I play a lot of casino poker, so it was only a matter of time before I got around to listing my top pet peeves at the poker table. Hopefully, if you also play poker, you'll sympathize. If not, feel free to skip.
1. The New Setup
It was a close call, but I think this is the biggest annoyance for me at the poker table. Gamblers tend, on average, to be superstitious people. I mean, you have to be superstitious and a believer in luck and mojo, etc. to be willing to play slots or roulette or whatever. In poker, generally, I welcome the superstitious people. The folks who believe in "lucky seats", the people who think a particular hand is their "lucky hand" and they always play it. I like these gamblers. Their superstitions are amusing, and often they'll be weak poker players.
But I cannot tolerate the new setup. Any player, for any reason, can request a "Setup". This means play has to stop, the floorman has to come over with two new decks of cards, and a three minute procedure ensues where the cards are replaced, inspected and shuffled.
Players generally request a setup to get rid of unlucky cards and maybe introduce some lucky ones. Like I said, I welcome superstitious gamblers, but I cannot stand the fact that one moron can, at his merest whim, stop the game for several minutes - all to cater to his superstition.
The casino loses money. Every "setup" is maybe two hands that they aren't raking. I'm annoyed because I came to play poker, not to sit around and watch a deck inspection.
If I was in charge, deck changes could only be requested by a player if the player could demonstrate some actual problem with the deck - warped cards, or a smudge or some other defect. Otherwise, tough shit!
2. The Question "Can I raise?"
This is a question that a poker player is basically entitled to ask approximately once per human lifetime. Once the answer is given, there is pretty much no need to ever ask it again. I think the question "Can I raise?" is about the same as asking "Does a queen beat a jack?" or "Do I have to wear pants?" or "What year is it?"
While it's possible that someone might be confused about whether the action is already capped and therefore might ask if he can raise again, the vast majority of these guys who ask this question do so before there are any raises at all.
Here's the real story. The question "Can I raise" is, 99.98% of the time, not meant sincerely. It is part of a tired, cliched act to present an appearance of ignorance. It fools no one, it amuses no one. It forces the dealer to play along, and he's not amused either.
3. Acting out of turn
Who the fuck are you? Wait your goddamned turn.
4. Dealers who aggresively hustle for tips
Most dealers are very nice and professional, and don't hustle for tips at all. There are some dealers who have a way of hustling for tips that is friendly, full of good humor and class. This is rare. But there are some dealers, a few, who hustle aggressively and with an attitude. One dealer I had once remarked, with obvious irritation "You know, I'm trying to make a living here." after a player who won a small-medium pot didn't tip. Whoa whoa. Send this guy home for the day and tell him to come back with a better attitude. Ditto the dealers who obviously expected a larger tip after a gigantic pot but only got a small one. They let out a long sigh of irritation, because they only got one buck. Anyone who sighs with irritation after I give them a dollar isn't getting another dollar.
For the record, this is my poker tipping policy. I believe it's fair. I count my profit, and tip the dealer the 11th dollar, the 51st dollar, the 101st dollar, and every 50th dollar thereafter. That's the eleventh dollar of profit, by the way. Not the eleventh dollar in the pot. For something really crazy, like flopped quads or a straight flush, I might add something extra.
5. People (involved in the hand or not) who commentate out loud and speculate on holdings while the hand is in progress.
I like a table full of friendly, talkative players who want to have a good time. But when players talk about active hands, they often influence the decisions of the people in the pot. I can't count how many times bad players have been alerted to straights and flushes because of table chatter.
6. Players who refuse to chop.
Sure, it might be in your financial best interests to raise in the small blind with your ace-king when it's just you and the big blind, but come on. The two dollars you forfeit by chopping are more than made up for by a friendly, sporting table image. It's important not to look like a money grubbing jerk at the table, even if you happen to be a money grubbing jerk.
7. Players who slow down the game.
Sometimes this is unintentional, if a player is drunk or his attention is elsewhere. Sometimes it is fully intentional, part of an act of ignorance and slow-wittedness. Either way, it pisses me off. In these cases, the dealers need to take charge and force the game to keep moving.
8. Players bitching excessively about their bad beat or cracked aces.
I feel for these guys, I really do. Someone who had a great hand, played it beautifully, and then was stymied on the end by some idiot inexplicably playing a 10-3, calling every raise with his pair of 3's and catching his 10 on the river. I've been there bro, I know it hurts. But don't take it out on the table. Be a man. Suck it up.
9. Players who say "raise" when they mean "bet" and say "reraise" when they mean "raise".
Oooh, I hate this. "I raise." No, ass, you bet. When a person chronically misuses the word "raise" or "reraise", sometimes I just get so pissed off. Occasionally I'll respond by getting in a heads-up pot with this individual, and I'll start off a round of betting by saying "I reraise." Stupid, I know, but it makes me feel better.
10. People who take their anger out on the dealer.
There's no excuse for this. None at all. If I was a floorman, I would throw people out for directing verbal abuse at the dealer.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Class Participation
This is the first time I've been a full time student in over 6 years. It's been pretty much a blast so far. It really is preferable to full time work. In school, a paper that's 10% wrong gets a designation of "A-" That's great! Pat yourself on the back for an A minus. At a real job, if you prepare a document for a client or perform some kind of service that's 10% wrong, you can kiss your ass goodbye. I love these relaxed standards of whats expected of me.
But the topic today is CLASS PARTICIPATION. Specifically, my own, personally crafted users guide to good class participation. These are all observations and thoughts I had as an undergrad, but now, 6 years later, they all suddenly come into focus. I have been annoyed over and over again these last two weeks by shoddy, piss poor class participation. When the hand goes up, and the professor points to you, you have an opportunity to say something useful, but you can also easily end up looking like an asshole or a jerk. This one woman in all my classes monopolizes the class discussions and is kind of a walking example of what not to do. So here is a list, in order, of the kind of comments you should be participating to the class.
1) (Best) The Question of Clarification
This is the best kind of class participation you can provide. Example: "Professor, I'm a little confused how you found the maximum profit. In the last example we had to take the marginal cost curve and set it to zero and solve for x - but this time we just looked for the intersection of marginal cost and revenue. Why couldn't we do that last time?"
It's not the substance of the question that's important here. It's that this question plays very well with both of your audiences: the professor AND the class. The professor is pleased that you're following his lesson so closely. He's happy to clarify the point. The class is impressed because a) the way you asked it showed humility - exposing your lack of understanding (this makes them feel better) and b) it also exposes a deeper underlying intelligence - you were on top of the lesson to the degree that you could ask this nuanced question. They may not have been there.
For classes that require participation for the grade, the Question of Clarification is absolutely your best bet. Everyone's happy. (Note: don't overuse it. Never more than once per class. You risk a) not looking that smart after all, b) appearing to dominate the class discussion)
2. The Truly Insightful Observation
Example: "In the homework, that list of zip codes was labelled as nominal data. (since zip codes have no inherent hierarchy) Doesn't that violate the rule that any data represented as numbers must be interval data?"
Make these very sparingly, and make sure they are truly insightful. If you overuse this one, no matter how insightful the comment, you will look like a showoff big time. A real asshole. Also, if the comment is not truly insightful, you risk looking like a pretentious idiot. Once every week or so, tops.
3. Offering one Answer when the Prof asks for a group of answers
This is when the Prof asks the class to come up with several examples of something, or several possible answers to a question, and students are encouraged to call them out.
I don't encourage you to participate in this. First of all, anything you say is going to end up lost in the list. Anonymity for you. No credit. Secondly, chances are the question has several obvious answers. Let the dumb students tackle those. Maybe there are also some truly insightful answers too. Don't bother - you'll look like a showoff.
4. The ridiculouly easy answer
This is a trap. When the prof asks a question that is just overwhelmingly obvious to the point of rhetorical, yet he wants an answer anyway, don't take the bait. Oh don't get me wrong, he's not trying to trap you, he just wants to introduce a little class participation to keep his lesson moving. He will not be impressed with the person who provides the easy answer. In fact, when the easy question gets asked and the hands shoot up, take note of these people. This is your class dead weight. Avoid them when choosing a study group.
5. (Worst) The Showoff Question
This is a "question" that, when analyzed, is really a statement. That statement is "Hey prof, I've done all the reading." Or possibly "By the way, I've read ahead." It has no other point. It typically takes the form of a challenge to something the prof has just said, not indicating a fresh thought, but indicating knowledge of a concept later in the chapter/lesson plan. Maybe the prof is explaining a rule. He's going over it in detail because it's a useful, fundamental rule that needs to be learned well. However, the rule has an exception and the showoff's hand goes up! up! up! "But Professor! Isn't there an exception when inflation can actually go DOWN when there's a trade surplus???"
We weren't talking about trade. Trade was neither here nor there. The professor is exasperated, not impressed, because he wasn't going to get to this for another half hour, and the students are annoyed, because suddenly they have to deal with the distraction of someone needing to announce that they've done the reading.
Class is not the place to show off. Show off in your papers and exams.
6. Monopolizing the Discussion
Just do not command the discussion. Do not turn the class into a dialogue between you and the prof. No one will like you.
And that's important. Being liked is important. School (at the graduate level certainly) is partially about meeting the right people and forming the right networks. Your participation in class must be tailored to both the class at large as well as the prof. Do not upstage the prof or your classmates.
Now my system applies primarily to classes of a quantitative kind. If your class is all about poetry criticism or interpretive dance, or some other kind of format, my advice may not apply.
But the topic today is CLASS PARTICIPATION. Specifically, my own, personally crafted users guide to good class participation. These are all observations and thoughts I had as an undergrad, but now, 6 years later, they all suddenly come into focus. I have been annoyed over and over again these last two weeks by shoddy, piss poor class participation. When the hand goes up, and the professor points to you, you have an opportunity to say something useful, but you can also easily end up looking like an asshole or a jerk. This one woman in all my classes monopolizes the class discussions and is kind of a walking example of what not to do. So here is a list, in order, of the kind of comments you should be participating to the class.
1) (Best) The Question of Clarification
This is the best kind of class participation you can provide. Example: "Professor, I'm a little confused how you found the maximum profit. In the last example we had to take the marginal cost curve and set it to zero and solve for x - but this time we just looked for the intersection of marginal cost and revenue. Why couldn't we do that last time?"
It's not the substance of the question that's important here. It's that this question plays very well with both of your audiences: the professor AND the class. The professor is pleased that you're following his lesson so closely. He's happy to clarify the point. The class is impressed because a) the way you asked it showed humility - exposing your lack of understanding (this makes them feel better) and b) it also exposes a deeper underlying intelligence - you were on top of the lesson to the degree that you could ask this nuanced question. They may not have been there.
For classes that require participation for the grade, the Question of Clarification is absolutely your best bet. Everyone's happy. (Note: don't overuse it. Never more than once per class. You risk a) not looking that smart after all, b) appearing to dominate the class discussion)
2. The Truly Insightful Observation
Example: "In the homework, that list of zip codes was labelled as nominal data. (since zip codes have no inherent hierarchy) Doesn't that violate the rule that any data represented as numbers must be interval data?"
Make these very sparingly, and make sure they are truly insightful. If you overuse this one, no matter how insightful the comment, you will look like a showoff big time. A real asshole. Also, if the comment is not truly insightful, you risk looking like a pretentious idiot. Once every week or so, tops.
3. Offering one Answer when the Prof asks for a group of answers
This is when the Prof asks the class to come up with several examples of something, or several possible answers to a question, and students are encouraged to call them out.
I don't encourage you to participate in this. First of all, anything you say is going to end up lost in the list. Anonymity for you. No credit. Secondly, chances are the question has several obvious answers. Let the dumb students tackle those. Maybe there are also some truly insightful answers too. Don't bother - you'll look like a showoff.
4. The ridiculouly easy answer
This is a trap. When the prof asks a question that is just overwhelmingly obvious to the point of rhetorical, yet he wants an answer anyway, don't take the bait. Oh don't get me wrong, he's not trying to trap you, he just wants to introduce a little class participation to keep his lesson moving. He will not be impressed with the person who provides the easy answer. In fact, when the easy question gets asked and the hands shoot up, take note of these people. This is your class dead weight. Avoid them when choosing a study group.
5. (Worst) The Showoff Question
This is a "question" that, when analyzed, is really a statement. That statement is "Hey prof, I've done all the reading." Or possibly "By the way, I've read ahead." It has no other point. It typically takes the form of a challenge to something the prof has just said, not indicating a fresh thought, but indicating knowledge of a concept later in the chapter/lesson plan. Maybe the prof is explaining a rule. He's going over it in detail because it's a useful, fundamental rule that needs to be learned well. However, the rule has an exception and the showoff's hand goes up! up! up! "But Professor! Isn't there an exception when inflation can actually go DOWN when there's a trade surplus???"
We weren't talking about trade. Trade was neither here nor there. The professor is exasperated, not impressed, because he wasn't going to get to this for another half hour, and the students are annoyed, because suddenly they have to deal with the distraction of someone needing to announce that they've done the reading.
Class is not the place to show off. Show off in your papers and exams.
6. Monopolizing the Discussion
Just do not command the discussion. Do not turn the class into a dialogue between you and the prof. No one will like you.
And that's important. Being liked is important. School (at the graduate level certainly) is partially about meeting the right people and forming the right networks. Your participation in class must be tailored to both the class at large as well as the prof. Do not upstage the prof or your classmates.
Now my system applies primarily to classes of a quantitative kind. If your class is all about poetry criticism or interpretive dance, or some other kind of format, my advice may not apply.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Band Names
Last week I was at the DMV getting my new plates. Since it's only $36 annually to have a personalized license plate in Nevada I thought hey! Why not. The customized plate I've always wanted is HRUDUDU, which was the word for car in the rabbit language in the children's novel "Watership Down". This led to confusion with the DMV girl and her supervisor, because they have to screen all license plate names to make sure nothing offensive gets through, and they weren't convinced that HRUDUDU was harmless. After all, said the DMV girl, it sounds a lot like "doo doo".
I didn't end up getting the plate, because after all the fuss, it turns out someone already has it. (the bastard) But that night at home, I did a google search for HRUDUDU to see if I could have proven my case (that the name wasn't offensive) on the internet.
I could have guessed what would happen. Some fucking band has co-opted the name HRUDUDU, just as every other sweet, whimsical name from my childhood has been similarly stolen, all so some lame-ass group of kids can cash in on the perceived currency of this sweet memory and thus marginally enhance the overall image of their weak, weak musical enterprise.
I've had it with these pretentious, look-how-obscure-we-are, nostalgia-thieving band names, and I seethe at the audacity of these bands who think a cool name can somehow salvage weak music, or make up for the prestige and imagination that the songs themselves lack.
This isn't the first time a google search has steered me away from what I was looking for, and landed me among dozens of band-related pages. And I always end up having the same thoughts:
1) Whenever friends of yours or classmates or people who know have started a band, have you ever had the sneaking suspicion that these guys were really just getting off on the idea of "being in a band" rather than being driven by a desire to make music? Maybe it was the sheer time spent deciding on a name, or coming up with an "image", or excessive fantasizing about what they'd do when they hit it big. Am I the only one who was suspicious?
2) Don't you think it is sheer arrogance to assign yourself a pretentious or bold or ironic or commanding band name before you've proven yourself musically? Shouldn't you have to demonstrate your ability as a band-entity before you can call yourself "Hrududu factory"?
I mean come on. Husker Du? Veruca Salt?
Maybe my perspective on this is unique since I don't listen to any bands whatsoever. But if I were to somehow form a band, it would not be named by some sort of desperate irony-grab into my past to find some cred among the pop-culture litter of that era. It wouldn't be called Papa Smurf or Bugs Meany.
AHA! I just did a search for those two. Bugs Meany is a band! You can read about them here: http://www.starcityscene.com/FeatArchive/FeatBugs.html
Papa Smurf is not a band, thank God. However, it does seem to be a drink made from Grenadine and Blue Curacao. (add some whipped cream to give it a "beard")
No, if I had a band, the emphasis would be solely on the music. If there were three of us, and we lived in San Ysidro, I'd be fine with: The San Ysidro Trio. Boring? Yes! That's the beauty. An utter lack of pretention. We bring you music! Not ego!
I didn't end up getting the plate, because after all the fuss, it turns out someone already has it. (the bastard) But that night at home, I did a google search for HRUDUDU to see if I could have proven my case (that the name wasn't offensive) on the internet.
I could have guessed what would happen. Some fucking band has co-opted the name HRUDUDU, just as every other sweet, whimsical name from my childhood has been similarly stolen, all so some lame-ass group of kids can cash in on the perceived currency of this sweet memory and thus marginally enhance the overall image of their weak, weak musical enterprise.
I've had it with these pretentious, look-how-obscure-we-are, nostalgia-thieving band names, and I seethe at the audacity of these bands who think a cool name can somehow salvage weak music, or make up for the prestige and imagination that the songs themselves lack.
This isn't the first time a google search has steered me away from what I was looking for, and landed me among dozens of band-related pages. And I always end up having the same thoughts:
1) Whenever friends of yours or classmates or people who know have started a band, have you ever had the sneaking suspicion that these guys were really just getting off on the idea of "being in a band" rather than being driven by a desire to make music? Maybe it was the sheer time spent deciding on a name, or coming up with an "image", or excessive fantasizing about what they'd do when they hit it big. Am I the only one who was suspicious?
2) Don't you think it is sheer arrogance to assign yourself a pretentious or bold or ironic or commanding band name before you've proven yourself musically? Shouldn't you have to demonstrate your ability as a band-entity before you can call yourself "Hrududu factory"?
I mean come on. Husker Du? Veruca Salt?
Maybe my perspective on this is unique since I don't listen to any bands whatsoever. But if I were to somehow form a band, it would not be named by some sort of desperate irony-grab into my past to find some cred among the pop-culture litter of that era. It wouldn't be called Papa Smurf or Bugs Meany.
AHA! I just did a search for those two. Bugs Meany is a band! You can read about them here: http://www.starcityscene.com/FeatArchive/FeatBugs.html
Papa Smurf is not a band, thank God. However, it does seem to be a drink made from Grenadine and Blue Curacao. (add some whipped cream to give it a "beard")
No, if I had a band, the emphasis would be solely on the music. If there were three of us, and we lived in San Ysidro, I'd be fine with: The San Ysidro Trio. Boring? Yes! That's the beauty. An utter lack of pretention. We bring you music! Not ego!
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Placing Excessive Historical Importance on Events of the Recent Past
A long title for a simple complaint. This is something I've observed many times, in many guises, and just seethe at. Whether it's a movie theater pre-show quizzing me on "classic quotes" for movies no older than a year, top 10 or top 100 lists for music, books, movies, greatest moments in sports, etc. dominated by events of the last 5 years, or any other 'look back', we all have this irritating tendency to place undue value and significance on recent events.
For Christmas, I got that big New York Times book that has the big front pages from the last century. Titanic, Pearl Harbor, the moon landing, all as they originally appeared. But something strange was going on. The years 1997-2003, at the end of the book, were overrepresented to the point of lunacy. Tiger Woods winning the masters? The arraignment of Terry Nichols? The death of Dale Earnhart? Meanwhile, if you turn to the WWII pages, you get
maybe half the coverage.
Ask the average dude on the street to name his favorite 10 movies. How much you wanna bet he starts naming The Matrix, Spiderman, etc? I just opened Entertainment Weekly the other day, and they had an article on the top 20 or so moments of President-Celebrity encounters. JFK meeting Marilyn Monroe was #1, but #3 was inexplicably Bill Clinton playing sax on Arsenio.
Bill Clinton playing sax on Arsenio is not "the third most 'top moment' of President-Celebrity encounters" as dumb as that category is. That moment is not in there because of its historical importance, but because of its important membership in a category called The Recent Past.
One more off the cuff example. Back around 2000, A&E ran a much touted series called "The 100 most influential people of the millenium." This is THE MILLENIUM, folks. Not just "The 90's" or "The Twentieth Century". Things that happened in 1001 AD have to be considered. And somehow, Steven Spielberg is on the list. Now, nobody respects Spielberg or enjoys his movies more than me, but come on now. This is retarded. Spielberg can't influence the millenium. He was only an adult for the final 25 years of it.
The man made some damn good movies, and his Shoah Foundation does great work, but no matter how much respect we have for him, he just isn't influencing the millenium. Monteverdi, 16th century father of the modern opera, to pick one historical person at random, inlfuenced the millenium QUITE A BIT more than Spielberg, but was not on the list. (not that he should have been)
Why are we all so prone to overhype the significance of the recent past? I can think of a few possible causes. #1, we all have a warm, fuzzy, nostalgic regard for our childhood. We all would like to imagine it as some sort of idealized time. How else can you explain the sequential nostalgia boom of the last 20 years for the 60's, 70's, then 80's?
#2, we all desire, vainly, to have been around during historical events of great importance. Remember "Where were you when you found out Magic Johnson had AIDS?" Yeah right. That deserves comparison to the Kennedy assasination. Let's face it, the biggest historical event of our lives has likely already happened. It was the fall of the Soviet Union and European communism.
Even 9/11 is just a blip on history's radar. Maybe it will turn out of be an event that sparks decades of other events, like the assasination that led to World War 1 - but in terms of lives lost, there are events going on RIGHT NOW that exceed 9/11's death toll. Sudan. Congo. Chechnya.
#3, we're all short attention spanned idiots.
My modest proposal on this issue is that we place a 10 year buffer-zone in all future top 100 lists. When considering best movies, most influential books, greatest political speakers, greatest works of architecture, greatest World Series moments, etc. etc. we cannot consider anything from the last 10 years. We must force events and accomplishments of the recent past to pass the test of time before elevating them to classic status.
For Christmas, I got that big New York Times book that has the big front pages from the last century. Titanic, Pearl Harbor, the moon landing, all as they originally appeared. But something strange was going on. The years 1997-2003, at the end of the book, were overrepresented to the point of lunacy. Tiger Woods winning the masters? The arraignment of Terry Nichols? The death of Dale Earnhart? Meanwhile, if you turn to the WWII pages, you get
maybe half the coverage.
Ask the average dude on the street to name his favorite 10 movies. How much you wanna bet he starts naming The Matrix, Spiderman, etc? I just opened Entertainment Weekly the other day, and they had an article on the top 20 or so moments of President-Celebrity encounters. JFK meeting Marilyn Monroe was #1, but #3 was inexplicably Bill Clinton playing sax on Arsenio.
Bill Clinton playing sax on Arsenio is not "the third most 'top moment' of President-Celebrity encounters" as dumb as that category is. That moment is not in there because of its historical importance, but because of its important membership in a category called The Recent Past.
One more off the cuff example. Back around 2000, A&E ran a much touted series called "The 100 most influential people of the millenium." This is THE MILLENIUM, folks. Not just "The 90's" or "The Twentieth Century". Things that happened in 1001 AD have to be considered. And somehow, Steven Spielberg is on the list. Now, nobody respects Spielberg or enjoys his movies more than me, but come on now. This is retarded. Spielberg can't influence the millenium. He was only an adult for the final 25 years of it.
The man made some damn good movies, and his Shoah Foundation does great work, but no matter how much respect we have for him, he just isn't influencing the millenium. Monteverdi, 16th century father of the modern opera, to pick one historical person at random, inlfuenced the millenium QUITE A BIT more than Spielberg, but was not on the list. (not that he should have been)
Why are we all so prone to overhype the significance of the recent past? I can think of a few possible causes. #1, we all have a warm, fuzzy, nostalgic regard for our childhood. We all would like to imagine it as some sort of idealized time. How else can you explain the sequential nostalgia boom of the last 20 years for the 60's, 70's, then 80's?
#2, we all desire, vainly, to have been around during historical events of great importance. Remember "Where were you when you found out Magic Johnson had AIDS?" Yeah right. That deserves comparison to the Kennedy assasination. Let's face it, the biggest historical event of our lives has likely already happened. It was the fall of the Soviet Union and European communism.
Even 9/11 is just a blip on history's radar. Maybe it will turn out of be an event that sparks decades of other events, like the assasination that led to World War 1 - but in terms of lives lost, there are events going on RIGHT NOW that exceed 9/11's death toll. Sudan. Congo. Chechnya.
#3, we're all short attention spanned idiots.
My modest proposal on this issue is that we place a 10 year buffer-zone in all future top 100 lists. When considering best movies, most influential books, greatest political speakers, greatest works of architecture, greatest World Series moments, etc. etc. we cannot consider anything from the last 10 years. We must force events and accomplishments of the recent past to pass the test of time before elevating them to classic status.
Man Ass
There is just nothing more disgusting than Man Ass. Whether it’s lean or chunky, saggy or pert, hairy or olympic-swimmer-smooth, it’s the foulest thing that you’ll ever have to deal with.
I wouldn’t bring this up at all, (since man ass is so disgusting it shouldn’t even be talked about) except that I’m constantly confronted with it in the gym locker room. I turn around that privacy corner and then wham! Someone is naked, bent over, opening their combination lock.
Or worse, I enter an empty locker room, but I can hear a man in the shower. The only thing I have to do is not choose the locker next to his, so that when he exits the shower, he doesn’t walk up to me, nude and dripping, and indicate that his locker is right below mine. But which one to choose? His locker could be any of them. And of course, no matter which one I pick, I will have chosen exactly, perfectly wrong. “Hey buddy, can I get in here?” (Cue the knight from Last Crusade: You chose…. poorly.)
Back in 2000, or maybe ’01, I composed a short letter that I intended to anonymously post in the men’s locker room at the gym. Basically, it confronted people who were excessively nude and demanded that they towel themselves. I remember that it concluded with “Man ass is disgusting, and yours is not the magical exception.” I was really hoping to find a copy of this letter and print it here, but I think it’s been lost for good.
I didn’t actually put it up in the locker room. But a friend at work went to the same gym I did, and he DID put it up, without telling me, in one of the bathroom stalls. Supposedly, when he went to check on it an hour later, it was gone.
Basically, there’s been a civilizational breakdown in the world of the locker room. This is a room, valuable gym real estate, that is dedicated to providing men with a place of privacy where they can change, shower, and use the toilet. Somewhere along the line, people starting interpreting the permission to disrobe as some kind of license to be naked all the time. What was intended as a transitory state has somehow become the destination state.
To heterosexual men who don’t consciously and purposefully minimize their naked-time in the locker room: I ask these questions. Do you like looking at other naked men? Obviously, no. You know man ass is a horrifying spectacle. Why do you parade yourself around the locker room naked? Why hang the towel casually over your shoulder during the walk from the shower to the locker? Why brush your teeth or dry your hair naked?
When you stand at your locker, naked, and open it – this is what should be going through your head: “underwear… underwear… underwear… underwear…” not “hmmm… watch? Where’s my watch? And my comb! Where’s that comb?”
When naked in the locker room, this thought should never leave your mind: “How can I not be naked in the very near future, preferably immediately?” Even while in the shower, you be can active in this regard: “This person is walking by, so I think I’ll turn sideways and present a profile, minimizing the nakedness.”
(Note to gyms: put curtains in there. Or at the very least, a mid level "man ass" shield)
I don’t care if you have the manliest, sexiest physique in the world, NO MAN wants to look at your nudeness, particularly your grotesque man ass. I know you like your own ass, hell, I like mine. But I’m a realist about the effect it must have on others.
By the way, ladies: do you gals actually like man ass, or do you simply tolerate it? When considering the pros and cons of not being a woman, this certainly has to be a pro: Not being genetically conditioned to enjoy the sight of foul, rank man ass.
I wouldn’t bring this up at all, (since man ass is so disgusting it shouldn’t even be talked about) except that I’m constantly confronted with it in the gym locker room. I turn around that privacy corner and then wham! Someone is naked, bent over, opening their combination lock.
Or worse, I enter an empty locker room, but I can hear a man in the shower. The only thing I have to do is not choose the locker next to his, so that when he exits the shower, he doesn’t walk up to me, nude and dripping, and indicate that his locker is right below mine. But which one to choose? His locker could be any of them. And of course, no matter which one I pick, I will have chosen exactly, perfectly wrong. “Hey buddy, can I get in here?” (Cue the knight from Last Crusade: You chose…. poorly.)
Back in 2000, or maybe ’01, I composed a short letter that I intended to anonymously post in the men’s locker room at the gym. Basically, it confronted people who were excessively nude and demanded that they towel themselves. I remember that it concluded with “Man ass is disgusting, and yours is not the magical exception.” I was really hoping to find a copy of this letter and print it here, but I think it’s been lost for good.
I didn’t actually put it up in the locker room. But a friend at work went to the same gym I did, and he DID put it up, without telling me, in one of the bathroom stalls. Supposedly, when he went to check on it an hour later, it was gone.
Basically, there’s been a civilizational breakdown in the world of the locker room. This is a room, valuable gym real estate, that is dedicated to providing men with a place of privacy where they can change, shower, and use the toilet. Somewhere along the line, people starting interpreting the permission to disrobe as some kind of license to be naked all the time. What was intended as a transitory state has somehow become the destination state.
To heterosexual men who don’t consciously and purposefully minimize their naked-time in the locker room: I ask these questions. Do you like looking at other naked men? Obviously, no. You know man ass is a horrifying spectacle. Why do you parade yourself around the locker room naked? Why hang the towel casually over your shoulder during the walk from the shower to the locker? Why brush your teeth or dry your hair naked?
When you stand at your locker, naked, and open it – this is what should be going through your head: “underwear… underwear… underwear… underwear…” not “hmmm… watch? Where’s my watch? And my comb! Where’s that comb?”
When naked in the locker room, this thought should never leave your mind: “How can I not be naked in the very near future, preferably immediately?” Even while in the shower, you be can active in this regard: “This person is walking by, so I think I’ll turn sideways and present a profile, minimizing the nakedness.”
(Note to gyms: put curtains in there. Or at the very least, a mid level "man ass" shield)
I don’t care if you have the manliest, sexiest physique in the world, NO MAN wants to look at your nudeness, particularly your grotesque man ass. I know you like your own ass, hell, I like mine. But I’m a realist about the effect it must have on others.
By the way, ladies: do you gals actually like man ass, or do you simply tolerate it? When considering the pros and cons of not being a woman, this certainly has to be a pro: Not being genetically conditioned to enjoy the sight of foul, rank man ass.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Protests
Here’s my argument for today: Protests don’t work.
This annoys me because it’s as if I’m the only one who realizes it. Whether it’s a full on Million Man March, or 3 people carrying placards outside the dean’s office somewhere, protests don’t do a damn thing.
There was a time when street protests were a potent political expression. A time when they got things accomplished. Civil Rights for example. Demonstrable pressure on the US to exit Vietnam. They got the voting age lowered to 18. But this was all 30 and 40 years ago.
Back then, I think, street protests represented an honest kind of mainstream indignation. Things have gotten so bad, (goes the logic of protesting) we can’t just sit at our jobs anymore, we have to take to the streets en masse and shout it out.
Nowadays, (and I’m looking at the headlines about the protests outside the RNC) a protest is fully toothless. This was adequately demonstrated during the buildup to the Iraq war. By numbers alone, more people took to the streets worldwide to protest the invasion of Iraq than any other protest in a decade or longer. Did the protests do a damn thing? No.
Anyone who enjoys getting out there for the occasional political protest: tell me one thing, anything, that street-protesting has accomplished in 20 years. Name one politician who was moved at the sight of 50,000 people in the Washington Monument Mall and had a change of heart. On any issue. Name one corporation that changed one policy as the result of street protesters (not counting any economic protests like a union strike or a boycott – those of course work).
Let’s say you were an anti-Iraq-war protester. What if you and the millions of other protesters had, instead of protesting, used all that time and energy to say – organize a giant boycott against any companies hired to do Iraq reconstruction. And you had done this before the war. Now, if I’m running a company fighting for a reconstruction contract, and this boycott becomes reality, I have to seriously reconsider whether I want to get involved. At the very least the price of my services is going to go way up to offset the effects of the boycott.
Then the US government is looking at much higher prices for all aspects of Iraq reconstruction due to the boycott. Now they have to seriously reconsider if they can do it. And all because millions of people who didn’t want the Iraq war chose to exert ACTUAL pressure that couldn’t just be ignored.
Nah! Let’s just march down the street with signs that say Bush=Hitler! That’ll make ‘em think twice!
And man, do the students love to protest. Is there anything on earth less effective than a student protest? A spoon used upside-down? A long-sleeved shirt at the North Pole? And there are few things more moronic than a student protest too. I think the most stupid, pointless student protest that I ever saw was my senior year at college. Several students were staging a sit-in in the offices of the student newspaper. It seems the student paper had run a cover story on a party that had gotten out of hand. But their sin was that the photo they used, the photo to go along with the party story, primarily showed two women dancing. From the back. And they were black by the way,
It seems that this photo was wildly offensive for a multitude of reasons. Apparently, showing the backs of the women instead of their fronts draws attention to their asses. Therefore the newspaper is objectifying women. It’s encouraging its readership to look at women as sex objects. But also, the women were black. What is the newspaper trying to say about black women and their asses? What EXACTLY is the NEWSPAPER trying to SAY about the ASSES of black WOMEN? Oh, it’s sit-in time!
I guess this example doesn’t really support my thesis that protests don’t work, because in this particular case, the paper backed down immediately and printed a fawning, blubbering apology like the flaccid ninnies they were.
Protesting has become the last resort of people who oppose something but have no idea what to do about it. It’s become the exclusive domain of radicals, wackos and crazies – to the point where anyone who may have a shred of a real point to make is going to be lost in all the noise and will be assumed to be a kook.
If I held high political office, I would encourage my opposition to protest frequently. Think about it: every hour of time or dollar spent on a street protest is an hour or dollar that isn’t spent on activities that can actually hurt me politically.
This annoys me because it’s as if I’m the only one who realizes it. Whether it’s a full on Million Man March, or 3 people carrying placards outside the dean’s office somewhere, protests don’t do a damn thing.
There was a time when street protests were a potent political expression. A time when they got things accomplished. Civil Rights for example. Demonstrable pressure on the US to exit Vietnam. They got the voting age lowered to 18. But this was all 30 and 40 years ago.
Back then, I think, street protests represented an honest kind of mainstream indignation. Things have gotten so bad, (goes the logic of protesting) we can’t just sit at our jobs anymore, we have to take to the streets en masse and shout it out.
Nowadays, (and I’m looking at the headlines about the protests outside the RNC) a protest is fully toothless. This was adequately demonstrated during the buildup to the Iraq war. By numbers alone, more people took to the streets worldwide to protest the invasion of Iraq than any other protest in a decade or longer. Did the protests do a damn thing? No.
Anyone who enjoys getting out there for the occasional political protest: tell me one thing, anything, that street-protesting has accomplished in 20 years. Name one politician who was moved at the sight of 50,000 people in the Washington Monument Mall and had a change of heart. On any issue. Name one corporation that changed one policy as the result of street protesters (not counting any economic protests like a union strike or a boycott – those of course work).
Let’s say you were an anti-Iraq-war protester. What if you and the millions of other protesters had, instead of protesting, used all that time and energy to say – organize a giant boycott against any companies hired to do Iraq reconstruction. And you had done this before the war. Now, if I’m running a company fighting for a reconstruction contract, and this boycott becomes reality, I have to seriously reconsider whether I want to get involved. At the very least the price of my services is going to go way up to offset the effects of the boycott.
Then the US government is looking at much higher prices for all aspects of Iraq reconstruction due to the boycott. Now they have to seriously reconsider if they can do it. And all because millions of people who didn’t want the Iraq war chose to exert ACTUAL pressure that couldn’t just be ignored.
Nah! Let’s just march down the street with signs that say Bush=Hitler! That’ll make ‘em think twice!
And man, do the students love to protest. Is there anything on earth less effective than a student protest? A spoon used upside-down? A long-sleeved shirt at the North Pole? And there are few things more moronic than a student protest too. I think the most stupid, pointless student protest that I ever saw was my senior year at college. Several students were staging a sit-in in the offices of the student newspaper. It seems the student paper had run a cover story on a party that had gotten out of hand. But their sin was that the photo they used, the photo to go along with the party story, primarily showed two women dancing. From the back. And they were black by the way,
It seems that this photo was wildly offensive for a multitude of reasons. Apparently, showing the backs of the women instead of their fronts draws attention to their asses. Therefore the newspaper is objectifying women. It’s encouraging its readership to look at women as sex objects. But also, the women were black. What is the newspaper trying to say about black women and their asses? What EXACTLY is the NEWSPAPER trying to SAY about the ASSES of black WOMEN? Oh, it’s sit-in time!
I guess this example doesn’t really support my thesis that protests don’t work, because in this particular case, the paper backed down immediately and printed a fawning, blubbering apology like the flaccid ninnies they were.
Protesting has become the last resort of people who oppose something but have no idea what to do about it. It’s become the exclusive domain of radicals, wackos and crazies – to the point where anyone who may have a shred of a real point to make is going to be lost in all the noise and will be assumed to be a kook.
If I held high political office, I would encourage my opposition to protest frequently. Think about it: every hour of time or dollar spent on a street protest is an hour or dollar that isn’t spent on activities that can actually hurt me politically.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
The Godfather Part III
(If you don't care at all about nitpicking through the Godfather Part 3, feel free to skip this one)
I don't want to devote excessive time to "movies I don't like", because there would just be too many of them. Remember my axiom: Most Movies Suck. So why nitpick over Godfather 3? Or Star Wars for that matter? Well, it's because certain movies should have been fantastic. Nobody particularly had any expectations for say, Catwoman; so it's not really big news if Catwoman ends up sucking.
And a movie like Godfather 3, which should have been superb but was instead a huge let down, doesn't entirely suck. When compared against the average gangster movie, it holds up fine. When compared against Hollywood product in general, it's very good. But when compared against the Godfather Parts 1 and 2, (my two favorites movies) it's a godawful mess.
The first charge I accuse Godfather 3 of, is that it's simply an unnecessary movie. GF2 concluded with such enormous finality, it did such a skillful job of wrapping up the whole story, that any Part 3 is going to end up feeling tacked on, like an appendix. These movies are about the story of the Corleone family, and specifically Michael's story, and that story was, well, finished. In his feverish and paranoid desire to protect his family from harm, he became the instrument of its destruction. He loved his family so much, he destroyed it. The end.
Godfather 3's uber-story, the overall theme, is Michael trying to find redemption. The surface story is about Michael trying to legitimize the family business and find a successor. The surface story is perfectly adequate for a Godfather movie, the underlying story is not.
Many people have remarked that the Godfather movies are a family drama first, mobster moveis second. I think that characterization is correct. For Godfather 3 even to exist, it must continue to evolve and develop the characters and relationships of the Corleone Family. Because so many of those characters are dead, this becomes an enormous challenge. Coppola's weak solution is to try to find deep emotional resonance among the characters who used to be peripheral but are now thrust into center stage by virtue of having not been killed off. Thus we have expanded roles for fundamentally uninteresting characters like Connie and Al Neri.
In GF1, Michael lost his brother Sonny. In GF2, he lost his brother Fredo. For Godfather 3 to work, and for the redemption story to be possible, GF3 must, MUST, MUST be about Michael's relationship with Tom Hagan. There is no alternative to that choice. Tom is the last brother. Tom gave Michael unconditional love and support, though at the end of GF2 Michael viciously abused him. The path to Michael's redemption, if it exists, leads through Tom, the final brother.
Robert Duvall apparantly turned down his role in GF3 on the basis of a weak script. I applaud Duvall. But of course, they made the movie anyway, rationing off Duvall's role in the story to other characters like Connie and the quickly-invented lawyer character B.J. Harrison. Duvall's refusal to be in a weak GF sequel should have slammed the brakes on the project. To go ahead without him was the death knell of the whole enterprise.
So we have problem #1: the fact that the movie is unneccesary, and #2: the inexcusable absence of Tom Hagan. Problem #3 is what they did to the character of Connie. In all of the reviews and commentary I've heard about GF3, I haven't heard a single person make an observation about the remarkable and ridiculous metamorphasis Connie makes from gentle, naive soul to bloodthirstly ruthless shrew who is inexplicably a member of Michael's murderous inner circle.
Did anyone else notice this?
Connie actually murders a man in GF3 in case anyone forgot. She feeds him a poisoned canole at the opera. First of all, since when were women admitted to the inner circle of the family business? (It's not that I'm personally opposed to that, only that it is 100% incongruous with the established rules of the family) In GF1, Connie was a naive, abused wife. In GF2, she was a jaded, spoiled rich girl. When we see her last, she's tearfully begging Michael to forgive Fredo. Suddenly in GF3 she's a cunning, violent Lady Macbeth. (yet she still doesn't know that her brother Fredo was murdered. Huh?)
Another problem that plagues GF3 is this desire to recycle every idea possible from the two previous movies. To be fair, GFs 1 and 2 are good choices if you're going to be reverent about a movie, but the constant allusions in Part 3 to past adventures, and all the recycling of ideas, well, cheapens Part 3. The flashbacks, the 'hey, remember when's, the complete recycling of the musical score.... Consider the famous baptism scene from the first Godfather. A jarring juxtaposition of religious humility and an orgy of violence. At the center of it: Michael the hypocrite. A brilliant scene. Now consider the very similar opera sequence that is the climax of GF3. What were they going for there besides an obvious recycling of the baptism scene? A montage of murders set to beautiful music. Check. Frequent cuts to Michael looking pensive. Check. Okay, so on a surface level, they're pretty similar. But in GF1 there was much deeper resonance emotionally. This was Michael's completion of his coming-of-age. This was the first time he fully embraced evil. Plus the scene was unique cinematically, directorially. A true original. What is the opera sequence from GF3 besides a lame attempt to conjur the power of the baptism scene without doing any of the corresponding heavy lifting in the story, emotional, or character development department?
Can you see why I don't like this movie?
And I'll leave it there I think. Notice I didn't even mention Andy Garcia, Joe Mantegna, and the famously bad performance by Sophia Coppola. I'm not even getting into the incest subplot, the squandering of the Kay character, the non-use of Michael's son, etc. These are all secondary issues.
Take my advice: pretend the Godfather series ends with Part 2.
I don't want to devote excessive time to "movies I don't like", because there would just be too many of them. Remember my axiom: Most Movies Suck. So why nitpick over Godfather 3? Or Star Wars for that matter? Well, it's because certain movies should have been fantastic. Nobody particularly had any expectations for say, Catwoman; so it's not really big news if Catwoman ends up sucking.
And a movie like Godfather 3, which should have been superb but was instead a huge let down, doesn't entirely suck. When compared against the average gangster movie, it holds up fine. When compared against Hollywood product in general, it's very good. But when compared against the Godfather Parts 1 and 2, (my two favorites movies) it's a godawful mess.
The first charge I accuse Godfather 3 of, is that it's simply an unnecessary movie. GF2 concluded with such enormous finality, it did such a skillful job of wrapping up the whole story, that any Part 3 is going to end up feeling tacked on, like an appendix. These movies are about the story of the Corleone family, and specifically Michael's story, and that story was, well, finished. In his feverish and paranoid desire to protect his family from harm, he became the instrument of its destruction. He loved his family so much, he destroyed it. The end.
Godfather 3's uber-story, the overall theme, is Michael trying to find redemption. The surface story is about Michael trying to legitimize the family business and find a successor. The surface story is perfectly adequate for a Godfather movie, the underlying story is not.
Many people have remarked that the Godfather movies are a family drama first, mobster moveis second. I think that characterization is correct. For Godfather 3 even to exist, it must continue to evolve and develop the characters and relationships of the Corleone Family. Because so many of those characters are dead, this becomes an enormous challenge. Coppola's weak solution is to try to find deep emotional resonance among the characters who used to be peripheral but are now thrust into center stage by virtue of having not been killed off. Thus we have expanded roles for fundamentally uninteresting characters like Connie and Al Neri.
In GF1, Michael lost his brother Sonny. In GF2, he lost his brother Fredo. For Godfather 3 to work, and for the redemption story to be possible, GF3 must, MUST, MUST be about Michael's relationship with Tom Hagan. There is no alternative to that choice. Tom is the last brother. Tom gave Michael unconditional love and support, though at the end of GF2 Michael viciously abused him. The path to Michael's redemption, if it exists, leads through Tom, the final brother.
Robert Duvall apparantly turned down his role in GF3 on the basis of a weak script. I applaud Duvall. But of course, they made the movie anyway, rationing off Duvall's role in the story to other characters like Connie and the quickly-invented lawyer character B.J. Harrison. Duvall's refusal to be in a weak GF sequel should have slammed the brakes on the project. To go ahead without him was the death knell of the whole enterprise.
So we have problem #1: the fact that the movie is unneccesary, and #2: the inexcusable absence of Tom Hagan. Problem #3 is what they did to the character of Connie. In all of the reviews and commentary I've heard about GF3, I haven't heard a single person make an observation about the remarkable and ridiculous metamorphasis Connie makes from gentle, naive soul to bloodthirstly ruthless shrew who is inexplicably a member of Michael's murderous inner circle.
Did anyone else notice this?
Connie actually murders a man in GF3 in case anyone forgot. She feeds him a poisoned canole at the opera. First of all, since when were women admitted to the inner circle of the family business? (It's not that I'm personally opposed to that, only that it is 100% incongruous with the established rules of the family) In GF1, Connie was a naive, abused wife. In GF2, she was a jaded, spoiled rich girl. When we see her last, she's tearfully begging Michael to forgive Fredo. Suddenly in GF3 she's a cunning, violent Lady Macbeth. (yet she still doesn't know that her brother Fredo was murdered. Huh?)
Another problem that plagues GF3 is this desire to recycle every idea possible from the two previous movies. To be fair, GFs 1 and 2 are good choices if you're going to be reverent about a movie, but the constant allusions in Part 3 to past adventures, and all the recycling of ideas, well, cheapens Part 3. The flashbacks, the 'hey, remember when's, the complete recycling of the musical score.... Consider the famous baptism scene from the first Godfather. A jarring juxtaposition of religious humility and an orgy of violence. At the center of it: Michael the hypocrite. A brilliant scene. Now consider the very similar opera sequence that is the climax of GF3. What were they going for there besides an obvious recycling of the baptism scene? A montage of murders set to beautiful music. Check. Frequent cuts to Michael looking pensive. Check. Okay, so on a surface level, they're pretty similar. But in GF1 there was much deeper resonance emotionally. This was Michael's completion of his coming-of-age. This was the first time he fully embraced evil. Plus the scene was unique cinematically, directorially. A true original. What is the opera sequence from GF3 besides a lame attempt to conjur the power of the baptism scene without doing any of the corresponding heavy lifting in the story, emotional, or character development department?
Can you see why I don't like this movie?
And I'll leave it there I think. Notice I didn't even mention Andy Garcia, Joe Mantegna, and the famously bad performance by Sophia Coppola. I'm not even getting into the incest subplot, the squandering of the Kay character, the non-use of Michael's son, etc. These are all secondary issues.
Take my advice: pretend the Godfather series ends with Part 2.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
60 Annoyances
41. People ashing into slot machine change buckets
42. DVDs that claim bullshit standard items as "Special Features"
43. Abbreviating “address” to “addy” and “tournament” to “tourney”
44. When you ask what day it is, just a few minutes after midnight, and smart asses give you the technically correct answer.
45. Mormons
46. Mexico
47. The "I'm a bad ass" look on fake IDs
48. A clumpy pack of Sweet n' Low in a humid environment
49. Animals that have longer lifespans than humans
50. The fact that Scott Bakula never Quantum Leaped to the 90s (and the 80s hardly ever) even though according to the conceit of the show, he was supposed to be leaping around randomly between 1952 and 1999. Think about it: the show aired in the 80s. He could have leapt to the 90s… which would have been the past for him, but the future for us… That’s sci-fi gold!
51. People who don’t seem to mind walking barefoot on dirty city pavement.
52. A 16 year old sportin' a mustache
53. Jeopardy questions that really have nothing to do with the category. (like if the category was poetry: This city, Vermont's capital, was said to have inspired Robert Frost")
54. Tobacco chewers who spit into clear containers
55. That uncookable mucousy part of the egg
56. Gift certificates that expire
57. The way old people's heads can just bob around
58. People who could have that huge, disgusting, hair-sprouting mole or growth removed from their face anytime they want in a quick, inexpensive, painless trip to the dermatologist, yet don’t.
59. When the HDTV widescreen-TV owners deliberately stretch out the square-TV broadcast to fill the whole screen. Doesn't that run counter to the image you're desperately trying to project of caring so very deeply about picture quality?
60. Novelizations of movies that are themselves based on books (e.g. The novilzation of the Robert de Niro Frankenstein and also Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stokers’ Dracula).
Here's a funny parody of that last trend: http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=838
42. DVDs that claim bullshit standard items as "Special Features"
43. Abbreviating “address” to “addy” and “tournament” to “tourney”
44. When you ask what day it is, just a few minutes after midnight, and smart asses give you the technically correct answer.
45. Mormons
46. Mexico
47. The "I'm a bad ass" look on fake IDs
48. A clumpy pack of Sweet n' Low in a humid environment
49. Animals that have longer lifespans than humans
50. The fact that Scott Bakula never Quantum Leaped to the 90s (and the 80s hardly ever) even though according to the conceit of the show, he was supposed to be leaping around randomly between 1952 and 1999. Think about it: the show aired in the 80s. He could have leapt to the 90s… which would have been the past for him, but the future for us… That’s sci-fi gold!
51. People who don’t seem to mind walking barefoot on dirty city pavement.
52. A 16 year old sportin' a mustache
53. Jeopardy questions that really have nothing to do with the category. (like if the category was poetry: This city, Vermont's capital, was said to have inspired Robert Frost")
54. Tobacco chewers who spit into clear containers
55. That uncookable mucousy part of the egg
56. Gift certificates that expire
57. The way old people's heads can just bob around
58. People who could have that huge, disgusting, hair-sprouting mole or growth removed from their face anytime they want in a quick, inexpensive, painless trip to the dermatologist, yet don’t.
59. When the HDTV widescreen-TV owners deliberately stretch out the square-TV broadcast to fill the whole screen. Doesn't that run counter to the image you're desperately trying to project of caring so very deeply about picture quality?
60. Novelizations of movies that are themselves based on books (e.g. The novilzation of the Robert de Niro Frankenstein and also Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stokers’ Dracula).
Here's a funny parody of that last trend: http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=838
Thursday, August 19, 2004
The Cable News Super-Story
It’s good that we have several cable channels dedicated to round the clock news. And even within the round-the-clock news business there are channels dedicated exclusively to specific topics like finance, sports, headlines, etc. This is all for the good.
What I’m not wild about is the obsessive search that goes on at all times for the “Super Story”, a news story that can be milked for months and months at the exclusion of everything else. It all started in 1995 with OJ. This was the first super story. Don’t you remember how during that entire year it was all OJ, all the time?
Here’s my thesis, and if it’s true then it’s very disturbing. The structure of 24 hour news requires that the journalists find stories that can be reported on endlessly, constantly, with little to no updates of consequence for months at a time. It needs to be a story suitable for endless discussion on talking head programs, where guests can speculate and ramble on for hours. It’s all because of the format of 24 hours news. This consideration of finding a story with long-term reporting prospects contaminates the decision process of what is newsworthy and what is not. A dog can chew on a bone for hours, but he’ll be done with a steak in 90 seconds. Because of this reasoning, we the viewers are served the “bone” of the Scott Peterson trial, and denied the Porterhouse of say, a report on the erosion of democracy in Musharraf’s Pakistan.
The cable news networks need stories that can fill time, and they all know that an all-consuming Super Story, like OJ, brings in the viewers and the advertising revenue like no other news can. So they must constantly look for the super story, and reject items that don’t fit that mold.
The result is that what is “news” has changed. I’m no fan of Bill Clinton, but I’ll make this concession for him. It was the hunger for the Super Story that catapulted “Monica Lewinsky” (the scandal, not the person) into a yearlong drama. This may be a stretch, but cable news and the Super Story phenomenon may have led indirectly to Clinton’s impeachment because the fires of that scandal were stoked so well for so long. Back in the days when news was just the paper in the morning and Tom Brokaw in the evening, “Monica Lewinsky” might have just been a week of embarrassment for the president rather than a yearlong ordeal.
Let’s be clear on some basic facts. Scott Peterson is not news. Nor is Kobe Bryant, nor Michael Jackson.
Elian Gonzales was not news. Gary Condit was not news.
The missing girl-of-the-week is not news. The political smear book-of-the-week is not news. The celebrity breakup-of-the-week is not news.
Occasionally, what I’ll call “real news” and the Super Story are both the same. This was the case with 9/11 and both Gulf Wars. These kinds of occasions are when cable news and their 24 hour capabilities really shine. When real news can be reported 24/7, outlets like CNN kick into high gear and do a great job. But most of the time, what we see on CNN is not real news.
The reason we heard so much about Elian Gonzales beyond the point of all reason is because the cable channels were desperately groping for the Super Story. Isn’t that stupid? Elian wasn’t big news because he was big news, he was big news because the story had legs, could be discussed indefinitely and brought in viewership. This in turn caused other news media to report more on Elian, like the newspapers and the network newscasts and the internet. I believe that the reason your local paper had so much to say on Elian Gonzales was because they were taking their cues from CNN, MSNBC and Fox, all of which are looking for the Super Story, not what's really important.
What I’m not wild about is the obsessive search that goes on at all times for the “Super Story”, a news story that can be milked for months and months at the exclusion of everything else. It all started in 1995 with OJ. This was the first super story. Don’t you remember how during that entire year it was all OJ, all the time?
Here’s my thesis, and if it’s true then it’s very disturbing. The structure of 24 hour news requires that the journalists find stories that can be reported on endlessly, constantly, with little to no updates of consequence for months at a time. It needs to be a story suitable for endless discussion on talking head programs, where guests can speculate and ramble on for hours. It’s all because of the format of 24 hours news. This consideration of finding a story with long-term reporting prospects contaminates the decision process of what is newsworthy and what is not. A dog can chew on a bone for hours, but he’ll be done with a steak in 90 seconds. Because of this reasoning, we the viewers are served the “bone” of the Scott Peterson trial, and denied the Porterhouse of say, a report on the erosion of democracy in Musharraf’s Pakistan.
The cable news networks need stories that can fill time, and they all know that an all-consuming Super Story, like OJ, brings in the viewers and the advertising revenue like no other news can. So they must constantly look for the super story, and reject items that don’t fit that mold.
The result is that what is “news” has changed. I’m no fan of Bill Clinton, but I’ll make this concession for him. It was the hunger for the Super Story that catapulted “Monica Lewinsky” (the scandal, not the person) into a yearlong drama. This may be a stretch, but cable news and the Super Story phenomenon may have led indirectly to Clinton’s impeachment because the fires of that scandal were stoked so well for so long. Back in the days when news was just the paper in the morning and Tom Brokaw in the evening, “Monica Lewinsky” might have just been a week of embarrassment for the president rather than a yearlong ordeal.
Let’s be clear on some basic facts. Scott Peterson is not news. Nor is Kobe Bryant, nor Michael Jackson.
Elian Gonzales was not news. Gary Condit was not news.
The missing girl-of-the-week is not news. The political smear book-of-the-week is not news. The celebrity breakup-of-the-week is not news.
Occasionally, what I’ll call “real news” and the Super Story are both the same. This was the case with 9/11 and both Gulf Wars. These kinds of occasions are when cable news and their 24 hour capabilities really shine. When real news can be reported 24/7, outlets like CNN kick into high gear and do a great job. But most of the time, what we see on CNN is not real news.
The reason we heard so much about Elian Gonzales beyond the point of all reason is because the cable channels were desperately groping for the Super Story. Isn’t that stupid? Elian wasn’t big news because he was big news, he was big news because the story had legs, could be discussed indefinitely and brought in viewership. This in turn caused other news media to report more on Elian, like the newspapers and the network newscasts and the internet. I believe that the reason your local paper had so much to say on Elian Gonzales was because they were taking their cues from CNN, MSNBC and Fox, all of which are looking for the Super Story, not what's really important.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Star Wars Special Editions
Before I rip into the Special Editions and tell you why they sucked, let me give credit where credit is due and mention the few things they did right.
1) They brought a beloved classic back to the big screen. I think more great movies deserve to be rescreened in theaters for audiences who have never seen them that way.
2) The new cityscapes for Cloud City were nice, and some obvious mistakes were corrected, like the blur effect under Luke’s Landspeeder and the smudge on the emporer’s face.
3) Lucas effectively introduced the entire concept of the “Special Edition”. Previously, a classic film may have gotten a restoration treatment for a revival, but nothing on the scale of the Star Wars SE. The concept of the “Deleted Scene” we owe entirely to Lucas. The Star Wars SE was released in theaters, not DVD, and yet the entire industry of the Special Edition DVD was pretty much born out of this event. Essentially, Lucas started a revolution of taking old films and sprucing them up for a new (DVD) release by demonstrating how profits could be made from it. Because of this, many many films that were on the verge of complete deterioration were rescued. This may wind up as being George’s last great contribution to movies before he goes completely insane.
So that’s what I like about the Special Editions. Now for the bad. The primary error in the Special Editions is a misunderstanding of what Star Wars fandom is all about. We don’t prefer the “originals” and wince at the new changes because we are freaky purists who can’t stand change. For most of us in our teens, twenties and thirties, Star Wars is about childhood. It’s about a seminal film experience that we had in our childhood. The more Lucas changes the movie, for better or worse, the more he distances me from that childhood memory. Take the Yub Yub song for example, when the Ewoks are dancing and using Stormtrooper helmets as drums. It’s a silly song. It’s a stupid song. But damn it, it’s the Yub Yub song! Why the fuck would you want to change it? Are you insane?
And so the problem, generally, with the most of the special edition changes is that they take something that was good, that was fine, that carried a warm memory and change it for no reason. Again, like I mentioned in my previous Star Wars entry, if Lucas kept the originals available, I’d have a whole new attitude about any changes he wanted to make. I’d be much more interested and receptive. It would ultimately be my choice whether or not to accept the changes.
Beyond this general critique, there are plenty of specific things that bug me about the SEs. Many choices that are out and out stupid, and in some cases so idiotic as to be totally baffling.
Number One of course is Greedo firing first. This angers me so much I can’t talk about it anymore. If I ever meet Lucas, I won’t be able to thank him for Star Wars. I’ll have to immediately start smacking him in the face for GFF until his bodyguards remove me.
Number Two is the frequency with which Lucas felt he had to spice up a static background by throwing some shit in there. Be it a landscape, a starfield, a quiet room, you’ll just notice an excess of new moons and starships and droids that weren’t there before. At best, these additions are merely pointless. At worst, they can interfere with the mood and the story. The Tatooine landscape is supposed to be stark and lunar. The constant attempts to make all the shots more “busy” make the environment feel less alien. At the beginning of Empire, when the imperial fleet is introduced, the music swells just as the camera cuts to Vader, looking out of the bridge of his flagship. He stares out into the inky blackness of unbroken space, as if searching every star for his son. Except he’s not looking at the inky blackness of space anymore. He’s staring at a fat Star Destroyer, and a new moon or planet of some kind sitting in the middle distance. Thanks Lucas.
3) The Sarlaac (the creature who digests you for 1,000 years) used to be much scarier when it was just this anus in the ground. There’s something just primordially scary about a hole in the ground. Add a few jagged teeth in the sand and a couple of ropey tentacles to grab your feet and pull you in and the look is complete. Turning the Sarlaac into some kind of lame bird’s beak is, well, lame.
4) The deleted scene from Empire where Vader is shown getting on his shuttle after his tussle with Luke on Cloud City, and then later disembarking on the Star Destroyer is worse than useless. It seriously interrupts the tight pacing of the ending. Vader’s gruff, angry line: “Bring my shuttle” is perfect. He’s lost his son again and is obviously choked with emotion. The replacement, the casually spoken “Tell the Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival.” is terrible. Why would Vader, at this moment, care at all about the pomp and formality of his entourage on the Star Destroyer?
5) The replacement of the Yub Yub song and also the song in Jabba’s Palace. Thank God they didn’t touch the cantina song.
6) CG Jabba of course.
That’s all I can think of right now. I’m sure if I popped in a tape and watched them (which I won’t) I’d remember a dozen more. Strangely, the one thing I wished Lucas would have fixed for the special editions is the one thing he didn’t. Those black boxes around the Tie Fighters. They’re still there.
Thanks Lucas!
1) They brought a beloved classic back to the big screen. I think more great movies deserve to be rescreened in theaters for audiences who have never seen them that way.
2) The new cityscapes for Cloud City were nice, and some obvious mistakes were corrected, like the blur effect under Luke’s Landspeeder and the smudge on the emporer’s face.
3) Lucas effectively introduced the entire concept of the “Special Edition”. Previously, a classic film may have gotten a restoration treatment for a revival, but nothing on the scale of the Star Wars SE. The concept of the “Deleted Scene” we owe entirely to Lucas. The Star Wars SE was released in theaters, not DVD, and yet the entire industry of the Special Edition DVD was pretty much born out of this event. Essentially, Lucas started a revolution of taking old films and sprucing them up for a new (DVD) release by demonstrating how profits could be made from it. Because of this, many many films that were on the verge of complete deterioration were rescued. This may wind up as being George’s last great contribution to movies before he goes completely insane.
So that’s what I like about the Special Editions. Now for the bad. The primary error in the Special Editions is a misunderstanding of what Star Wars fandom is all about. We don’t prefer the “originals” and wince at the new changes because we are freaky purists who can’t stand change. For most of us in our teens, twenties and thirties, Star Wars is about childhood. It’s about a seminal film experience that we had in our childhood. The more Lucas changes the movie, for better or worse, the more he distances me from that childhood memory. Take the Yub Yub song for example, when the Ewoks are dancing and using Stormtrooper helmets as drums. It’s a silly song. It’s a stupid song. But damn it, it’s the Yub Yub song! Why the fuck would you want to change it? Are you insane?
And so the problem, generally, with the most of the special edition changes is that they take something that was good, that was fine, that carried a warm memory and change it for no reason. Again, like I mentioned in my previous Star Wars entry, if Lucas kept the originals available, I’d have a whole new attitude about any changes he wanted to make. I’d be much more interested and receptive. It would ultimately be my choice whether or not to accept the changes.
Beyond this general critique, there are plenty of specific things that bug me about the SEs. Many choices that are out and out stupid, and in some cases so idiotic as to be totally baffling.
Number One of course is Greedo firing first. This angers me so much I can’t talk about it anymore. If I ever meet Lucas, I won’t be able to thank him for Star Wars. I’ll have to immediately start smacking him in the face for GFF until his bodyguards remove me.
Number Two is the frequency with which Lucas felt he had to spice up a static background by throwing some shit in there. Be it a landscape, a starfield, a quiet room, you’ll just notice an excess of new moons and starships and droids that weren’t there before. At best, these additions are merely pointless. At worst, they can interfere with the mood and the story. The Tatooine landscape is supposed to be stark and lunar. The constant attempts to make all the shots more “busy” make the environment feel less alien. At the beginning of Empire, when the imperial fleet is introduced, the music swells just as the camera cuts to Vader, looking out of the bridge of his flagship. He stares out into the inky blackness of unbroken space, as if searching every star for his son. Except he’s not looking at the inky blackness of space anymore. He’s staring at a fat Star Destroyer, and a new moon or planet of some kind sitting in the middle distance. Thanks Lucas.
3) The Sarlaac (the creature who digests you for 1,000 years) used to be much scarier when it was just this anus in the ground. There’s something just primordially scary about a hole in the ground. Add a few jagged teeth in the sand and a couple of ropey tentacles to grab your feet and pull you in and the look is complete. Turning the Sarlaac into some kind of lame bird’s beak is, well, lame.
4) The deleted scene from Empire where Vader is shown getting on his shuttle after his tussle with Luke on Cloud City, and then later disembarking on the Star Destroyer is worse than useless. It seriously interrupts the tight pacing of the ending. Vader’s gruff, angry line: “Bring my shuttle” is perfect. He’s lost his son again and is obviously choked with emotion. The replacement, the casually spoken “Tell the Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival.” is terrible. Why would Vader, at this moment, care at all about the pomp and formality of his entourage on the Star Destroyer?
5) The replacement of the Yub Yub song and also the song in Jabba’s Palace. Thank God they didn’t touch the cantina song.
6) CG Jabba of course.
That’s all I can think of right now. I’m sure if I popped in a tape and watched them (which I won’t) I’d remember a dozen more. Strangely, the one thing I wished Lucas would have fixed for the special editions is the one thing he didn’t. Those black boxes around the Tie Fighters. They’re still there.
Thanks Lucas!
Monday, August 16, 2004
Giving Products "Future" Dates
I'll come back to Star Wars in a minute.
I can't stand these "future" dates on products. This is the phenominon where a product is launched with some sort of date stamped to it, but that date has not yet occured, and may not occur for a while. The biggest offender is magazines. One of my favorite magazines comes out monthly. It's supposed to be placed on newstands on the first of the month (subscribers get it a few days early) and any unsold copies removed from newsstands at the end of the month.
So why is the issue that ships in March, is placed on newsstands on April 1, and removed on April 30th called THE MAY ISSUE? This has bugged me for years.
I'd like to comment further on this, offering possible explanations on why the April issue is called the May issue - maybe offering theories about how the purpose is to sell a few more magazines past the freshness-date, but I can't. It's just too stupid. Charging gas station customers for 99% of a cent is only mildly stupid compared to this. It goes on the shelf April 1st. It departs April 30th. It's the April issue.
How about cars? The 2005's are here! All right! It's like the future! Only now!
And let's not forget video games, one of my favorite hobbies. The sports titles take huge liberties with the dates. All the football games that are released in summer and fall carry the next years date. EVEN THOUGH THE FOOTBALL SEASON IS 95% CONTAINED WITHIN THE YEAR.
Let's penetrate to the source of my frustration here. I think I can trace this anger back to the "presumption of idiocy" syndrome. Someone out in marketing land has determined that I, the customer, am an idiot, and therefore he will pander to my idiocy. So we get this baseball game. http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/mlb2005/index.html It was released in March of 2004. It is supposed to coincide with the 2004 Baseball season. The baseball season does not extend into 2005. In fact, by the time 2005 arrives, the game will be hopelessly obsolete, and a replacement will be on the way.
Despite how obvious those facts are, I'm supposed to feel a little thrill that an artifact from the future has arrived in my local Target or Kay-B-Toys. It's so advanced, calling it MLB 2004 just wouldn't be right. I mean, hello? 2004? Yawn!
I say, screw all these crap products who rely on this lame headfake to squeeze a few extra dollars out in the subsequent year. You know, if it's a magazine like Cosmo or Horse-Fancy, or something like that, it doesn't really matter if you post date the issue. One issue of Cosmo is just like any other. But if it's a magazine that reports on current events, then what are they thinking?
I can't stand these "future" dates on products. This is the phenominon where a product is launched with some sort of date stamped to it, but that date has not yet occured, and may not occur for a while. The biggest offender is magazines. One of my favorite magazines comes out monthly. It's supposed to be placed on newstands on the first of the month (subscribers get it a few days early) and any unsold copies removed from newsstands at the end of the month.
So why is the issue that ships in March, is placed on newsstands on April 1, and removed on April 30th called THE MAY ISSUE? This has bugged me for years.
I'd like to comment further on this, offering possible explanations on why the April issue is called the May issue - maybe offering theories about how the purpose is to sell a few more magazines past the freshness-date, but I can't. It's just too stupid. Charging gas station customers for 99% of a cent is only mildly stupid compared to this. It goes on the shelf April 1st. It departs April 30th. It's the April issue.
How about cars? The 2005's are here! All right! It's like the future! Only now!
And let's not forget video games, one of my favorite hobbies. The sports titles take huge liberties with the dates. All the football games that are released in summer and fall carry the next years date. EVEN THOUGH THE FOOTBALL SEASON IS 95% CONTAINED WITHIN THE YEAR.
Let's penetrate to the source of my frustration here. I think I can trace this anger back to the "presumption of idiocy" syndrome. Someone out in marketing land has determined that I, the customer, am an idiot, and therefore he will pander to my idiocy. So we get this baseball game. http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/mlb2005/index.html It was released in March of 2004. It is supposed to coincide with the 2004 Baseball season. The baseball season does not extend into 2005. In fact, by the time 2005 arrives, the game will be hopelessly obsolete, and a replacement will be on the way.
Despite how obvious those facts are, I'm supposed to feel a little thrill that an artifact from the future has arrived in my local Target or Kay-B-Toys. It's so advanced, calling it MLB 2004 just wouldn't be right. I mean, hello? 2004? Yawn!
I say, screw all these crap products who rely on this lame headfake to squeeze a few extra dollars out in the subsequent year. You know, if it's a magazine like Cosmo or Horse-Fancy, or something like that, it doesn't really matter if you post date the issue. One issue of Cosmo is just like any other. But if it's a magazine that reports on current events, then what are they thinking?
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
The Ban on the Original Star Wars Trilogy
I have so many angry complaints about Star Wars these days, where do I begin?
I was a huge Star Wars fan as a kid of course. I'd have to be. Anyone who didn't grow up loving Star Wars wouldn't have the energy to muster the bitterness that I now harbor over the whole franchise. If you've never loved Star Wars, then you can look at all the current Star Wars mediocrity and just shrug your shoulders. There's a lot of crap out there right now; why should Star Wars be any different?
When I watched The Phantom Menace in the theater with a friend one time, he remarked after the movie: "Wow that sucked." And later: "Well, at least he has the original trilogy. No one can ever take that away from him."
He was right with his first statement, (I now freely admit that Phantom Menace did indeed suck, though I didn't at the time) But sadly, his second proved false. George Lucas is taking away the original trilogy. Taking it away from himself, and from all of us. What he left in its place is the Special Edition, a remake where (in my estimation) about 75% of the changes were huge mistakes.
The original trilogy is floating around on old VHS tapes and laserdiscs, and that's it. Unless the new crazy-George changes his mind, we'll never see it again.
A few months ago, I read an article on the internet about a California film festival that was going to screen one film from each decade of the twentieth century, each film chosen to represent the best of that decade, as a sort of celebration of film. They did George Lucas the great honor of selecting Star Wars to represent the seventies. They asked Lucasfilm to lend them a print of Star Wars for the festival. Lucas refused to give them a print of the original, offering them a Special Edition print instead. The festival managers responded gently that they were interested in the historical significance of the 70's version, and that the 90's Special Edition was not suitable. Lucas still refused to lend it, citing his bizarre and unprompted promise made in the 90s that he was withdrawing availability of the original trilogy for good. The festival asked, reasonably, if that promise was meant to refer to commercial availability, and not to, say, a one-night only honorary screening at a festival for historic prints. Lucas said no. The festival had to reluctantly choose another film.
Ladies and Gentleman: fuck George Lucas.
It's not easy saying fuck George Lucas. It's painful. The guy is responsible for bringing great joy and happiness to millions of lives through his brilliant cinematic fantasy. But he's gone nuts. He lives on a kind of compound in California, surrounded entirely by worshipful, fawning employees who don't dare disagree with anything he says. Never trust people who live on "compounds". Or are surrounded by worshipful sycophants. You end up with L. Ron Hubbards that way. And L. Ron is responsible for a whooooole lotta bad sci fi himself.
So the Special Editions are being released this fall on DVD. The originals, of course, will not be included. In fact, these aren't even the 1997 special editions. They're new special editions, edited even further to incorporate things from the new trilogy. Apparantly the apparition of Anakin at the end of jedi is now going to be replaced with Hayden Christensen. Supposedly there is new stuff on Alderaan.
Lucas likes to point out that they are HIS movies. He can change them however he wants. He can withdraw access to earlier versions if he wants. I wish I could somehow organize a boycott of these DVDs, to show him exactly how much he can keep HIS movies all to himself.
For the record, I have no objection to George tinkering forever on the Original Trilogy, making more edits and additions for the next 30 years, so long as he keeps the originals for sale in the meantime. He's not capable of understanding that his new trilogy is distinctly inferior. He's not aware that all his efforts to tie the original trilogy with the new one through new Special Editions simply cheapen the superior originals.
I refuse to buy the new DVDs. I refuse to pay for anything special-edition related. I have a set of Asian DVD bootlegs of the original trilogy. Widescreen. They have visual hiccups between chapters, and the audio synching is off by about half a second. But I'll take those bootlegs anyday over George's special editions.
Next time: my full case against the special editions. Man, Lucas pisses me off.
I was a huge Star Wars fan as a kid of course. I'd have to be. Anyone who didn't grow up loving Star Wars wouldn't have the energy to muster the bitterness that I now harbor over the whole franchise. If you've never loved Star Wars, then you can look at all the current Star Wars mediocrity and just shrug your shoulders. There's a lot of crap out there right now; why should Star Wars be any different?
When I watched The Phantom Menace in the theater with a friend one time, he remarked after the movie: "Wow that sucked." And later: "Well, at least he has the original trilogy. No one can ever take that away from him."
He was right with his first statement, (I now freely admit that Phantom Menace did indeed suck, though I didn't at the time) But sadly, his second proved false. George Lucas is taking away the original trilogy. Taking it away from himself, and from all of us. What he left in its place is the Special Edition, a remake where (in my estimation) about 75% of the changes were huge mistakes.
The original trilogy is floating around on old VHS tapes and laserdiscs, and that's it. Unless the new crazy-George changes his mind, we'll never see it again.
A few months ago, I read an article on the internet about a California film festival that was going to screen one film from each decade of the twentieth century, each film chosen to represent the best of that decade, as a sort of celebration of film. They did George Lucas the great honor of selecting Star Wars to represent the seventies. They asked Lucasfilm to lend them a print of Star Wars for the festival. Lucas refused to give them a print of the original, offering them a Special Edition print instead. The festival managers responded gently that they were interested in the historical significance of the 70's version, and that the 90's Special Edition was not suitable. Lucas still refused to lend it, citing his bizarre and unprompted promise made in the 90s that he was withdrawing availability of the original trilogy for good. The festival asked, reasonably, if that promise was meant to refer to commercial availability, and not to, say, a one-night only honorary screening at a festival for historic prints. Lucas said no. The festival had to reluctantly choose another film.
Ladies and Gentleman: fuck George Lucas.
It's not easy saying fuck George Lucas. It's painful. The guy is responsible for bringing great joy and happiness to millions of lives through his brilliant cinematic fantasy. But he's gone nuts. He lives on a kind of compound in California, surrounded entirely by worshipful, fawning employees who don't dare disagree with anything he says. Never trust people who live on "compounds". Or are surrounded by worshipful sycophants. You end up with L. Ron Hubbards that way. And L. Ron is responsible for a whooooole lotta bad sci fi himself.
So the Special Editions are being released this fall on DVD. The originals, of course, will not be included. In fact, these aren't even the 1997 special editions. They're new special editions, edited even further to incorporate things from the new trilogy. Apparantly the apparition of Anakin at the end of jedi is now going to be replaced with Hayden Christensen. Supposedly there is new stuff on Alderaan.
Lucas likes to point out that they are HIS movies. He can change them however he wants. He can withdraw access to earlier versions if he wants. I wish I could somehow organize a boycott of these DVDs, to show him exactly how much he can keep HIS movies all to himself.
For the record, I have no objection to George tinkering forever on the Original Trilogy, making more edits and additions for the next 30 years, so long as he keeps the originals for sale in the meantime. He's not capable of understanding that his new trilogy is distinctly inferior. He's not aware that all his efforts to tie the original trilogy with the new one through new Special Editions simply cheapen the superior originals.
I refuse to buy the new DVDs. I refuse to pay for anything special-edition related. I have a set of Asian DVD bootlegs of the original trilogy. Widescreen. They have visual hiccups between chapters, and the audio synching is off by about half a second. But I'll take those bootlegs anyday over George's special editions.
Next time: my full case against the special editions. Man, Lucas pisses me off.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
The Holiday Season
These are the dog days of summer, but it doesn't hurt to plan ahead - or in this case to whine ahead. For the fall is coming, and that means one thing: the ever-earlier beginning of the "Holiday Season".
It used to be that we weren't bombarded with Christmas until December, and sometimes not even until the second week. These were the good times. The salad days. Now of course, Christmas has been encroaching on us earlier and earlier, under the disguise of The Holiday season. Every year I keep my eye out for the very first time I spot some kind of Christmas-themed display or marketing. For the last few years, it's been in October. Most recently it was Barnes and Nobles trying to clear out their previous years stock of Christmas books.
I think the "Holiday Season" was originally meant to be a polite way to refer to Christmas but also include Hannukah. Somewhere along the line Thanksgiving was included, and now even Halloween seems to be part of the season as well.
I have nothing against grouping Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas into one big "Holiday Season" category. Call it whatever you want. What I do have a problem with is hearing "The Twelve Days of Christmas", on acoustic guitar, playing in my local Starbucks IN NOVEMBER.
This drives me up the fucking wall. Using the logic that the Christmas spirit makes people more inclined to spend and shop, commercial America is bringing us Christmas earlier and earlier, using "The Holiday Season" as an excuse.
I'm far from the first person to point this out, yet I'd be remiss if I didn't bitch about this in a journal devoted to bitching. I hope that the fact I'm doing it in August lends credence to the idea that it really does piss me off. Obviously Christmas is overcommercialized. It's always been that way. But only in the last 10 or so years has Christmas become so firmly entrenched in November. And let me say in no uncertain terms: Christmas works wonderfully as an exclusively December-y celebration. But once you expand Christmas into November, and it occupies a full one-sixth (or more) of the year, it starts getting really annoying, really fast.
Some commercial outlets manage to hold off on shoving Christmas in your face until the day after Thanksgiving. This is the longest anyone can restrain themselves. Other people, like I've said, start in October.
I propose a fair compromise. Absolutely nothing Christmas related before Thanksgiving. You can talk about Halloween and Thanksgiving all you want, but no Christmas. Then, after Thanksgiving, but before December, you can open the floodgates on the Christmas sales and displays, with one exception: nothing audible. No Christmas carols piped over the PA system, no ho ho ho's, no sleigh bells. Commercials on TV can talk about Christmas all they want, but again no carols, no santas, no bells. That has to wait until December.
I think that would be fair. You see, "The Holiday Season" problem is related to the old Digimon problem. We the consumers agree collectively to suspend our disbelief. We know that Christmas is being shoved in our face by the entire commercial establishment in order to manipulate us into spending freely. But we agree to pretend that the reason is actually to make us happy and fill us with good cheer. When Christmas arrives with such insistance in November, the greed of the marketers is too apparant. It's too obvious that we are being manipulated. We need it to be less obvious in order to feel comfortable. Don't make us listen to carols until December.
It used to be that we weren't bombarded with Christmas until December, and sometimes not even until the second week. These were the good times. The salad days. Now of course, Christmas has been encroaching on us earlier and earlier, under the disguise of The Holiday season. Every year I keep my eye out for the very first time I spot some kind of Christmas-themed display or marketing. For the last few years, it's been in October. Most recently it was Barnes and Nobles trying to clear out their previous years stock of Christmas books.
I think the "Holiday Season" was originally meant to be a polite way to refer to Christmas but also include Hannukah. Somewhere along the line Thanksgiving was included, and now even Halloween seems to be part of the season as well.
I have nothing against grouping Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas into one big "Holiday Season" category. Call it whatever you want. What I do have a problem with is hearing "The Twelve Days of Christmas", on acoustic guitar, playing in my local Starbucks IN NOVEMBER.
This drives me up the fucking wall. Using the logic that the Christmas spirit makes people more inclined to spend and shop, commercial America is bringing us Christmas earlier and earlier, using "The Holiday Season" as an excuse.
I'm far from the first person to point this out, yet I'd be remiss if I didn't bitch about this in a journal devoted to bitching. I hope that the fact I'm doing it in August lends credence to the idea that it really does piss me off. Obviously Christmas is overcommercialized. It's always been that way. But only in the last 10 or so years has Christmas become so firmly entrenched in November. And let me say in no uncertain terms: Christmas works wonderfully as an exclusively December-y celebration. But once you expand Christmas into November, and it occupies a full one-sixth (or more) of the year, it starts getting really annoying, really fast.
Some commercial outlets manage to hold off on shoving Christmas in your face until the day after Thanksgiving. This is the longest anyone can restrain themselves. Other people, like I've said, start in October.
I propose a fair compromise. Absolutely nothing Christmas related before Thanksgiving. You can talk about Halloween and Thanksgiving all you want, but no Christmas. Then, after Thanksgiving, but before December, you can open the floodgates on the Christmas sales and displays, with one exception: nothing audible. No Christmas carols piped over the PA system, no ho ho ho's, no sleigh bells. Commercials on TV can talk about Christmas all they want, but again no carols, no santas, no bells. That has to wait until December.
I think that would be fair. You see, "The Holiday Season" problem is related to the old Digimon problem. We the consumers agree collectively to suspend our disbelief. We know that Christmas is being shoved in our face by the entire commercial establishment in order to manipulate us into spending freely. But we agree to pretend that the reason is actually to make us happy and fill us with good cheer. When Christmas arrives with such insistance in November, the greed of the marketers is too apparant. It's too obvious that we are being manipulated. We need it to be less obvious in order to feel comfortable. Don't make us listen to carols until December.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Rubber Bridge
I played a lot of bridge on my recent beach trip, and let me tell you something. Bridge is an amazing game. Possibly the best game ever designed from a deck of cards. It takes skill, intelligence, memory, teamwork, and it never gets old. Like chess, it's fun and playable at the beginner level and the intermediate level, and takes on a whole new level of strategy at the expert level.
But I have one giant complaint when it comes to bridge, and frankly it's stupid that I should be the one making it, as it's such an obvious flaw in the game. But someone has to point it out. If you don't know the rules of bridge or don't care, you can skip this. This goes into the minutae of the game.
My complaint concerns the scoring. Bridge has a somewhat convoluted scoring system, one that actually reminds me of tennis in its arbitraryness. (0-15-30-40-game?) In bridge you have two different values for contracts in the major vs. minor suits, vulnerability, scoring above and below the line, points for overtricks, 2 games to a rubber, part-scores, etc. It's a big mess.
But my complaint with the scoring is not the complexity, it's the fact that the scoring, well, ruins the whole game.
Let me start with my underlying philosophy in this matter: the scoring system of any game or sport exists to service the game. It exists as a way to keep tabs on who is performing better than who. A good scoring system rewards the best play and therefore encourages the best play. A bad scoring system is one that rewards the players for something other than optimal play.
Don't you feel a little uneasy when football players call timeouts, not because they need to confer with the coach on strategy, but because they want to put more time on the clock? Or how about when basketball players decide that their best strategy is not to score baskets, but to keep possession and just let the time expire? These are perfectly legal moves, and yet they suggest an error has been made at the rules level. The players are exploting loopholes in the rules, and in some fuzzy way are violating the spirit of the game.
But those are mild problems compared to the one in rubber bridge. The one in bridge, as I said, ruins the game. Here's my case.
Bridge is at its best and most challenging when the partnership arrives at the highest contract possible, in the highest valued suit possible, and then makes that contract. When a player picks up a new hand, his object should be to communicate carefully with his partner, try to figure out how many tricks are possible, and then reach for that goal. The scoring system in rubber bridge, sadly, actively discourages players from arriving at an optimal contract almost every single time.
Here's the simplest example. You and partner, it seems, can almost certainly make 5 hearts. 6 won't be possible, since you know you have two losers. But really, you don't expect to lose more than those two. Let's say you know all this information at the 4-level of bidding. What do you bid?
Well you won't bid 5 hearts, that's for sure. Why would you? There is absolutely no reason to bid 5 hearts, the way the game is scored. It's either 4 or 6. There are several contracts that you just can never bid in rubber bridge, despite the fact that they may be the most challenging contracts that a savvy partnership could reach through intelligent bidding. These contracts include 5 hearts and spades and no trump, 4 diamonds and clubs and no trump. You would just never settle on these contracts, unless you had to perform an emergency stop on 5 spades en route to slam. Either way, you aren't getting any more points for making 5 spades than you would if you had bid 4 and made an overtrick. Right off the bat, out the 35 possible contracts in bridge, 6 of them have automatically and arbitrarily been declared worthless by the scoring system, even though one of those contracts might be the "optimal" contract, the best one to play.
The other, more general way rubber bridge scoring actively discourages optimal contract bidding is by always putting the players within arm's reach of game. If you've got a partial, why the heck would you try for 5 diamonds when 3 diamonds could be made easily? Ever hear your partner with the scoresheet remind you "All we need is one"? Screw that! Thinking in terms of reaching game instead of how to make the best contract possible absolutely sabotages the essence of the game. And in rubber bridge this kind of compromise attitude towards the bidding happens almost every single hand.
Ah, comes the retort, That's the beauty of duplicate bridge! Pure skill is rewarded! Those meaningless overtricks in rubber bridge are highly significant on the duplicate scoreboard!
Well, you know something? That answer isn't good enough. It's hard enough getting four players together for a game around the kitchen table, let alone 40 for a duplicate tournament. For lots of us, that option isn't there.
But even duplicate bridge doesn't solve the problem. Sure, you don't have to worry about partials, but the core scoring sytem is still in place. There's still no advantage to bidding 5 hearts if you can bid 4 and make an overtrick. And small differences like that are really where expert skill comes into play. Duplicate will remain flawed as long as the rubber bridge scoring system remains at the core of scoring.
The whole concept of vulnerability also interferes with optimal bidding and play, as it can give one partnership different priorities and levels of risk-aversion than the other. But this isn't as serious a problem because it will generally affect both teams equally. Finally, 100 Honors rewards a lucky hand, not skillful play. It should be dropped.
So what, therefore, would be a good scoring system for bridge? The answer: I don't know yet. It would have to set a goal, similar to game or rubber, but one that a) didn't encourage compromise bidding, and b) didn't place arbitrary high value on certain random contracts. It would reward play based on pure skill. It would have to go even further than establishing a ratio of tricks to points. The ideal scoring system would have to be savvy enough to know the difference between a 6 heart contract that was skillfully bid and made, and a 6 heart contract that was overbid through sloppyness but made through wildly good luck. That's a tall order. I'll work on this new scoring sytem and report back when I have it.
But I have one giant complaint when it comes to bridge, and frankly it's stupid that I should be the one making it, as it's such an obvious flaw in the game. But someone has to point it out. If you don't know the rules of bridge or don't care, you can skip this. This goes into the minutae of the game.
My complaint concerns the scoring. Bridge has a somewhat convoluted scoring system, one that actually reminds me of tennis in its arbitraryness. (0-15-30-40-game?) In bridge you have two different values for contracts in the major vs. minor suits, vulnerability, scoring above and below the line, points for overtricks, 2 games to a rubber, part-scores, etc. It's a big mess.
But my complaint with the scoring is not the complexity, it's the fact that the scoring, well, ruins the whole game.
Let me start with my underlying philosophy in this matter: the scoring system of any game or sport exists to service the game. It exists as a way to keep tabs on who is performing better than who. A good scoring system rewards the best play and therefore encourages the best play. A bad scoring system is one that rewards the players for something other than optimal play.
Don't you feel a little uneasy when football players call timeouts, not because they need to confer with the coach on strategy, but because they want to put more time on the clock? Or how about when basketball players decide that their best strategy is not to score baskets, but to keep possession and just let the time expire? These are perfectly legal moves, and yet they suggest an error has been made at the rules level. The players are exploting loopholes in the rules, and in some fuzzy way are violating the spirit of the game.
But those are mild problems compared to the one in rubber bridge. The one in bridge, as I said, ruins the game. Here's my case.
Bridge is at its best and most challenging when the partnership arrives at the highest contract possible, in the highest valued suit possible, and then makes that contract. When a player picks up a new hand, his object should be to communicate carefully with his partner, try to figure out how many tricks are possible, and then reach for that goal. The scoring system in rubber bridge, sadly, actively discourages players from arriving at an optimal contract almost every single time.
Here's the simplest example. You and partner, it seems, can almost certainly make 5 hearts. 6 won't be possible, since you know you have two losers. But really, you don't expect to lose more than those two. Let's say you know all this information at the 4-level of bidding. What do you bid?
Well you won't bid 5 hearts, that's for sure. Why would you? There is absolutely no reason to bid 5 hearts, the way the game is scored. It's either 4 or 6. There are several contracts that you just can never bid in rubber bridge, despite the fact that they may be the most challenging contracts that a savvy partnership could reach through intelligent bidding. These contracts include 5 hearts and spades and no trump, 4 diamonds and clubs and no trump. You would just never settle on these contracts, unless you had to perform an emergency stop on 5 spades en route to slam. Either way, you aren't getting any more points for making 5 spades than you would if you had bid 4 and made an overtrick. Right off the bat, out the 35 possible contracts in bridge, 6 of them have automatically and arbitrarily been declared worthless by the scoring system, even though one of those contracts might be the "optimal" contract, the best one to play.
The other, more general way rubber bridge scoring actively discourages optimal contract bidding is by always putting the players within arm's reach of game. If you've got a partial, why the heck would you try for 5 diamonds when 3 diamonds could be made easily? Ever hear your partner with the scoresheet remind you "All we need is one"? Screw that! Thinking in terms of reaching game instead of how to make the best contract possible absolutely sabotages the essence of the game. And in rubber bridge this kind of compromise attitude towards the bidding happens almost every single hand.
Ah, comes the retort, That's the beauty of duplicate bridge! Pure skill is rewarded! Those meaningless overtricks in rubber bridge are highly significant on the duplicate scoreboard!
Well, you know something? That answer isn't good enough. It's hard enough getting four players together for a game around the kitchen table, let alone 40 for a duplicate tournament. For lots of us, that option isn't there.
But even duplicate bridge doesn't solve the problem. Sure, you don't have to worry about partials, but the core scoring sytem is still in place. There's still no advantage to bidding 5 hearts if you can bid 4 and make an overtrick. And small differences like that are really where expert skill comes into play. Duplicate will remain flawed as long as the rubber bridge scoring system remains at the core of scoring.
The whole concept of vulnerability also interferes with optimal bidding and play, as it can give one partnership different priorities and levels of risk-aversion than the other. But this isn't as serious a problem because it will generally affect both teams equally. Finally, 100 Honors rewards a lucky hand, not skillful play. It should be dropped.
So what, therefore, would be a good scoring system for bridge? The answer: I don't know yet. It would have to set a goal, similar to game or rubber, but one that a) didn't encourage compromise bidding, and b) didn't place arbitrary high value on certain random contracts. It would reward play based on pure skill. It would have to go even further than establishing a ratio of tricks to points. The ideal scoring system would have to be savvy enough to know the difference between a 6 heart contract that was skillfully bid and made, and a 6 heart contract that was overbid through sloppyness but made through wildly good luck. That's a tall order. I'll work on this new scoring sytem and report back when I have it.
Correction
Hmm. Jessica Tandy wasn't actually in The Whales of August. I was convinced she was. I would say that I was really thinking of Bette Davis, but I wasn't. I really thought it was Jessica Tandy. I would have bet a lot of money. Weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)