At least, if Star Trek has anything to say about. Oh sure, it claims to present a revolutionary view of the future, where racism, sexism, war, poverty, and money have all been eliminated. It claims to offer hope for a better future. But that's not the reality, is it?
It's interesting to me that such a popular American show can have certain ideals that seem so blatantly not American. They live in basically a socialist dream society, where money has been unlimited and no one is either rich or poor, but rather all are on an equal social level. In fact, the only capitalists who really appear in the show - most notably the Ferengi - are demonized, villain-ized, or both. It's not that I disagree with this vision of the future. A world without poverty does sound nice, but I can't help but be surprised this didn't bother more people.
Maybe it's because, despite all their pontificating about social justice and equality, the show didn't really manage to achieve much of that. For the forward thinking and prescience they touted about like a badge of honor, some of their faults seem incredibly glaring, particularly in the original show. The Enterprise crew had no hesitation to refer to Spock by low pejoratives, particularly from McCoy. You can argue this is counterbalanced by them being friends, but that doesn't really erase the litany of expletives the doctor hurls at the Vulcan race in general.
Then worst of all is the treatment of women. The gain some degree of reasonable accomplishments in the later series, but in the original? They served as nothing more than secretaries and servants. Even Uhura, a main character, was actually little more than a glorified receptionist. Her job on the ship, in a very real sense, was answering the phone and making calls. That's it. She didn't even have the xenolinguistic skills she would be given in the reboot movie that gives her an actual purpose on the ship. She was the most prominent and advanced female on the ship, possibly in all of starfleet. And she was a glorified receptionist. Just. Wow.
I mean, really? Really? In a show were the writers make a point of taking current trends to logical conclusions in order to create events for episodes in a future more than 200 years in the future, and all these "brilliant" people couldn't see the growing trend of women in the work force leading to a time when women became leaders of humanity? Not only do they fail to spot the trend, but they actually directly deny it, on multiple occasions! I don't know if I've ever seen a more sexist show, in fact. Take the final episode of the original series, "Turnabout Intruder," in which they not only deny one woman's ability to Captain the ship, they declare no woman is level-headed enough to EVER pilot ANY starship. Ever.
Really?
I mean... Really?
Women aren't level-headed enough? They're too prone to emotional outbursts? Really? Like Kirk was never prone to emotional outbursts? Like even fucking Spock never did something purely as an emotional reaction? Are you fucking kidding me? There is no excuse for this. No excuse for this. A forward thinking show, one that wanted to present a future of equality and justice should have known better. There is no reason why they wouldn't. But this is what's bound to happen, I guess, when you're show is spearheaded by a flagrant womanizer like Gene Roddenberry (though with a name like Rod and Berries what else can he really be?) who saw women as little more than sexual objects to be enjoyed but otherwise ignored.
More recently, J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel had given a proposal to reboot the universe in order to draw back fans. Among other ideas, they put forth the possibility of changing Chief Engineer Scotty, my personal favorite character from the original series, into a woman in an effort to "prove" that women can be good at math as well. Woopdedoo. What a leap forward. Or sideways. Maybe more of a step, really. Granted, I realize this wasn't an idea they were exactly pushing, but still. If you want to go about arbitrarily transforming main characters into female counterparts, why not correct a glaringly offensive problem from the original series and make Kirk female? Prove a woman can helm a starship after all. I know we've already had Janeway, but that show had a female Chief Engineer too. If nothing else, it would make for a particularly uncomfortable moment when Spock enters Pon Farr and his best friend is now a woman. Fan fiction could have a field day with that one. That's right, I mentioned pon farr. I have actually watched the shows. What, you thought I was bullshitting you?
Pon farr, bitches.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
South Park: An Old Wound Revisited
I like South Park. Well, sometimes. Sort of. It has been capable of making good jokes here and there. I won't deny that it has its moments where it can shine. I have various qualms with the show, but my concern on this blog is primarily with storytelling, and South Park, whatever it's faults may be, usually has a pretty solid storytelling style. So my only real complaint is a very old one, but one that I'd say probably still effects the show to some degree. That's right. Cartmen's dad.
I know. I know. This is old. It's been done to death. But in the end, the issue was never really resolved. One of Cartman's parents is still, to this day, unknown. And that's fine, or would be fine. If such as big deal had never been made.
For those who don't remember, or weren't there, the first season of South Park ended with Cartman trying to figure out who his father was. We didn't learn, and the episode ended on a cliffhanger promising to answer the question next time. As an April Fool's joke, the returning episode began as it should, and then was "interrupted" by a special presentation of Terrance and Philip, and the rest of the show was theirs. People's reactions were pretty overblown, and Comedy Central was flooded with angry e-mails and even, apparently, phone messages. It's pretty ridiculous that people would get this angry over a cartoon. Similarly, people have praised Matt Parker and Trey Stone for being willing to do their own thing rather then simply bowing to audience demand. And while taking a stance regardless of what your audience might think can be commendable, it isn't always a good thing. And in the end, you have to respect your audience, because if you don't, you are a douchebag.
Let me repeat that. If you don't respect your audience, you. Are. A douche. Bag.
No matter how cool, indy, or anything else along those lines you think you might be for disrespecting your audience, in reality you are nothing but a douchebag. And the reason is not because going out on a limb shows some sort of daring-do, some sort of willingness to go places that might not be comfortable to some people. The reason you do it is because, when you raise these sorts of questions and then leave them unanswered, your audience loses the ability to care when other questions are raised. If your audience feels that can't trust you, then they will fail to have their interest perked when other major events occur. What if the Simpsons had never resolved who shot Mr. Burns? Even long-time fans would be annoyed and have trouble coming back to the show after that. It's nice that they wanted to have a little fun and mess with peoples head, but the novelty of the joke is completely lost in reruns and on DVD collections because people who weren't there at the time won't even understand the point. And the fact that they simply dodge around the point rather then ever resolving the issue just makes it all that much more annoying.
I feel silly beating this dead horse. South Park has managed to do things right enough times to warrant a degree of forgiveness, and bringing up this old issue by now is unnecessary. But the point goes for more than just this one show. You can't disrespect your audience.
I know. I know. This is old. It's been done to death. But in the end, the issue was never really resolved. One of Cartman's parents is still, to this day, unknown. And that's fine, or would be fine. If such as big deal had never been made.
For those who don't remember, or weren't there, the first season of South Park ended with Cartman trying to figure out who his father was. We didn't learn, and the episode ended on a cliffhanger promising to answer the question next time. As an April Fool's joke, the returning episode began as it should, and then was "interrupted" by a special presentation of Terrance and Philip, and the rest of the show was theirs. People's reactions were pretty overblown, and Comedy Central was flooded with angry e-mails and even, apparently, phone messages. It's pretty ridiculous that people would get this angry over a cartoon. Similarly, people have praised Matt Parker and Trey Stone for being willing to do their own thing rather then simply bowing to audience demand. And while taking a stance regardless of what your audience might think can be commendable, it isn't always a good thing. And in the end, you have to respect your audience, because if you don't, you are a douchebag.
Let me repeat that. If you don't respect your audience, you. Are. A douche. Bag.
No matter how cool, indy, or anything else along those lines you think you might be for disrespecting your audience, in reality you are nothing but a douchebag. And the reason is not because going out on a limb shows some sort of daring-do, some sort of willingness to go places that might not be comfortable to some people. The reason you do it is because, when you raise these sorts of questions and then leave them unanswered, your audience loses the ability to care when other questions are raised. If your audience feels that can't trust you, then they will fail to have their interest perked when other major events occur. What if the Simpsons had never resolved who shot Mr. Burns? Even long-time fans would be annoyed and have trouble coming back to the show after that. It's nice that they wanted to have a little fun and mess with peoples head, but the novelty of the joke is completely lost in reruns and on DVD collections because people who weren't there at the time won't even understand the point. And the fact that they simply dodge around the point rather then ever resolving the issue just makes it all that much more annoying.
I feel silly beating this dead horse. South Park has managed to do things right enough times to warrant a degree of forgiveness, and bringing up this old issue by now is unnecessary. But the point goes for more than just this one show. You can't disrespect your audience.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Sex sells!
At least, that's how the adage goes. But despite the credibility of such sayings, they aren't always true. In fact, frequently they present a half truth, or merely a believable statement. Whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had to watch someone slowly being eaten alive from the inside out by their own cancer. Whoever said you starve a fever and feed a cold was a fucking idiot. I guess in the end, though, if people want to believe something enough, often they will whatever it's inaccuracies. I think more likely than not, that is exactly the case here. At least, with television producers.
The Fox network is perhaps historically the most guilty of pushing the supposed sexual themes in their TV shows during advertisements, though this may have moved on to the CW. This is maybe unfortunate, because as bad as Fox may be it's shows tend to maintain a production quality level that the CW has never, will never, and will never try, to reach. But it's maybe not unfortunate because really, what are we losing? Growing up, I remember Fox splashing the overt sexuality of "Melrose Place" across the screen time and time again, apparently hoping to pull in horny teenage boys to watch a show depicting dramatic events for rich white people living near Hollywood. Yeah, wah-wah, it must really suck to be rich white people in Hollywood. Pfft.
Whatever my complaints, Fox may have seen a degree of success. Every episode or so the sexy advertisements probably did manage to pull in a new crowd. The crowd would then watch a terrible show for an episode, waiting to see something that could only be pretty minor (it is, after all, basic cable), then after only disappointment give up and move on. It may have been a successful antic for a time, but before long you run out of gullible idiots who haven't already fallen for your trick and don't already know better. In the end, who even remembers that Melrose Place was a show? Apparently the CW, who have apparently remade it. So let me ask this question instead: who cares? Probably no one. And that's exactly the problem.
While titilation may appealing initially and enough satisfaction for a time, eventually people are going to move on to porn or, you know, actual physical contact with another person. Candy may soothe your sweet tooth for a time, but eventually you're going to want some real food. Eventually, titilation is not going to be enough. And when that happens, when you remove the "sexiness" and sex is your main selling point, then you aren't left with a whole lot. What you're left with is some bad drama that even network execs, who probably aren't even watching the show, realize isn't good enough to keep anyone's attention. You really need to focus on making the show good before you even bother throwing out "sexy" ads. Because if a show is good enough, it doesn't need any cheap lures to bring in the audience, and cheap lures aren't ever going to be enough to save a show. Just look at movies. Cheap horror films tend to have tons of naked women and sex, but you don't see movie-goers flocking to those films. If it's good enough, it can stand on it's own. And if it can't stand on it's own, maybe consider not having it on the air at all. It would probably cost less to find a good idea then it would to throw money at a sinking ship.
I guess it may be wrong to question the saying "sex sells" with this example. Whether sex sells or not, the cheap promise of some hinting at sex doesn't. And that's all you're really gonna get from basic cable.
The Fox network is perhaps historically the most guilty of pushing the supposed sexual themes in their TV shows during advertisements, though this may have moved on to the CW. This is maybe unfortunate, because as bad as Fox may be it's shows tend to maintain a production quality level that the CW has never, will never, and will never try, to reach. But it's maybe not unfortunate because really, what are we losing? Growing up, I remember Fox splashing the overt sexuality of "Melrose Place" across the screen time and time again, apparently hoping to pull in horny teenage boys to watch a show depicting dramatic events for rich white people living near Hollywood. Yeah, wah-wah, it must really suck to be rich white people in Hollywood. Pfft.
Whatever my complaints, Fox may have seen a degree of success. Every episode or so the sexy advertisements probably did manage to pull in a new crowd. The crowd would then watch a terrible show for an episode, waiting to see something that could only be pretty minor (it is, after all, basic cable), then after only disappointment give up and move on. It may have been a successful antic for a time, but before long you run out of gullible idiots who haven't already fallen for your trick and don't already know better. In the end, who even remembers that Melrose Place was a show? Apparently the CW, who have apparently remade it. So let me ask this question instead: who cares? Probably no one. And that's exactly the problem.
While titilation may appealing initially and enough satisfaction for a time, eventually people are going to move on to porn or, you know, actual physical contact with another person. Candy may soothe your sweet tooth for a time, but eventually you're going to want some real food. Eventually, titilation is not going to be enough. And when that happens, when you remove the "sexiness" and sex is your main selling point, then you aren't left with a whole lot. What you're left with is some bad drama that even network execs, who probably aren't even watching the show, realize isn't good enough to keep anyone's attention. You really need to focus on making the show good before you even bother throwing out "sexy" ads. Because if a show is good enough, it doesn't need any cheap lures to bring in the audience, and cheap lures aren't ever going to be enough to save a show. Just look at movies. Cheap horror films tend to have tons of naked women and sex, but you don't see movie-goers flocking to those films. If it's good enough, it can stand on it's own. And if it can't stand on it's own, maybe consider not having it on the air at all. It would probably cost less to find a good idea then it would to throw money at a sinking ship.
I guess it may be wrong to question the saying "sex sells" with this example. Whether sex sells or not, the cheap promise of some hinting at sex doesn't. And that's all you're really gonna get from basic cable.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Ugly Betty Or Soap...y Betty?
Okay so the title sucks. I don't care. Ugly Betty sucks. I know, I know. You're saying to yourself right now: "Why am I reading this blog?" And maybe somewhere in there you're also saying to yourself: "Why do you know anything about Ugly Betty?" Well, the simple answer is I have a girlfriend, who watches a lot of TV. The longer answer is that I can't tune out ANYTHING so if there's loud noises around me I have to pay attention. It's a very big problem when I go out places.
Regardless of all that, I don't feel like Ugly Betty has to be a bad show, even though it is. It's just odd because it doesn't really seem to know what it is. According to Wikipedia, the show is a "dramedy" (god how I hate that term), and according to Netflix it's a TV Sitcom/Comedy. In reality, it is neither of those things. In reality it is a soap opera. Don't believe me? Take some of the plot from season 1. The show is about the eponymous character Betty, who as you may have guess from the title is not by any means the typical fashionista. Despite this she attempts to make it in the difficult world of fashion magazines. So the show, obviously deciding Ugly Better is not interesting enough, goes into a great deal of unnecessary information about her boss (Daniel)'s father who once had a wife and a mistress (whom he may have killed), and his other son, Daniel's brother, who faked his own death in order to have a sex change operation (I am not making this up) so that he/she can come back to the show and help a woman who's job at the magazine is rather unclear become editor-in-chief in a dramatic power struggle that doesn't really make sense to begin with. She seems to barely be able to handle what power and responsibilities she already has. She's also really gullible. So she wants more power? Yeah, great plan.
Now, I realize this is a show for women, but let's face it: not every woman likes soap operas. And even besides that, this is a show about a fashion magazine, meaning there was a really big chance to have lots of pleasing things available. The office could have been "fabulous," but instead looks like something out of Star Trek. They could have adorned the show with flamboyant gays in ridiculous outfits, instead they mostly reigned them in and you might actually have to be paying attention to tell they're gay. Maybe. Maybe not. They also could have had lots and lots of interesting clothing. Now, I realize I'm a guy and thus not the best person for this job, but too me most of the clothes look either like fashion disasters or too simple to really be noteworthy.
Of course, quite likely the show's creators were trying to appeal to as wide an audience as they could. Likely they were aware that there would be many people who, like me, are straight men watching a show about fashion because they have girlfriends. I realize this, and I understand that they've likely attempted to work the show into something more people could watch. But what's the point? I mean, really. In the end, the people who are going to keep coming back to your show, the people who going to be wanting to watch you show are going to be of a certain demographic, and you're doing as little as possible to appeal to those people? Really?
I know it's a bit late to be talking about this, what with the show already having been canceled, but the show's creators are still out there, no doubt, working on other projects. Maybe in the future, they can try to suck less at their jobs and maybe show a little focus. I bet not. Because TV is pretty much always going to suck.
Regardless of all that, I don't feel like Ugly Betty has to be a bad show, even though it is. It's just odd because it doesn't really seem to know what it is. According to Wikipedia, the show is a "dramedy" (god how I hate that term), and according to Netflix it's a TV Sitcom/Comedy. In reality, it is neither of those things. In reality it is a soap opera. Don't believe me? Take some of the plot from season 1. The show is about the eponymous character Betty, who as you may have guess from the title is not by any means the typical fashionista. Despite this she attempts to make it in the difficult world of fashion magazines. So the show, obviously deciding Ugly Better is not interesting enough, goes into a great deal of unnecessary information about her boss (Daniel)'s father who once had a wife and a mistress (whom he may have killed), and his other son, Daniel's brother, who faked his own death in order to have a sex change operation (I am not making this up) so that he/she can come back to the show and help a woman who's job at the magazine is rather unclear become editor-in-chief in a dramatic power struggle that doesn't really make sense to begin with. She seems to barely be able to handle what power and responsibilities she already has. She's also really gullible. So she wants more power? Yeah, great plan.
Now, I realize this is a show for women, but let's face it: not every woman likes soap operas. And even besides that, this is a show about a fashion magazine, meaning there was a really big chance to have lots of pleasing things available. The office could have been "fabulous," but instead looks like something out of Star Trek. They could have adorned the show with flamboyant gays in ridiculous outfits, instead they mostly reigned them in and you might actually have to be paying attention to tell they're gay. Maybe. Maybe not. They also could have had lots and lots of interesting clothing. Now, I realize I'm a guy and thus not the best person for this job, but too me most of the clothes look either like fashion disasters or too simple to really be noteworthy.
Of course, quite likely the show's creators were trying to appeal to as wide an audience as they could. Likely they were aware that there would be many people who, like me, are straight men watching a show about fashion because they have girlfriends. I realize this, and I understand that they've likely attempted to work the show into something more people could watch. But what's the point? I mean, really. In the end, the people who are going to keep coming back to your show, the people who going to be wanting to watch you show are going to be of a certain demographic, and you're doing as little as possible to appeal to those people? Really?
I know it's a bit late to be talking about this, what with the show already having been canceled, but the show's creators are still out there, no doubt, working on other projects. Maybe in the future, they can try to suck less at their jobs and maybe show a little focus. I bet not. Because TV is pretty much always going to suck.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
What Ever Happened to Saturday Night (Live)?
Remember when Saturday Night Live was good? Me neither. But hey, let's not be too hard on them. Coming up with new jokes, especially when it involves writing for a different celebrity host each week, cannot be easy. I'm supposed to update this blog that often and I can't even do that. And that's nothing compared to an hour and a half variety show. Right?
Well I don't know. Let's look at a few things. First, there's the commercials. The commercials during the show are so long that the actually come back from the commercials just to show the set, and then return to the commercials without having done a single new skit. With that much time spent in commercial, that means nearly have the episode is commercials! Once you factor those out, the musical guests out, and the weekend update segments that are written by Seth Meyers alone, then what you're left with is only about 40 minutes of actual material. And considering that most hour long TV shows have run anywhere from 42 to 48 minutes per episode, that mens in this hour and a half show you are getting less material then your standard hour long TV show! That's almost nothing!
Then to make matters worse, they seem incapable of actually filling those 40 minutes most of the time. There is at least one skit EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. that seems to be written specifically as filler. They're easy to spot. They go on kind of forever without ever really making any kind of joke, but the sort of half joke they have they keep doing over and over again until this thing that wasn't funny from the beginning has been beaten into the ground until death is more than certain.
And the worst part of all is that it seems to be an absolute requirement that they hire at least one person who is guaranteed to not be funny. Like Kevin Nealon. Or Dennis Miller. Or Jimmy Fallon. Ugh. Jimmy Fallon. I thought he was the lowest point, the absolute bottom SNL could have sunk. He was so bad, he blamed Will Ferrell for making him laugh in each skit. Too bad he continued to laugh in every goddamn skit regardless of whether Will Ferrell was still in the cast or not. But despite everything, he did not prove to be the worst. Oh no. However bad he was, skits could still be funny with him in them. He didn't suck the funny right out of it, not in the way that only Kristen Wiig could.
Kristen Wiig has hands down got to be the LEAST funny person to ever exist. I have a theory that she is not a person at all. Much like evil to good, she is the actual opposite, the antithesis, if you will, of funny. She is a black hole that sucks all the funny in existence straight out of the universe until nothing remains for the rest of us to enjoy. Yet despite this she appears CONSTANTLY on the show, in almost every single skit. It seems almost as if someone is paying to have her on the show so much, because I couldn't possibly imagine why else she'd be there. It's as though it were part of the Devil's secret plan to ruin life for all still upon the earth. I know this is going kind of far, but trust me when I say that she is that bad.
And in the end, they are paid mucho dolares and I am paid nothing, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare my failure to do, to theirs. SNL isn't always bad. They've been funny from time to time, and of course no TV show is always going to be funny. Nothing that runs for 30 years is always going to be perfect. I know that. You should know that. But that doesn't mean the show doesn't have some serious faults. Quite the contrary. And what I do on this blog is point those faults out. So SNL: fire Kristen Wiig and then attempt to fix yourself from this hole you have sunk in. I'm sure you can get out of it. You have before. Just...never that well.
Well I don't know. Let's look at a few things. First, there's the commercials. The commercials during the show are so long that the actually come back from the commercials just to show the set, and then return to the commercials without having done a single new skit. With that much time spent in commercial, that means nearly have the episode is commercials! Once you factor those out, the musical guests out, and the weekend update segments that are written by Seth Meyers alone, then what you're left with is only about 40 minutes of actual material. And considering that most hour long TV shows have run anywhere from 42 to 48 minutes per episode, that mens in this hour and a half show you are getting less material then your standard hour long TV show! That's almost nothing!
Then to make matters worse, they seem incapable of actually filling those 40 minutes most of the time. There is at least one skit EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. that seems to be written specifically as filler. They're easy to spot. They go on kind of forever without ever really making any kind of joke, but the sort of half joke they have they keep doing over and over again until this thing that wasn't funny from the beginning has been beaten into the ground until death is more than certain.
And the worst part of all is that it seems to be an absolute requirement that they hire at least one person who is guaranteed to not be funny. Like Kevin Nealon. Or Dennis Miller. Or Jimmy Fallon. Ugh. Jimmy Fallon. I thought he was the lowest point, the absolute bottom SNL could have sunk. He was so bad, he blamed Will Ferrell for making him laugh in each skit. Too bad he continued to laugh in every goddamn skit regardless of whether Will Ferrell was still in the cast or not. But despite everything, he did not prove to be the worst. Oh no. However bad he was, skits could still be funny with him in them. He didn't suck the funny right out of it, not in the way that only Kristen Wiig could.
Kristen Wiig has hands down got to be the LEAST funny person to ever exist. I have a theory that she is not a person at all. Much like evil to good, she is the actual opposite, the antithesis, if you will, of funny. She is a black hole that sucks all the funny in existence straight out of the universe until nothing remains for the rest of us to enjoy. Yet despite this she appears CONSTANTLY on the show, in almost every single skit. It seems almost as if someone is paying to have her on the show so much, because I couldn't possibly imagine why else she'd be there. It's as though it were part of the Devil's secret plan to ruin life for all still upon the earth. I know this is going kind of far, but trust me when I say that she is that bad.
And in the end, they are paid mucho dolares and I am paid nothing, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare my failure to do, to theirs. SNL isn't always bad. They've been funny from time to time, and of course no TV show is always going to be funny. Nothing that runs for 30 years is always going to be perfect. I know that. You should know that. But that doesn't mean the show doesn't have some serious faults. Quite the contrary. And what I do on this blog is point those faults out. So SNL: fire Kristen Wiig and then attempt to fix yourself from this hole you have sunk in. I'm sure you can get out of it. You have before. Just...never that well.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Concern for Comedy
I know comedy, like most things, is subjective. I also know that it isn't my place to tell people what is funny and what isn't, because it's necessary for people to discern for themselves. Despite this, there are certain things I don't feel anyone could find funny, and yet I've seen a surprising amount of it in the past few years. Let's take a look at a few of them.
One of my biggest problems with Comedy movies has been the "Genre" Movie movies, i.e. Scary Movie, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Dance Flick. I've complained about them before, their tendency to simply re-hash a scene from another movie, throwing it at you hoping that it might be unexpected enough to elicit a laugh. The unexpected itself can be funny, but entire movies full of this takes the element of the unexpected away after a time. And when that's the entire joke during these segments, then it's bound to just start being tiresome. It's a clear sign of tired, uninspired writing. And whatever opinion writers may have of their audience, I think audiences have a tendency to pick up on this. You have to respect your audience. This is something I will probably say a lot to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. It was a big complaint for me regarding fantasy novels. Give your readers/viewers some credit. I know these "Genre" Movies are kind of brain dead comedies, but that doesn't mean the people who watch them are brain dead. Mix things up. At least try to provide some entertainment.
Another disturbing trend I see is pain to animals as comedy. A lot of comedies seem to end up involving animals being hurt or even killed. It deeply, deeply disturbs me that someone might find harm to living creatures to be funny. I guess it makes sense, in the vein of slapstick where the comedian receives physical punishment in order to elicit laughter, or the retributive pain to assholes with the idea that if it's justified then it can be funny. Even if you find this kind of thing to be funny there's still an important difference here. In those situations the people are basically asking for the physical pain. The asshole is asking for it, again, as retribution, and the slapstick character is asking for it by being ridiculous. You know it's coming and you expect it. But animals are not asking for it. The animal did not do anything wrong beside not being able to voice out opposition. Even Kant, who considered animals "things" and not good enough to obtain the ranking of "personhood" felt that animals should not be mistreated for fear of your personhood. Yet comedians seem to have a sickening fascination with this idea. I would like someone to explain to me why this sort of thing is supposed to be funny, because I don't really see why this would be anything but disgusting.
Which leads me into my last point. Much like what I described last week, the sense that assholes are not heros, neither are they comedians. I know there are "comedians" who's every joke is saying something incredibly mean, but that doesn't mean they are actually funny. I know I've said a number of particularly mean things on this site, but I don't do it to be funny. I do it to be mean, because I feel those people get far too much praise for being really bad at what they do. So what I'm saying is, Paul Rudd. YOU ARE NOT FUNNY. Sitting there, spouting out off-handed insults to the rest of your cast members does not make you funny. It makes you an asshole. And being an asshole is not interesting. It's insanely boring. I realize assholes are the fault of the writer, usually the writer lashing back with his (probably only) talent at a world he doesn't quite belong too. Wow. Self-reflective moment...aaaaaaand I'm back. What I suggest, writers, is that YOU GET THE HELL OVER YOURSELVES. Making one of your characters a sharp tongued asshole doesn't make you clever. It makes you trite. So cut it out already.
One of my biggest problems with Comedy movies has been the "Genre" Movie movies, i.e. Scary Movie, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Dance Flick. I've complained about them before, their tendency to simply re-hash a scene from another movie, throwing it at you hoping that it might be unexpected enough to elicit a laugh. The unexpected itself can be funny, but entire movies full of this takes the element of the unexpected away after a time. And when that's the entire joke during these segments, then it's bound to just start being tiresome. It's a clear sign of tired, uninspired writing. And whatever opinion writers may have of their audience, I think audiences have a tendency to pick up on this. You have to respect your audience. This is something I will probably say a lot to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. It was a big complaint for me regarding fantasy novels. Give your readers/viewers some credit. I know these "Genre" Movies are kind of brain dead comedies, but that doesn't mean the people who watch them are brain dead. Mix things up. At least try to provide some entertainment.
Another disturbing trend I see is pain to animals as comedy. A lot of comedies seem to end up involving animals being hurt or even killed. It deeply, deeply disturbs me that someone might find harm to living creatures to be funny. I guess it makes sense, in the vein of slapstick where the comedian receives physical punishment in order to elicit laughter, or the retributive pain to assholes with the idea that if it's justified then it can be funny. Even if you find this kind of thing to be funny there's still an important difference here. In those situations the people are basically asking for the physical pain. The asshole is asking for it, again, as retribution, and the slapstick character is asking for it by being ridiculous. You know it's coming and you expect it. But animals are not asking for it. The animal did not do anything wrong beside not being able to voice out opposition. Even Kant, who considered animals "things" and not good enough to obtain the ranking of "personhood" felt that animals should not be mistreated for fear of your personhood. Yet comedians seem to have a sickening fascination with this idea. I would like someone to explain to me why this sort of thing is supposed to be funny, because I don't really see why this would be anything but disgusting.
Which leads me into my last point. Much like what I described last week, the sense that assholes are not heros, neither are they comedians. I know there are "comedians" who's every joke is saying something incredibly mean, but that doesn't mean they are actually funny. I know I've said a number of particularly mean things on this site, but I don't do it to be funny. I do it to be mean, because I feel those people get far too much praise for being really bad at what they do. So what I'm saying is, Paul Rudd. YOU ARE NOT FUNNY. Sitting there, spouting out off-handed insults to the rest of your cast members does not make you funny. It makes you an asshole. And being an asshole is not interesting. It's insanely boring. I realize assholes are the fault of the writer, usually the writer lashing back with his (probably only) talent at a world he doesn't quite belong too. Wow. Self-reflective moment...aaaaaaand I'm back. What I suggest, writers, is that YOU GET THE HELL OVER YOURSELVES. Making one of your characters a sharp tongued asshole doesn't make you clever. It makes you trite. So cut it out already.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Assholes aren't Heroes
I've been gone quite a while, but I plan to remedy that. From now on I expect to keep a regular update schedule. That said, let's get on with this update.
The more I watch of television and movies, the more I become disturbed by a bothersome trend. Assholes are everywhere. Much like Lord Dark Helmet, I feel like I'm surrounded by them. At one time, long ago, it seemed like assholes were in stories for the soul purpose of receiving their comeuppance. Now it seems that assholes are often in literature as the person you are supposed to cheer for, the person you are supposed to believe in, or even the person who's supposed to be making the funniest jokes. In short, it is much as though assholes have become the hero.
Some might argue that this is the rise of the antihero, but this is simply confusion. Typically, the hero is larger than life, a morally perfect person who continues to do the right thing despite overwhelming odds. Unlikely heroes are people who are relatively commonplace but are thrust into unlikely situations and manage to overcome the difficulties presented them. Antiheroes are people who exhibit morally questionable characteristics, often stumble down the wrong path, but in the end will always do the right thing, or try to. Villains are people who are larger than life, much like the traditional hero, but who maintain a moral ground that is considered morally reprehensible and works only to destroy rather than save or create.
Assholes occupy none of these areas. Why they are often morally reprehensible like the villain, they show no interest in affecting matters right or wrong. If they do act, either for good or bad, it is out of self-interest rather than any other motivation. Assholes also never learn from what they've done wrong, or even if they do learn from it, they fall back into their old patterns.
Yet it seems to me that more and more, assholes are replacing any form of hero in stories. Assholes, motivated by their own self-interest, often find themselves taking the role of the unlikely hero, thrust into extraordinary situations and attempting to make the best of it. On occasion they might befriend other assholes, extending their motivation, but mainly the continue to work for themselves. If they do what is right, it is only out of self-interest, not out of any interest in doing what's right or attempt to redeem themselves.
And for some reason, we're supposed to cheer these people on. For some reason, we're expected to laugh at their crass, biting insults. For some reason, we're expected to think of assholes as heroes. I don't know about anyone else, but I never buy into this. An asshole is always an asshole, and if he makes no attempt to redeem himself, I don't know why I'd stop thinking of him as an asshole. But maybe I'm just part of a dying culture, part of a group who still enjoys believing in heroes. Maybe I'm just not part of this new world order where everyone has caved-in to the idea that all people are assholes, there is no good left in the world, and so why shouldn't our stories at least be about assholes who lead interesting lives?
I guess I just want stories to represent hope, rather than a grim acceptance of a fate I don't believe we've really reached.
The more I watch of television and movies, the more I become disturbed by a bothersome trend. Assholes are everywhere. Much like Lord Dark Helmet, I feel like I'm surrounded by them. At one time, long ago, it seemed like assholes were in stories for the soul purpose of receiving their comeuppance. Now it seems that assholes are often in literature as the person you are supposed to cheer for, the person you are supposed to believe in, or even the person who's supposed to be making the funniest jokes. In short, it is much as though assholes have become the hero.
Some might argue that this is the rise of the antihero, but this is simply confusion. Typically, the hero is larger than life, a morally perfect person who continues to do the right thing despite overwhelming odds. Unlikely heroes are people who are relatively commonplace but are thrust into unlikely situations and manage to overcome the difficulties presented them. Antiheroes are people who exhibit morally questionable characteristics, often stumble down the wrong path, but in the end will always do the right thing, or try to. Villains are people who are larger than life, much like the traditional hero, but who maintain a moral ground that is considered morally reprehensible and works only to destroy rather than save or create.
Assholes occupy none of these areas. Why they are often morally reprehensible like the villain, they show no interest in affecting matters right or wrong. If they do act, either for good or bad, it is out of self-interest rather than any other motivation. Assholes also never learn from what they've done wrong, or even if they do learn from it, they fall back into their old patterns.
Yet it seems to me that more and more, assholes are replacing any form of hero in stories. Assholes, motivated by their own self-interest, often find themselves taking the role of the unlikely hero, thrust into extraordinary situations and attempting to make the best of it. On occasion they might befriend other assholes, extending their motivation, but mainly the continue to work for themselves. If they do what is right, it is only out of self-interest, not out of any interest in doing what's right or attempt to redeem themselves.
And for some reason, we're supposed to cheer these people on. For some reason, we're expected to laugh at their crass, biting insults. For some reason, we're expected to think of assholes as heroes. I don't know about anyone else, but I never buy into this. An asshole is always an asshole, and if he makes no attempt to redeem himself, I don't know why I'd stop thinking of him as an asshole. But maybe I'm just part of a dying culture, part of a group who still enjoys believing in heroes. Maybe I'm just not part of this new world order where everyone has caved-in to the idea that all people are assholes, there is no good left in the world, and so why shouldn't our stories at least be about assholes who lead interesting lives?
I guess I just want stories to represent hope, rather than a grim acceptance of a fate I don't believe we've really reached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)