Let’s Talk Star Wars… Disney Edition.

So, back while everyone was awaiting Star Wars Episode 7 with baited breath, I wrote a post called “Let’s Talk Star Wars” in which I ranked the first six Star Wars movies in order of my enjoyment of them.

So now that Disney has put out three new Star Wars films, two of which are continuing the main story, how do they stack up? Let’s take a look.

First up: Rogue One. I’m starting with this one because it is a standalone film. I only saw it once in theaters, so bear with me. I don’t dislike this film. It actually had a very strong “Star Wars” feel to it. The CGI faces of Tarkin and Leia were disturbing. As for Leia, they should have not shown her face at all; we all saw the woman clad in white with the signature hair buns from behind, so we knew who she was. Also, the Mon Calamari dude who was not Ackbar looked funny; maybe they should have gone with a practical effect for this alien instead of CGI, like the original Ackbar was. Anyway, the characters in this film were not wholly memorable. I don’t think I could name any of them outside of saying “The Girl”, “The Droid”, “The Rebel Dude”, “The Pilot”, “The Blind Asian Dude played by Ip Man”, and “Ip Man’s Friend”. Were there other main characters? I don’t know. They all died, so I didn’t bother to remember. Anyway, most of the characters were fairly bland and generic; the only ones that stuck out to me were Blind Asian Dude and The Droid. Especially The Droid. When BB-8 was mega hyped for Ep. 7, and turned out to be a let down, The Droid from Rogue One reminded me that droids with unique personalities (that weren’t R2-D2 or C-3PO) were still out there. It also reminded me why Ep. 7 was so… blah. At any rate, this movie was still fun but not perfect. I would rank it as better than Ep. 1.

Speaking of Ep. 7, The Force Awakens, it was very much a blah film. Let me be clear, I saw it three times in theaters, twice ALONE, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. But outside of the theater? I have felt no compulsion to watch it again. The film was technically good, essentially a rehashing of Ep. 4 (my all time favorite). The new main characters weren’t very well developed during the film, and the character of Rey kind of got on my nerves after a while, mostly because she just so happened to be good at everything and bad at nothing. I really wasn’t given a reason to care about these characters. But they interacted with old school characters of Han and Chewy, so good fun was to be had for all (except Han). The film needed more Poe Damaron. In both of the other trilogies, the films revolved around a trio of inter-connected main characters: Han/Luke/Leia in the OT and Obi-wan/Anaking/Padme in the prequels. Setting up a trio of Rey/Finn/Poe in this film would have been better, as opposed to just doing Rey/Finn. It doesn’t work as well. I heard that Poe was originally supposed to die, but JJ Abrams changed his mind later; it makes sense with how Poe was handled in the film, but it still leaves the question of who the third member of the trio should have been. BB-8 was basically a slightly useful puppy, not really a character in its own right. R2-D2 and C-3PO were clearly their own characters. The Droid from Rogue One was clearly his own character. BB-8 was a glorified pet. And Kylo as the villain was… lame? More of a petulant child than a force to be reckoned with. His introduction, where he was able to stop blaster bolts with the force was cool… and then he fizzled. The film as a whole lacked that “Star Wars”; there were moments of it here and there, but it felt just like the JJ Abrams Star Trek films: just another sci-fi/fantasy action flick, But With Lightsabers! Any way, after I had first seen the film I would have rated it above Ep. 1, maybe even Ep. 2. But after further reflection I saw that the film doesn’t make me feel anything. Like I’m pretty apathetic towards it. Like I mentioned, I have no intention of actively watching it of my own accord, especially when I could just as easily watch the vastly superior Ep. 4. It is just blah. And since I think a film should make you feel something (whether it’s love, hate, hope, anger, whatever) I have to rank this below Ep. 3, because at least that film made me feel something, even if that something is seething anger.

Now for Ep. 8, The Last Jedi. Oh boy did I have a lot riding on this film. I was one of those people who said we should wait until Ep. 8 comes out before completely ruling out Ep. 7. And boy, did that come to bite me in the butt. Ep. 8 was a mess. A visually stunning mess, but a mess nonetheless. I’ve pretty much exhausted my frustration with this film by talking ad nauseum about it with friends and colleagues, so I’m going to boil this down to two things that put the nail in the coffin: the Disney Humor and the final act. The first is easy to explain: there is a lot of Disney Channel-esque hokey humor in the film that really ruins otherwise good moments. Like, in the originals there were funny moments, but they weren’t deliberate jokes. The prequels had some cheesy joking, but it was mostly inoffensive. For this film (I did not notice it in Ep. 7) cool scenes like the opening fighter attack was ruining by a cheap throwaway gag. Not cool, Disney. Now, the final act in and of itself was not wholly bad, but in conjunction with the rest of the film it felt very disjointed. I define the final act as the scene on the red dust planet. I think the film should have ended with the Rebels escaping the First Order, getting to the planet, their future uncertain and needing to regroup and reconnect with other factions, and with Rey flying in the Millennium Falcon to meet up with them, leaving that final act to either occur at the beginning of Ep. 9 or just not at all. I would have been okay with that film; it was full and complete, the characters had all gone through more development, and I was satisfied. But the final act not only felt tacked on, but it just dragged out the film, added some really awful, stupid plot moments, and did a complete 180 on Kylo’s character development. Like, it just took all that development and chucked it out the window. I was done. I left the film saying, and I quote, “Well… that was a movie.” Because there was nothing else to say. This was the movie that was supposed to make Ep. 7 worth it. But it didn’t. Were there good things in this film? Yes! Not only was there more Poe (who is the best new character in the series), but the opening scene with the X-wings  (minus the aforementioned gag), the lightsaber fight in Snoke’s throne room, the Force connection between Rey and Kylo, and the infinite Mirror Scene with Rey: all well-done, engaging elements of the the film. I understand why people might like it, and I don’t begrudge anyone’s enjoyment of this film. But there was a lot, a LOT, wrong with it. So, I have to rank this above Ep. 7 (and below Ep. 3). Without the final act, it would have ranked above Rogue One.

Anyway, that just my opinion. I love Star Wars, and I’m not giving up on it yet (although I have no plans to see the Solo film – it just looks unnecessary). My butt will definitely be in a theater somewhere when Ep. 9 comes out, you can count on it. May the Force be with you!

Advertisements

Symbols and the First Amendment

In the wake of the the crap that went down in Charlottesville over the weekend, my brother shared a post that went as follows:

“If Germany has outlawed the swastika for it being a symbol of hate and murder, why have KKK symbols not been outlawed for being an instigating symbol of murder.”

This was actually similar in vein to a tweet by comedian Chelsea Handler. For context, on August 6, 2017, two Chinese tourists were arrested in Germany for making the Nazi salute. Handler’s response was as follows:

“2 Chinese guys were arrested in Berlin for making nazi salutes. Wouldn’t it be nice 2 have laws here for people who think racism is funny?”

The answer to both posts is simple: Unlike Germany, America actually protects freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech is not there to protect speech we like; quite the opposite. It is there to protect dissenting views, even vile views like those of Nazis and the KKK, from being quashed, silenced, or relegated to the shadows. If someone openly presents a view you don’t agree with, the correct response is not to silence them but rather to use your own freedom of speech to argue against them, to show the world how screwed up their ideas are. Silencing them would give the appearance that we are afraid of those views, that we are afraid to confront them openly in the light of day.

Now, the post shared by my brother was a a bit more specific than Handler’s tweet. Instead of banning something simply because “racism”, the post puts forward that the symbols somehow instigate murder. The attempt here is to equate those symbols with the very narrow caveat that inciting violence is not free speech.

However, that caveat is intentionally narrow. In the landmark decision Brandenburg v. Ohio, the The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The keywords there are “directed” and “imminent.” It only covers speech that directly and specifically calls for lawless action (like violence), such as a group leader telling their followers to “Go punch those people!” And even then, the sentence itself is not banned, but the sentiment behind it, because of context and intent. It has to be used in the specific context of call to imminent lawless action (What other context might there be? The sentence spoken sarcastically. An actor saying the sentence in a movie. A stand-up comedian using it in a joke. The possibilities are endless).

A symbol might represent violent ideologies, but a symbol cannot directly incite imminent violence. A symbol has no agency. A symbol simply put on display does not directly call anyone to violent action. Only people can do that. By equating the symbol with incitement of violence, you are removing the agency of the people calling for and committing violence. Symbols, words, and sentences do not incite violence; people do.

Finally, letting people freely display their hateful paraphernalia allows the world to know exactly where they stand. Remember how I mentioned views being relegated to the shadows? That’s what happens when you limit speech. People with “illegal” ideas will be forced to group in secret, to continue on in their ignorance, building deeper societal roots for their hate. If they are able to ‘proudly’ display their affiliations, we know where they are. The FBI knows where they are. And we can appropriately fight back against their ideas.

 

Disclaimer: I hate that I have to add this, but some might think (despite my repeatedly calling the ideas surrounding these symbols ‘hateful’ or ‘vile’) that my support of the freedom of speech implies my support of the ideas being spoken. So here is what I think: The Nazis were evil; neo-Nazis are also evil. The KKK is evil. White Supremacy is evil. Racism in any form is evil. What happened in Charlottesville was disgusting. 

Me, My Grammar, and I

So I’ve noticed this trend in movies and TV shows lately. And by lately, I mean over the past few years. And it’s not a good trend.

Do you remember when you were a kid, and you would say something to your mom like, “Me and Bobby want to go to the park.” And your mom would respond, “Bobby and I, not me and Bobby.”

I remember. And it was a good thing because saying “Me and Bobby” in that case was grammatically incorrect. However, the massive emphasis on this grammar issue children often commit seems to have pushed back too far. Nowadays, people appear to be so afraid, so wary, of using “me and” or “and me” in any context, even when it would be grammatically correct.

This is the trend I am seeing in film and television, more so with television.

Consider the following sentence:

Mom drove Bobby and I to the park.

This sentence is grammatically incorrect. Yet, I constantly hear characters in shows and movies making this exact mistake. I find myself muttering at the TV “Bobby and me.” The proper version of this is, “Mom drove Bobby and me to the park.” But people (mainly writers and speakers) are so afraid of using “and me” because of the aforementioned childhood correction.

So what is the difference between these two situations? Well, ‘I’ is used as the subject of the sentence, while ‘me’ is used as an object. “I want” is a complete sentence, with the subject ‘I’ and the verb ‘want’. For “Bobby and I want,” both ‘Bobby’ and ‘I’ are the subjects. With “Mom drove me,” ‘Mom’ is the subject, ‘drove’ is the verb, and ‘me’ is the object which the verb is acting upon. For “Mom drove Bobby and me,” both ‘Bobby’ and ‘me’ are objects being driven (acted upon by the verb ‘drove’)

So how do you know when to use ‘I’ or ‘me’ in these situations?

It’s simple, really: forget the other person.

What do I mean?

Reconsider the sentence:

Mom drove Bobby and -?- to the park

Now, forget about Bobby. The sentence becomes

Mom drove -?- to the park.

How would you finish this? Would you say, ” Mom drove I to the park” or “Mom drove me to the park”?  Me, right? Well then, if you add Bobby back into the equation, it shouldn’t change.

How about

“Bobby and -?- want to go to the park.”

Forget the other person,

“-?- want to go to the park.”

Of course, the answer is ‘I’, since you would say “I want to go to the park.” Adding in Bobby shouldn’t change that.

So, writers of film and television: Follow this guide. Stop perpetuating this grammatical error.

Leaky Pipeline

You know what I hate? When things get ‘leaked’ online. Specifically, when movie trailers get leaked online and the production company has not choice but to release the trailer ahead of schedule. This pisses me off.

The most recent occurrences of this phenomenon were the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles sequel trailer on Dec. 9 and the Star Trek Beyond trailer today Dec. 14.

The first thing is this: the movie companies spend a lot of money on advertising. They spend a lot of time scheduling the releases of trailers. Sometimes, these releases are linked to special events.

The Star Trek trailer was supposed to be released as a preview with the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens. How cool is that? As I have tickets to see SW:TFA, this made me extra excited for the film. But the trailer was leaked 4 days early, so Paramount officially released the trailer today.

But since we don’t actually care about the company’s advertising schemes, here is a little something that most people would not have thought about. There is probably a group of people that designed the trailers and planned for the release. They probably have a party planned, with a countdown to the release and everything. They want to celebrate the work they’ve done. And an early release of their work takes this away from them.

Let’s look at the case of the TMNT2 trailer. The evening before it was set to be released, Stephen Amell (who plays Casey Jones in the film) released a teaser, announcing that the full trailer would be out at 10 AM the next morning. How exciting for him and his fans! They would have been able to celebrate the trailer together! But later that night, the trailer was leaked and Paramount (I’m beginning to think they have a security problem) released the trailer early. Not 4 days early like with Star Trek, but almost a whole day early. This seriously took away from Stephen’s announcement. While I did not actually see the trailer until after it was scheduled to be released, I felt bad for Stephen and the people at Paramount who worked on the trailer.

So this is basically me saying I am going to do my best to steer clear of leaked movie secrets and whatnot. No matter how excited I am for the Star Trek Beyond trailer, I am going to wait to watch it until I see Star Wars, like I was supposed to. I don’t care if other people watch the early-released trailers, as long as they watch the official ones. But for me, it’s a personal matter of principle.

Dear Justin

I don’t really want to write this. And in all honesty, I shouldn’t have to.

Exactly one year ago today, a friend of mine committed suicide. My second and third posts were about this tragic event.

To this day, I have no idea why or how this occurred. And I don’t want to know. I prefer to keep the image of him in my memory as I actually knew him, and not as some horrible scene of death that my overactive imagination drums up.

I guess what I really want to say in this post is what I have wanted to say to him.

Justin,

Not a day goes by that I don’t think about you and what happened. I have no idea what drove you to make such a drastic decision to end your own life. I only ever knew you as cheerful and determined. I knew you were focused on becoming a Naval Officer, and you would have made a great one.

I wish you were still here. I wish you had been up on that commissioning stage with me and the others, raising your right hand and reciting the Oath of Office. The CO’s address was amazing, and I wish you could have taken part in it. There will always be a part of me that aches for these things. As time goes by, that part will grow smaller, but it will never leave.

I never thought anything good could come from something so tragic. I have never considered myself suicidal, but lately I think I have become such. The remembrance of what occurred one year ago has led me to realize that I need to seek help. I wish my realization didn’t have to come in this way.

I hope and pray that you found the peace that you sought. I know you were deeply Catholic, so I hope that peace is in Heaven, with God.

Hooyah, Justin.

Very Respectfully,

Your Friend and Colleague

Science, Comics, and Racism: Do not Confuse Being Offended with Being Right

I think it is safe for anyone reading this blog to assume that I, the writer, am a nerd. In fact, it wouldn’t be an assumption because I clearly state in the page title that I am “Nerd and Proud.” It should come as no shock to you that I watch movies and TV shows about comic book characters; I have a mentioned binge-watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and have written a whole post about Netflix’s Daredevil.  But I don’t limit myself to Marvel shows. I am an avid watcher of Arrow and The Flash, and I really enjoy the CW Seed’s Vixen (I hate that each ‘episode’ is only 5 minutes long).

The star of the show Arrow is Stephen Amell. For those who don’t know, he plays Oliver Queen. In comics, Oliver Queen is the alter ego of Green Arrow. The TV show is about Oliver’s journey to becoming Green Arrow. Stephen Amell does an excellent job portraying this character. But Stephen is also well-known for his social media presence. I follow him on Facebook and Twitter, and I have to say that, despite popular advice to “Never Read the Comments,” the comment sections for his posts tend to be very loving and polite.

I am also a nerd in the sense that I love science. I may have mentioned in earlier posts that I studied Physics at university. So stories about people with a passion for STEM definitely interest me.

Earlier this week, a 14-year-old boy named Ahmed Mohamed was arrested for building his own alarm clock and taking it to school. His teacher mistook it for a bomb. This event occurred in Texas. If you want more details, Google it or go on social media; it’s trending.

The thing is, while plenty of high-profile people on social media have been using the #IStandWithAhmed tag to show support for the kid who was wrongly arrested, Stephen Amell did something different. He said:

“Stereotyping Texas isn’t any better than stereotyping Ahmed. Just so we’re clear.”*

This generated a lot of backlash. Yes, the people involved in Ahmed’s arrest may have acted wrongly. Yes, his arrest appeared to be steeped with racism. No, it is not okay to stereotype anyone. What Amell said seems fair. Is it detracting from the main story, as some people accuse? Perhaps. But is he wrong? No.

I am honestly shocked that something so small could generate so much hate. The problem with getting offended on the internet, of generating such backlash, is that very little investigation occurs. I have always been taught to never take something at face value, to always seek out the truth. The people offended by his Tweet did not do this. Amell later added a series of tweets to clarify his intentions:

“1. I can’t believe I broke my rule and tweeted about an actual event. Staggering to remember that debates in 140 characters don’t work.” This is generally why Amell’s pages are so positive.

“2. What happened to Ahmed was terrible. Obviously.” Most people agree with this.

“3. I happened to read a series of tweets pronouncing that this is a systemic problem in Texas, which is also profiling.” Aha – motive! He wasn’t just tweeting off the cuff. He was responding to some very real hate against Texas. He later clarified in a video on Facebook that his intent was “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” a sentiment most good people would agree with. This sentiment is evident for anyone willing to do the research.

“4. It’s profiling in a much less hurtful / destructive way… but it is profiling.” Truth. After moving to Canada from California, people made general statements about Americans that I found hurtful. When I moved back to California, people made general statements about Canada, which I also found hurtful. When I moved to Iowa, people made general statements about California that I found hurtful. It happens everywhere.

“5. Anywho, I’m not apologizing or deleting the tweets. If you’re outraged at an opinion it’s because you’re bored.” Good on him for calling out bored, lazy trolls.

“6. My wife is from Texas, I have extended family in Texas, and I’ve met thousands of Texans that are wonderful, polite individuals.” More motive: he has a connection to Texas and doesn’t want its reputation as a whole broken because of some individuals.

“7. This gave me an excellent opportunity to block several employees of a couple companies I don’t like. That’s exciting.” Always a silver lining, Mr. Amell.

“8. Last thing: Ahmed’s White House visit will be an awesome, awesome moment.” Support for Ahmed!

“Didn’t mean to offend anyone. Truthfully. Was simply suggesting that two wrongs don’t make a right. I’ll go away for a bit now. SA” I certainly hope Mr. Amell wasn’t simply “scared” away from social media, but was rather stepping away to get on with his real life until the people jumped to the next big thing.

But enough about that non-issue. Yes, what happened in Texas to Ahmed Mohamed, a Muslim teenager with an interest in science and engineering, is tragic. But it is not isolated and not strictly about racism or “Islamaphobia.” While racism was definitely present in this situation, it was not the whole story. I urge anyone reading this to go to the following: https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/16/liberals-making-istandwithahmed-about-ra

Also, I am really irritated by people comparing Ahmed’s situation with that of Taylor Wilson, who is white. In 2006, 14-year-old Wilson built a nuclear reactor and was commended for it. People who compare the two situations simply because of race are oversimplifying things. There are many variables at play here.

Wilson’s intention of building this reactor was known from the get-go. He was mentored by professors and was allowed to “set up shop in the subbasement of the university’s physics department” and brought his project to science fairs. There is no telling what would have happened if Wilson had simply built the reactor on his own without anyone’s knowledge and then brought it to school. Would he have been arrested in that case? Maybe, maybe not. There are more than enough examples of racism in our country, so why drum up false anger over this white kid with his reactor?

What apparently happened to Ahmed Mohamed was terrible. But I stand with Amell. And Wilson. I guess it is more accurate to say that I stand with Human Decency and Common Sense. Instead of constantly searching for someone (like Texans or Amell) or something (like racism) to blame, we should be searching for the truth.

*Stephen Amell’s Twitter is public, so anyone (not just followers) can view the tweets.

Subscription Prescription

I am going to analyze a Netflix subscription like it was a pharmaceutical prescription.

Purpose: To prevent serious cases of boredom; to prevent the need to rent or purchase on DVD/Blu-ray any range of TV Shows and Movies

How it does this: It provides the subscriber access to millions (don’t quote me on that) of TV shows and movies at any time of day

Directions for Use: go to Netflix.com. Sign up – you will need some sort of credit card or other online payment (for instance, PayPal) to do so. Begin using in any manner you see fit.

Possible side effects: Uninterrupted long-term use may cause cabin fever or media oversaturation; High probability of binge watching, which in turn may cause impaired ability to keep track of time, post-finale depression, consistently quoting show dialogue in everyday conversation, the development of romantic attachments to one (or more) fictional characters, repeated acts of “shipping,” and if the show you binged on was “Arrested Development,” you may hear Ron Howard’s voice in your head narrating your day-to-day activities.

Okay, okay, I just wanted to say that I binged on Arrested Development and have experienced many of those side-effects. Particularly the one about hear Ron Howard’s voice narrate the mundane activities of my life. Specific example: “Lichenut didn’t feel like eating chips, so she made popcorn instead.” Yes, that is a real example. I did eat popcorn instead of chips as a snack today.

Anyway, I really wanted to talk about this, and I didn’t feel like sharing it on Facebook. So I figured, “Hey, this is my blog, I can write about what I want. To heck with anyone who thinks my posts are boring or useless!” Which is why this post is here.

So that’s it. I don’t feel like I’ve made a huge mistake with this post, especially since the tequila incident definitely trumps it (see post “Official Drink of Hell“). So if you feel like this post wasted your time, you can always take a “forget-me-now” and just move along.