television, once something becomes very good, with the accessability to do almost anything creatively online, shows have begun cauterizing to be more specific, this time by production company or front-man, normally both. But these guys are now making money doing their goofy shows, and the production quality becomes higher and higher.
- Cinemassacre: Started as a joke for his friends by a film-maker-in-the-making James Rolfe, it has blown out of proportions into a megaplex of fandom. Getting famous with his curse-spewing, beer-swilling video game reviewer of retro and classic shit the Angry Video Game Nerd - now with two seasons under his belt (avaliable on DVD) and grow production values (15 minute long episodes when most shows run around 3) - James has begun to shape an enterprise of internet television.
- That Guy With the Glasses: A group, run by one funny guy and his friends, that started with just goofy 5 sec cliffnote-style parodies of movies, then leading to his arguably best character the Nostalgia Critic, now they have expanded to 20+ shows from many contributors. Some are good (the aforementioned Nostalgia Critic and his female counterpart; Full Circle by a "true music lover" Paw), while some are what you would expect (Game Heroes game reviews and podcasts considered to be amazingly "Awesome") to the just the plain bad (you don't have to look hard). But doesn't mean they don't deserve props.
- Runaway Box: A production company, the one that puts together Man in the Box that I mentioned above, has more than that. Original Music Videos, parodies, Eric Estrada, Lando Calrissian and more, these guys are great. Sure all the videos are still posted on Youtube, but they have a vision, and work their asses off getting content out for their viewers. They will be famous someday, I am sure of it. Hell, you could technically say they are now!
- Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog: How can I leave this out. This is the product of the writer's guild strike, and it was great! Check it out, and get the DVDs, folks! Support the stuff you like.
There are more and more than this, and these are just a few that I tune into weekly. You should be as well.
The beauty of television was the intimacy. When it first hit households, it replaced the fireplace as the centerpiece of the parlor and living rooms. It become centerfold for entire families for many years, who would gather around and collectively find something on the five or so channels that broadcast anything and enjoy life together. It was there, like another member of the household. Collectively, you cared about the happenings of the characters, the plights of their narratives.
This idea held true for decades, as the television continued to create new versions of itself, from the introduction of cable, to adult specific entertainment (not just porno, kiddies, thought that is a part of it), to eventually cauterizing into so many different channels with the advent of further broadcasting and satellite television that you have to pick what your mood is. Comedy? They got a channel. Cartoons? What decade? They got one for each decade starting with the 70's, with litterings of older shows on other channels.
I cannot as a historian (as I am not one) say with an form of definitive answer when the television moved from being the centerpiece of the home, but it did, to be replaced with the computer. Now, each household had multiple televisions. Hell, the average number of televisions per household is 2.4. Now, not only have the channels become cauterized and separated, but so have the viewers. Don't want to watch CSI with mom? Go upstairs and plug in the X-Box 360. But still, there was only one computer. For awhile.
All this history and theoretics of history aside, now a new society has erupted and become the norm. It started with Livejournal, moved to Myspace, continued to Facebook, and now exists strongly as the Youtube community.
Ah, Youtube. A place to find stupid people doing stupid things, rare videos, fan-made AMVs, and more recently, actual television. It didn't take long, but now there are many actual televison shows, even one specifically created with Youtube Celebrities as the cast, and to be honest, there is some really good content among the v-logs and copycats:
- Man in the Box: An office comedy show that has me laughing harder in two minute segments than The Office ever did.
- I'm a Marvel ... and I'm a DC: Created at first as just a pardoy of the popular Mac vs. PC commercials, it turned into a life of its own, giving commentary on the wave of comic book and superhero movies that have been flooding the media (I have an opinion on that, trust me) and then from there into actual plot and narrative. All in stop motion by one RandomGuy and a RandomGirl, with sometimes a RandomCat.
- Barack Paper Scissors: The first really well made Youtube Gameshow! Inspired by the new president (but not truely about him, you staunch Republicans, so give it a shot) and taken to ridiculous lengths, with weekly winners and new competitions weekly.
- Hooking Up: The aforementioned first actual Youtube television show with Youtube Celebrities.
But just like with television, once something becomes very good, with the accessability to do almost anything creatively online, shows have begun cauterizing to be more specific, this time by production company or front-man, normally both. But these guys are now making money doing their goofy shows, and the production quality becomes higher and higher.
- Cinemassacre: Started as a joke for his friends by a film-maker-in-the-making James Rolfe, it has blown out of proportions into a megaplex of fandom. Getting famous with his curse-spewing, beer-swilling video game reviewer of retro and classic shit the Angry Video Game Nerd - now with two seasons under his belt (avaliable on DVD) and grow production values (15 minute long episodes when most shows run around 3) - James has begun to shape an enterprise of internet television.
- That Guy With the Glasses: A group, run by one funny guy and his friends, that started with just goofy 5 sec cliffnote-style parodies of movies, then leading to his arguably best character the Nostalgia Critic, now they have expanded to 20+ shows from many contributors. Some are good (the aforementioned Nostalgia Critic and his female counterpart; Full Circle by a "true music lover" Paw), while some are what you would expect (Game Heroes game reviews and podcasts considered to be amazingly "Awesome") to the just the plain bad (you don't have to look hard). But doesn't mean they don't deserve props.
- Runaway Box: A production company, the one that puts together Man in the Box that I mentioned above, has more than that. Original Music Videos, parodies, Eric Estrada, Lando Calrissian and more, these guys are great. Sure all the videos are still posted on Youtube, but they have a vision, and work their asses off getting content out for their viewers. They will be famous someday, I am sure of it. Hell, you could technically say they are now!
- Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog: How can I leave this out. This is the product of the writer's guild strike, and it was great! Check it out, and get the DVDs, folks! Support the stuff you like.
There are more and more than this, and these are just a few that I tune into weekly. You should be as well.
22.3.09
On "I Love You, Man"
So, after desperately avoiding the movie theatre during the Watchmen debut and following weeks (merely from my own fear of how they will change the movie and all the reviews I have read and heard that are so conflicting I could put them all on jury duty together), Rachel and I finally made it back to good ole Regal to see what we thought would be another masterpiece of the new dramady masters Jason Segal, Paul Rudd, etc. And man ... do I have an opinion on this flick.
Currently, I have found myself in a crisis similar to the plight of the main character, Peter Klavin (Paul Rudd), which has been adequately called "bromance." So watching a comedy about it I thought would help alleviate my own feelings. The only problem was, I didn't get to see a comedy. Peter asks his girlfriend to marry him, which of course she agrees to, as it is too early for conflict. Then Peter realizes he has no male friends. I could easily continue to recap the movie, but I really just do not feel like reliving it.
The movie was long, slow, and worst of all, couldn't connect. All the characters came across cold and unrelatable, and very much not funny. Great actors I love, like Jason Segal, Jamie Lee Presley, Paul Rudd, Jon Favreau, Andy Sandberg, and many more funny people just could not make me laugh more than an awkward semi-smile and chuckle. I loved the Rush sequence, but that is about it.
When it comes down to it, the movie suffered from a few major flaws, first of which being bad writing. Great actors cannot turn crap into gold, no matter how much ad-libbing is allowed. And all the fumbling Paul Rudd does to find fun "guy phrases" to say are hollow and pointless. The "break up" scene was pointless, and the drama that caused it ended up being entirely renigged without a climax. While I'm talking about Paul Rudd, I want to make it clear. He is one of the funniest guys I have seen, playing Fontana in Anchorman, the hilarious Chuck in Forgetting Sarah Marhsall, and poor and lonely David from 40 Year Old Virgin. But he is not ready to hold the lead role in a film. Look back to Role Models, another Paul Rudd first time ride in the front man's seat. Another cold, and not quite that funny delivery. I do not know what people are thinking, but he isn't ready. Let him get back to character comedy, and leave the dramady to Seth Rogan and Jason Segal.
Jason Segal was good as Sydney, funny even, though unbelieveable. We never find out his line of work - Rachel argues with him here, saying that he is an "investor", but there isn't any actual proof he does that as a living or if he just plays the market - and all he does is spout guy philosophy throughout the flick. His big plot-screw-up-moment that lead to the break up scene was actually the best thing that could have happened to Peter. And not in the good way that movies spin things on their head. Hell, Sydney didn't have a flaw in the climax at all, as he was right, and when Peter and Zooey (Rashida Jones - another cold portrayal of what should have been a very funny straight "man" to Paul Rudd) realize their collective mistake and try to get Sydney back, he is ALREADY FUCKING heading back to the wedding to be the Best Man! That scene undercut any actual growth of the characters for the audience, as inevitably, Sydney, the best fucking friend Peter, or anyone, could have had, was still coming to support the friend who told him to stay away and not come to the wedding.
The real problem with this movie was that everyone had too much fun. All the actors knew each other, they are all friends, and they all just kinda phoned it in. I bet it was a great experience for them to create the flick, one of the best in their careers, I'm sure. But the flick itself suffered. It is like handing a camera crew to a bunch of college buddies who decide to film themselves being "funny." They certainly enjoyed it, but it is nowhere near the quality of something that should shown nationwide in our movie theatres.
I'd like to say the good moments counted out for the bad, like the nice switch up of the masculine gay character (Andy Samberg, funniest role in the film, and he wasn't that good this time around) to foil the effeminate lead of Rudd, but they don't. They are barely memorable.
In the long run, if you want to see it, wait a year and a half for it to play on Comedy Central. And then do your taxes/homework/Sudoku while it plays in the background. It'll be funnier that way.
Grade: C
Currently, I have found myself in a crisis similar to the plight of the main character, Peter Klavin (Paul Rudd), which has been adequately called "bromance." So watching a comedy about it I thought would help alleviate my own feelings. The only problem was, I didn't get to see a comedy. Peter asks his girlfriend to marry him, which of course she agrees to, as it is too early for conflict. Then Peter realizes he has no male friends. I could easily continue to recap the movie, but I really just do not feel like reliving it.
The movie was long, slow, and worst of all, couldn't connect. All the characters came across cold and unrelatable, and very much not funny. Great actors I love, like Jason Segal, Jamie Lee Presley, Paul Rudd, Jon Favreau, Andy Sandberg, and many more funny people just could not make me laugh more than an awkward semi-smile and chuckle. I loved the Rush sequence, but that is about it.
When it comes down to it, the movie suffered from a few major flaws, first of which being bad writing. Great actors cannot turn crap into gold, no matter how much ad-libbing is allowed. And all the fumbling Paul Rudd does to find fun "guy phrases" to say are hollow and pointless. The "break up" scene was pointless, and the drama that caused it ended up being entirely renigged without a climax. While I'm talking about Paul Rudd, I want to make it clear. He is one of the funniest guys I have seen, playing Fontana in Anchorman, the hilarious Chuck in Forgetting Sarah Marhsall, and poor and lonely David from 40 Year Old Virgin. But he is not ready to hold the lead role in a film. Look back to Role Models, another Paul Rudd first time ride in the front man's seat. Another cold, and not quite that funny delivery. I do not know what people are thinking, but he isn't ready. Let him get back to character comedy, and leave the dramady to Seth Rogan and Jason Segal.
Jason Segal was good as Sydney, funny even, though unbelieveable. We never find out his line of work - Rachel argues with him here, saying that he is an "investor", but there isn't any actual proof he does that as a living or if he just plays the market - and all he does is spout guy philosophy throughout the flick. His big plot-screw-up-moment that lead to the break up scene was actually the best thing that could have happened to Peter. And not in the good way that movies spin things on their head. Hell, Sydney didn't have a flaw in the climax at all, as he was right, and when Peter and Zooey (Rashida Jones - another cold portrayal of what should have been a very funny straight "man" to Paul Rudd) realize their collective mistake and try to get Sydney back, he is ALREADY FUCKING heading back to the wedding to be the Best Man! That scene undercut any actual growth of the characters for the audience, as inevitably, Sydney, the best fucking friend Peter, or anyone, could have had, was still coming to support the friend who told him to stay away and not come to the wedding.
The real problem with this movie was that everyone had too much fun. All the actors knew each other, they are all friends, and they all just kinda phoned it in. I bet it was a great experience for them to create the flick, one of the best in their careers, I'm sure. But the flick itself suffered. It is like handing a camera crew to a bunch of college buddies who decide to film themselves being "funny." They certainly enjoyed it, but it is nowhere near the quality of something that should shown nationwide in our movie theatres.
I'd like to say the good moments counted out for the bad, like the nice switch up of the masculine gay character (Andy Samberg, funniest role in the film, and he wasn't that good this time around) to foil the effeminate lead of Rudd, but they don't. They are barely memorable.
In the long run, if you want to see it, wait a year and a half for it to play on Comedy Central. And then do your taxes/homework/Sudoku while it plays in the background. It'll be funnier that way.
Grade: C
On Blogging
So I decided to start a blog. A real one. This has a multiple-fold purpose:
1) Organize my thoughts. "I have an opinion ..." has been my mantra for a very long time. I can think of very few subjects, items, people, topics, or conversational centerpieces that I do not have an opinion on ("The Venture Brothers" is one, as a note). So I have decide that I will start doing a blog. I have no clue how blogs become popular, but I hope I generate some steam. Or at least SOMEONE reads, though that is not a primary purpose here.
2) Keep myself writing. I want to be a writer. Of many things. Poetry, theatre, short stories, novels, fiction, comic books, essays, editorials, critiques. MANY things. This is a way to keep my brain working, my fingers moving, and my words flowing. If I can write a blog at least every other day, then I'll be able to continue on.
Sidebar: What will I be writing about? Well, whatever the mood strikes me as during the day. Sometime during the day, hopefully, someone will spark an interesting topic, that will send me reeling. And there is the gold, the magic, the chutzpah. Well, maybe not chutzpah, but you catch my drift.
3) To express myself. I have noticed that - obviously - different people have different coping methods. Such as my wife, Rachel, is a "bottler." To cope with situations beyond her control, she takes everything she feels and bottles it down into her. Now, regardless of the effectiveness of this technique, it is still a technique. Writing and talking are how I cope. If I am pissed, I have to say it, or write it. Then I'm very rarely still pissed. It's a thing. And that's what blogs are for, right?
4) Because. There is a bandwagon. I would like to be on it.
I am sure there are more reasons I can think of, but for a first post, an introduction to no one, there seems to truely be no point in continuing at the moment. So I shan't.
1) Organize my thoughts. "I have an opinion ..." has been my mantra for a very long time. I can think of very few subjects, items, people, topics, or conversational centerpieces that I do not have an opinion on ("The Venture Brothers" is one, as a note). So I have decide that I will start doing a blog. I have no clue how blogs become popular, but I hope I generate some steam. Or at least SOMEONE reads, though that is not a primary purpose here.
2) Keep myself writing. I want to be a writer. Of many things. Poetry, theatre, short stories, novels, fiction, comic books, essays, editorials, critiques. MANY things. This is a way to keep my brain working, my fingers moving, and my words flowing. If I can write a blog at least every other day, then I'll be able to continue on.
Sidebar: What will I be writing about? Well, whatever the mood strikes me as during the day. Sometime during the day, hopefully, someone will spark an interesting topic, that will send me reeling. And there is the gold, the magic, the chutzpah. Well, maybe not chutzpah, but you catch my drift.
3) To express myself. I have noticed that - obviously - different people have different coping methods. Such as my wife, Rachel, is a "bottler." To cope with situations beyond her control, she takes everything she feels and bottles it down into her. Now, regardless of the effectiveness of this technique, it is still a technique. Writing and talking are how I cope. If I am pissed, I have to say it, or write it. Then I'm very rarely still pissed. It's a thing. And that's what blogs are for, right?
4) Because. There is a bandwagon. I would like to be on it.
I am sure there are more reasons I can think of, but for a first post, an introduction to no one, there seems to truely be no point in continuing at the moment. So I shan't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)