Star Wars VII: A New Despair

"Alright Hayden, remember to make your acting as bland as
possible. I need someone to blame for this fiasco and you're
my fall guy. Good luck."

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Christopher Nolan wrote that line about Batman, but he might as well have been referring to his fellow director, George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, one of the most historic and important movie trilogies ever made. He is also the man who has been slowly destroying that trilogy for years now. It is like if the Egyptians built the great Pyramid at Giza, and then tore it down to slowly sell off each brick for fame and profit, but Lucas being a sell-out is nothing new, (just as Jar Jar Binks.)

 

Georgey Boy has been slowly stripping away the dignity of Star Wars for years, and though I can't agree with a lot of the decisions he made, at least he was the one who created the whole blasted thing and you had to at least respect him for that. It's kind of like how you give props to God for making the world, but then he goes and makes things like leukemia, AIDS, and Justin Beiber. Those are some pretty asshole decisions, but I mean it is God's world, just because I don't always agree with the decisions he makes, he probably has the right to make them. Unfortunately, unlike God, Lucas does not work in mysterious ways. We can all pretty much understand what is motivating him. (I'll give you a hint, its small, green, powerful, and not Yoda.)

 

Now Star Wars fans must suffer another indignity, (as if we haven't suffered enough,) Lucasfilm has sold everything, (lock, stock, and lightsaber) to Disney. This has set off a bevy of panic alarms in the nerd community and even more clever photoshop picture mashups. For the most part I would probably try to urge people to keep a rational head about everything, except I can't. Following on the heels of this first shocking announcement came the next shocker, they are in the planning stages for Star Wars Episode VII! I don't want to understate it here, but this is the worse idea I have heard since that Devronian tried to sell me timeshare property in the Alderaan system.

 

Welcome to Hell

First, this movie will be a Disney movie. (If I see that damn castle appear before the opening scroll I am walking out.) I can say with some certainty that the movie will about the children of the Solos and Skywalkers, which is alarming enough, but it also means Disney gets to pick a young cast to star in the movie. Call me crazy, but I am not too keen to see the Jonas brothers, and Selena Gomez in the Star Wars universe, and God only knows who they'll cast if they can't get Hamill, Fisher, and Ford to come back (Billy Dee Williams will come back... he always comes back.)

 

Secondly, I know that the Expanded Universe may not come into consideration for many people, but for a person who so admires the strict canonicity of Star Wars, this new movie is a concern of mine. Before the prequel there had never been much done in the books and comics as far as the Clone Wars Era, as if everyone could sense that was a playground nobody wanted to visit. So it was left alone by authors and a bulk of the EU was focused on the very distant past and the time following the events of the movies. Yet, even when Lucas finally decided to go ahead with the prequel he still gave no regard for the canon, and managed to irreparably damage more than a few key plot points that had repercussions throughout the universe. Since then, they have been retconned and corrected, but now if they make a movie set firmly in a time period that has been so fervently written about there is a potential for catastrophic failure. It will be like an elephant trying to find an apartment in a house of cards, it may all come tumbling down. If that happens Disney runs the risk of turning their new Star Wars franchise into their Narnia franchise... a thing of mediocrity... and even outright disdain by some.

 

The Solo children praying that
they won't be played by the
cast of Hannah Montana.

Thirdly, they may have a problem even if they stick to the canon for the movie. 2013 will mark thirty years since the release of Return of the Jedi. I did some research and thirty years after the Battle of Endor, the events of the Dark Nest Crisis take place. Even by Star Wars standards that event is a bit obscure, so it is more likely that the movie will focus on the later events of the Darth Caedus saga... This is a problem. One, it immediately paints my favorite EU character (Jacen Solo) as a villain. Also, the story is so convoluted I have no idea how even a decent writer will be able to pull anything of use from the multi-book story arc of bantha fodder. Lastly, at this point in time, the Star Wars universe has become so vastly different  from what casual movie-watching fans know it to be, that almost certainly key things and events in the universe will have to be changed to "dumb-it-down." Yet, even though there are far better book trilogies out there to use, (like Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy trilogy,) they will be impossible to make because the principal actors are way too old to play the parts required of them. (I mean just look at Harrison Ford.) 

 

So once again this sale and this decision shows that Lucas cares little for his established fans and only about the money in his wallet. It is a disappointing move from a man who started his career making an artsy-hippie film that contained not a single living person in it. Georgey Boy lost his way. A long time ago, he made movies that had action figures made after them. Now he makes action figures and tries to figure out how to base a movie on them. Phantom Menace was like the old GI Joe cartoon where it was just one big commercial aimed at kids... except the GI Joe cartoons were entertaining. George, I can only imagine how tiresome it must get for you to listen to all the complaints and suggestions of die-hard fans, but sometimes, just because they are annoying, does not necessarily mean they are wrong. I mean you insisted on writing the prequel movies despite the fact that Lucasfilm has access to a pool of incredibly talented and Star Wars savvy writers who, anyone could see, were more talented and better prepared for taking on the task.

 

Now that Lucas has sold the whole thing to Disney (The Richest Place on Earth) I can only foresee this downward trend continuing. This whole thing is enough to make a nerd like me lose hope. It's almost like an evil faceless Empire (ruled by an old powerfulf man, and a creature dressed mostly in black with a weird voice,) is trying to take away all the freedom and prosperity of the Star Wars Galaxy and keep it for themselves. If only there was some way to rebel against it, maybe even find a convenient weakness in their sphere-shaped super weapon. There isn't, a lesson Lucas himself taught us. The original trilogy may have shown us how to fight for good and rebel against evil, but his latest installment showed us the true meaning of Star Wars... There is no resisting the Dark Side, especially when there are billions of dollars to be made.

 

Georgey Boy sold Lucasfilm for roughly four billion dollars. Admittedly, he says he will be donating the bulk of that to charity. Hey George, I have a kickstarter charity you can give all your money to if you're in the market. It's going to be called Preserve Star Wars for the Fans project, because whatever has been sold to Disney can be bought from Disney. My goal is about 6 billion... Care to Donate?


 

Twilight According to a Confused Nerd

"Even despite the fact that I have lived for a hundred years and

experienced a century worth of art and literature and history.

I mean I have seen parts of the world a girl from the backwoods

of Washington State couldn't even dream of, but sure I still love

you, even though all you want to do is talk about is what 

happened on Gossip Girls last night."

 

I'm usually not one to discriminate against anything, but I just don't get people's fascination with Twilight (and by people I mean women.) The hype rises to a fever pitch tomorrow as the final installment of the movie series, Breaking Dawn: Part II, is released in theaters. I have never read the books, I have only seen the first movie (under duress and because my date was attractive,) and I have heard bits and pieces throughout the years. So with that said I present to you a summary of the Twilight series as I understand it, (Spoiler: It's about statutory rape):

Somewhere near Seattle (Starbucks and Vampires on every corner) an angsty girl named Bella, who possesses a unique ability to only ever convey one facial expression, meets an attractive boy. The boy ignores her so, of course, she falls for him like how my dog falls for that trick when she thinks I threw the ball, but it's still in my hand. Meanwhile her friend, the equally attractive (yet oddly unnoticed) Native American boy, Fredrick (close enough), pines for her in secret. Also I think Freddie Prinze Jr. falls in love with him, cuts his hair, and transforms him into the prom queen... or am I thinking of something else... Anyway back to the emotionless whiny Bella. She finds out that the really pale guy, Edward, is actually a vampire that sparkles like a drunken Elton John, (which is really ridiculous. Everyone knows that vampires burn-up when they touch direct sunlight, and it is because of that weakness I am not living in a vampire dominated penal colony by now. If in fact, you take away that fatal weakness and replace it with the ability to become a shiny object, as lame and shaming of a weakness as that is, you no longer have a valid excuse for why vampires are not currently enslaving the human race, like how we enslaved cows after the War of 1812. In fact, the war between humans and vampire would be even quicker because humans would be too busy laughing their asses off to actually pick up their weapons and fight. Really this book should have been about a sparkling vampire who works as a guard at one of the many human cattle farms, and inadvertently falls for one of the breeder-girls... Now that would be 50 Shades of Awesome.)

So as our story continues, we learn that Bella does not do the sensible thing and slay the hell out of her angsty-brooding emo crush, instead she falls for old Eddy even more. At this point in the story you would assume she is just asking to be killed and drained of her life's blood by her new boyfriend, but instead, he falls for her too, and they start dating. This of course, is completely against her father's wishes, as he is an old school, nose-to-the-grind stone New York detective who is against dancing, and the vampire is forced to win the Bella's heart by teaching her to let go of her inhibitions and dance like she has never danced before... also I think at one point he teachers her to shape clay on one of those spinning wheel-things or something... I'm sure I'm thinking of the right movie... (Secondly, their relationship is completely against the law, and I'm not talking about some obscure 18th century discrimination law about dating the undead. I am talking about the very real laws set down by the United Stated government against statutory rape. The girl is 16 years old, for Dracula's sake, and though the vampire looks the same age Eddy is very much not 16. He is literally hundreds of years older than Bella. I mean they make a point in the story of saying how many times he freaking graduated from high school. Laws against statutory rape were established to protect young and innocent children from being taken advantage of by adults who have more life experience and knowledge of the world, because older people, like Eddy, can totally use that adult knowledge to manipulate younger people into... oh I don't know... falling in love with them... uh... having sex with them... or turning them into vampires.)

For the love of God, put on a damn
shirt. It's freakin raining out... also
I have a crippling inferiority complex. 

Now going back to the Fredrick, our Native America friend, he subsequently learns that he can turn into a really bad CGI wolf... which is kind of cool until said wolf tries to hump your leg... which I think he does frequently to Bella. This transformation leads to some kind of sexual tension between the three of them now, (or as much sexual tension as can exist between a wolf, a vampire, and a girl who can't express normal human emotions in any way.) Also Eddy and Bella have some kind of weird on-again off-again relationship going on, which makes them a less interesting version of Ross and Rachael (and really I thought Ross and Rachael were pretty uninteresting to begin with.) It also makes them exactly like every other teenage couple that ever existed, but some more things also happen. At some point Bad Vampires show-up, (because apparently Eddy and his kind are the Good Vampires,) and there are a few half-enthusiastic fight scenes (you know cause that will pull in the 18-35 male demographic,) people die, people live, people wish they were dead (mostly the audience), and it pretty much drags on like that for several movies. (Personally, I think I am routing for the Bad Vampires, because even though they sparkle they at least do something other then whine and look like they spend every moment in their room listening to Good Charlotte over and over again... Personally, if I was a vampire I think I'd just buy a pig farm and milk them for blood. then at night I would totally put on a costume and run around a nearby city as a dark and brooding anti-hero that fights for justice... I could be The Darkish Knight.)

From this point forward things get weird... like "zombie cats dancing the can-can" weird, toward the end of the story Snape kills Dumbledore... and I mean that as a euphemism for the fact that Bella and Eddy totally do it. At some point he also turns her from a girl who is incapable of facial expression to a vampire who is incapable of facial expression. So, happily ever after? No, because then they have a demon child, (I'm going to call her Gorgon) who is half human/half vampire. Apparently that means this thing has the ability to talk in full sentences almost from day one of her birth, also Gorgon is capable of walking, lifting tractors off of old men in Kansas, tormenting your sleeping dreams, and generally freaking everyone the frak out. You know that dancing baby meme on the Internet... well she killed that child and now wears his ears on a necklace... Wait there is more... Fredrick, the werewolf, falls in love with baby Gorgon. (Now if you didn't quite believe me that this was a story about statutory rape, I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.) Also the trailer for the newest movie seems to indicate there is some kind of heroic end-battle, but ultimately I don't care. Once you go demon-child on a story all other details tend to become irrelevant.

The End...

So what is the moral of this story?... No really I'm asking. That was not a rhetorical question, because as far as I can figure there is no good moral of this story. For girls the moral seems to be, "Hey ladies, you know that dark brooding guy in class who refuses to talk to you and treats you like you don't exist. It's okay, because I'm sure he's not a drug dealer, he's just a vampire. The more you love him, regardless of how many times he pushes you away or endangers your life, it will be okay. He'll totally love you back and not at all take advantage of you in a windowless van with a secret camera recording it all, or anything like that. As long as you believe him, and absolutely refuse to take any or all action to help yourself, he will always come to your rescue and transform you into something as dark and horrible as he is... Also your children will be the spawn of Satan." Whereas for guys the moral is a bit more straightforward, "Hey guys, give up now, because even if you are a ripped Native America warrior that can transform himself into a wolf, and who is a genuinely nice guy that cares about that girl you are pining for, you will never be able to compete with Edward Cullen and the expectations he has now established her mind." (Side Moral: If you happen to be a hundred year old vampire who looks sixteen, go back to high school and totally trick sixteen year old girls into having sex with you.)
 

A Part of My Hair

Right-Side Part = Awkward; Left-Side Part = Superhero

What does a haircut say about a person? Maybe more than you realize. There is no doubt that a person's choice in hair reflects how they are seen, or how they wish to be seen, (just ask the cast of the Jersey Shore,) but is there a deeper psychological aspect to our doo? Is your hair messy because you just can't be bothered, or are you so vain that you have invested in a hairmut? (It has extra room so you don't mess up your hair-doo.) How does hair affect our patterns of behavior overtime? Is it an influencing factor? I will explain what I mean, but let me start this off by saying that I hate my hair.

It drys out like straw the minute it touches natural or unnatural light (or even a light shade,) and its incredibly hard to manage let alone settle on a style that fits my rather plain and rounded face. If I had a nicer shaped head I would consider going bald, but let's face it, the only kind of white guys who can get away with a shaved head are people in the military or people who have a penchant for burning religious artifacts on other people's lawns. The best style I can usually manage is a half-hearted middle-part that follows the natural contours of my head, but it's far from a perfect solution. On some days when it gets too dry, it makes me look like a carrot. On other days, I sort of look like Wolverine. Sometimes it even turns into a weird Egon Spengler look (The old cartoon, not Harold Ramis.) When it gets long, bed-head or hat-hair often gets too hard to comb out or shake down, and I am forced to just settle for a hat, which I do frequently. Worst yet, my nondescript haircut tends to be up for grabs at the whim of any barber I sit down in front of. I try to explain to them what I want, but in the end, my hair just kind of turns out to be a Picasso painting... In other words, it's usually just left up to everyone's own interpretation.

The many moods of my hair.

For the most part I have resigned myself to my hairy fate, but during the summer I found myself attending a superhero costume party at a bar in my local area. Going as Clark Kent/Superman I took a cue from Christopher Reeves' Superman and moved my part to the left side of my head. When I looked in the mirror, I was surprised to see that I liked what I saw, (which is a rare enough occasion in my life.) The style stayed for the night, with the help of some heavy gel, but getting the left side part to happen naturally has been a process and a battle of less-than-epic proportions. Several months later I now think I have finally maneuvered my follicles into place, and no one has noticed. Now this is not really a problem for me, after all I do not want you to think I'm vain (I am vain, but I don't want you to think that it.) It's only hair right?

Well during my research for my new style, I found one very interesting theory on the Man of Steels' doo (that sounds dirty). In the Christopher Reeves incarnation, Clark Kent has a part of the right side of his head, but Superman has his hair parted on the left side of his head. This of course raises questions of whether Superman carries gel and a comb with him everywhere he goes or does he just use his super breath to freeze it in place? (We may never know what goes on in that phone booth.) We must also ask, how different are the two hair styles.

While researching my superhero haircut, (which sounds like the name of an awesome barber shop I wish existed,) I came across the Hair Part Theory, created by John and Catherine Walter. It is a particularly weird and interesting theory of social interaction that simply states: The way a person parts their hair is related to many subconscious associations when assessed by others. Each hair part type initiates cycles of behavior toward, and response from, the individual. Over time, these cycles affect personality development, perpetuating a system of cumulative and interactional continuity.

Men who part their hair on the right-side (like Clark Kent) have an unnatural and awkward look. The right-side part is said to lead to an unusual appearance, even social shunning. One example given of a right-side part is Al Gore. On the other hand, the left-side hair part (like Superman) is considered more natural. Men with a left-side part are supposed to be seen as being strong, traditional, and successful. Some examples given are John Wayne and John F. Kennedy. The theory also states that men with a center-part (like my old haircut) are perceived by others to be natural, wise, and trustworthy, but also a bit boring... The theory also goes on to talk about the effect of a mirror on the appearance of a hair-part and to talk about how it is possible that by parting your hair one way or another can reflect which side of your brain you are choosing to emphasis. It gets surprisingly in-depth and there is even a hair-part blog that people can follow. Personally, I don't know how convinced I am of the complete rightness of the theory, but it is enough to make a guy pause a moment in his mirror in the morning.

At the heart of the theory is the notion that, how we portray ourselves (specifically through our hair choices) is reinforced by society and reflected back at us. We become caught in a cycle of society and self. For instance, if I walk around in a police uniform, society may think I am a cop and treat me accordingly. The more that happens, the more I may feel like a police officer and the more I will reinforce that belief through my actions... and that was how I wound up on probation that one time... but really this is nothing new, right? Women change their hair every week to impress people, but it's more than that. The Walters' theory states that we choose the hair based upon an unconscious need to showcase some aspect of our personalities. Thus, Clark Kent's right-side part is putting a more negative and awkward vibe and we see that reflected by society. Whereas, Superman is putting out a more positive and stronger vibe with his right-side parted hair and it is also reflected back at him by society.

New hair style. (Vain? Me? Nah...)

So really, what does this all mean about me? Am I subconsciously trying to trick people into thinking I am something I am not? Am I just portraying an aspect of my personality that has been buried and hidden all this time? Have I finally transformed into the person I have always wanted to become? Or did I just choose a different hair style after more than fifteen years of wearing the same old one? I suppose that is up to interpretation. Ultimately, any way we dress, look, style, etc affects how we are perceived and is most likely driven by some need to be seen in a certain way. Yet, I cannot believe that is the end-all and be-all of our personalities or our interactions.

Is simply changing the direction of a hair part enough allow Superman to be perceived as two people. Maybe, but there is more to it, (and though I do not agree with a lot of the choices that got made in those older Superman movies, I do have to give Christopher Reeves' props for his portrayal of the Clark Kent/Superman split.) The Superman/Clark Kent split works only because each person in that dichotomy is essentially a different person with their own personalities, traits, and posture. They talk different, look different, and most importantly, act different.

Even the theory itself states that the effects of right-side or left-side part can ultimately be nullified by the personality type of the man wearing it. So really, your appearance is just that, it is how you appear; and hair is nothing more than a filamentous biomaterial, that grows from follicles found in the dermis, according to Wikipedia. Our hair define us as mammals, but maybe it does not define us as individuals. Who you are is comprised of so many more things, and maybe we should all worry less about whether our hair makes us more like Clark Kent or Superman and more about how our actions align us (I'm lawful good). After all, as a friend of mine, Basil, once explained to me, "I keep my hair cut short, I stay shaved, I dress normal, and I let what I do define who I am."

So basically, the moral of this blog... I got a new hair style...

What Sandy Taught Me

Seaside Height and the rest of the Jersey Shore got hit bad...
[Insert your joke here]

It has been a while since I blogged, mostly due to the fact that I was without power for six days. It's been a long week for people in the New York area, and it's not over yet. There are still hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey and New York without power, trees still litter the roadways causing unsafe driving conditions, and cars are lined up for hours just to get gas. All in all, it has been a surreal experience, especially when you see pictures of places hit hardest along the coasts. However, throughout this whole experience I have learned a few things along the way, and even though they may not be able to help me survive the coming cyborg uprising of 2018, they at least have managed to scare the hell out of me.

Al Gore Was Right, he did invent the Internet. Yet besides that he has been blowing the global warming trumpet louder than that tone-deaf kid in band camp who used to be a drummer but had to be reassigned after he broke two snares and a bass. Though, I still have doubts about whether it is totally a man made problem (or the fact that we will not eventually be able to make it right,) it is kind of hard to deny the existence of global warming. In fact the reason Sandy caused as much trouble as it did, even as a category 1 hurricane, was due to rising sea levels and warmer ocean currents. If you doubt me just check out this article by NPR. And you know its true, because those guys are too boring to make something like this up.



The Sea Levels Are Going to Kill Us All, and by us I mean everyone on the eastern seaboard of America. Calm down Iowa, you're fine. As you can see from the graphic on the left, the dark green points will be underwater if the sea levels rise 1 meter (3 feet), and the light green will be flooded at 2 meters (6 feet). The light blue is gone with nothing more than a gentle wave, and if the sea levels rise by 6 meters or more we might as well start drawing new maps. Large parts of New York City, New Jersey, and pretty much every retirement community in Florida will be underwater.

The Weatherman Was Right, who'd have thunk it. In all seriousness, I am a person who watches the weather than completely ignores what those funny named newscasters tell me, (Rip Storm, Frank Thunder, Marduk, son of Ea, slayer of Tiamat, etc...) Unfortunately, this time they were right. Maybe they should all pack up and go to Vegas, they might be on a roll, also they can't go to Atlantic City... yeah... awkward...

 

When the Apocalypse Comes 40% of the People will Die of Stupidity, and I don't have a follow up joke to this. People who go without power or Internet for a few days start to panic and then calm down and then re-panic. It comes in waves like a Family Guy joke. It's funny at first, grows less funny with time, and is then hysterical again, (and by hysterical I mean how hard that woman was crying the other day in line for food at the supermarket,) and this is only temporary. I have to wonder how many people waiting in line to get gas actually need gas or were just frightened there out of some primal need to sit in a line. For that matter, why didn't these people get gas before the hurricane like they were told to, or why didn't they evacuate when they were told to, or why didn't they do anything they were warned to do. Partially it is not their fault, (Nobody believes Channel 5's Norton "Nor" Easter, anymore.) People who evacuated during Irene saw a mild storm that did nothing to affect their house or belonging, so they stayed this time. They were wrong.

 

Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're
a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full
and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature
comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put
their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and
those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become
as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.

In a real apocalypse that rising tide of panic most people will feel will not ebb or be subsided so easily by calm words from a man in a suit. A wise Ferengi once told me that human beings are fine as long as they are comfortable, but the minute you take away their power and make them stand in a six hour gas line of the bygone-Carter era, there are going to be some troubles. New Yorkers are well known for their generosity in a crisis and that's true... as long as the crisis lasts 48-hours and affects someone else. It turns out losing power for a week or more makes certain people testy. In a real situation, people's panic will most likely persist and grow as they realize their life (as they knew it) is over. No more Heating/AC, no more Facebook or Twitter, and no more indoor plumbing. When that kind of realization strikes a lot of people will get desperate and stupid. They will do desperate and stupid things, and for anyone who has their head on straight you had best make sure you are not some how in the way of that derailed train to doomtown.

 

It is Possible to Read a George R.R. Martin Novel in One Week By Candle Light, in case you were interested in ever trying it. However I did find out that candle light is very weak and hurts the eyes like hell. No wonder so many people in colonial times were forced to wear glasses. Their eye sight was probably horrible. I'm looking at your Benjamin Franklin, you bifocaled bastard.

 

The 44th President shaking hands with the 45th President of
The United States of America.

Learn to Laugh, or you'll never survive. This blog comes about because of my own frustrations over the past few days. I have been a bit punchy being out of work for so long without power or proper heat, and resorting to doing my writing by hand has been interesting (to say the least.) I am very happy to have my computer back and working and I plan on spending the next few hours busily at work with my new novel. Yet throughout the whole ordeal the thing that struck me the most was the general malaise I felt. I would wake up, see that my power was not back on and go to sleep. There wasn't much to do other than cook grilled cheese sandwiches and wait. I think that kind of sloth can make anyone irritable but the best way I foudn to counter that, is by laughing and just staying active. In the end, its really going to be your mental state that will determine how and if you make it through a crisis. So when you pack your survival bag for next time, add a joke book or a mad-lib. It may be the very thing that keeps you sane.