Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

Clarissa Smith pointed me to this, which points to this.

Apparently Chow Yun Fat has been cast in the sequels to Pirates of the Caribbean.

Now, when I heard about sequels being made, I was a little wary. I loved the first one so much that I was concerned that sequels might dilute the legacy. I would rather have no sequels than crappy sequels. The news of Keith Richards joining the cast as Captain Jack's father had me equally wary. Could be good, could be bad. But this new casting of an excellent Hong Kong action star has got me excited. It's sufficiently unexpected that I think they're really going to bring something new to the table instead of just re-hashing the original.

Fred LeBaron pointed me to this article at Policy Review Online about the cultural impact / influences of music by people like Eminem, Papa Roach, Kurt Cobain and on and on.

This ties directly in to my earlier post about video game ratings. To me, there is not really any doubt that violent/bigoted/misogynistic content in videogames/music/movies have at least some impact on the people who play/hear/see them. Let me point out once again that I'm no censor. I don't oppose to these things in principle. I just think that it's important for parents to monitor what their children are exposed to.

Yet, the above article reminded me that there is another element to this question that often gets overlooked. What is it about our society and culture that makes this type of music so popular? It wouldn't be so successful if it did not appeal to large numbers of people. Consider this selection from the article regarding Eminem:

Perhaps more than any other current musical icon, he returns repeatedly to the same themes that fuel other success stories in contemporary music: parental loss, abandonment, abuse, and subsequent child and adolescent anger, dysfunction, and violence (including self-violence).

The article points out that, in the music most often reviled for being angry/hateful/misogynistic, those themes are to be found nearly everywhere. I'm not defending all of those songs per se, but I think that many of them are genuinely passionate works of art that are generated from real feeling, and enough young people across the country are identifying with those feelings that the music becomes popular. That's something we really need to think about before just writing them off as bad influences. What sort of things influenced the music?

Content / age ratings. Everyone is familiar with the G/PG/R style ratings one movies. A smaller, but growing number pays attention to the ratings being placed on television shows, but how many of you even knew that there were ratings on video games?

Odds are, even if you know about them, you're ignoring them. At least, so says the NYTimes in this article. Games like the Grand Theft Auto series contain some serious adult content, very much the equal of rated R movies, sometimes even beyond. Nudity, violence, language, sexual content, but despite the content ratings being placed on the games (E for everyone, T for teen, M for mature, etc.) it seems that they are very rarely heeded. Stores allow kids to purchase the mature-rated games. Parents or family members buy the games for their kids.

What is the problem here? Why is it that these ratings aren't being enforced? Could it be that the parents are behind the times in realizing that these adult-oriented games exist? Have they decided to cave to their spoiled children's demands, so that the kids won't hate them? Has the culture changed to the point where this sort of thing is accepted?

Search me. Now, I have no problem with the existence of these games. I don't play them personally, but I think that adult gamers are a growing proportion of the video-game market, and there should be games targeted at them. It all comes down to who is responsible for keeping them away from kids.

UPDATE!
Apparently there is someone trying to make it illegal to sell adult games to minors.
When I was younger, my parents didn't allow me to see rated R movies. At the time, I found it very frustrating. Especially when, at 14 or so, my burgeoning film buff instincts kept running me up against the brick wall my parents had placed in my way. Now this wasn't a blanket ban, per se. If my parents saw the movie and deemed it acceptable, I was allowed to see it. I saw half a dozen R-rated movies this way before I was 17, but you had better believe that if I tried to see them on my own, my parents came down hard. My parents cancelled all our movie channels after catching me watching "Silence of the Lambs" without permission.

Now, do I think that I was mature enough to handle those R-rated movies? Yeah, probably. Most of them anyway. But one of the things that I've discovered as I've gotten a little older is that you can't un-see things. My passion for film makes it impossible for me to say that movies don't affect people. They do, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways. Certain images and concepts can have a very powerful impact on us, and especially on young people, who are still solidifying their personalities. It's a bit like original sin, in that once you are exposed to something, you can't get rid of it. It will forever be part of your mental landscape.

I've played video games for a long time. We had an Atari 2600 when I was little, followed by the NES, the Super Nintendo, a Gameboy, and a Dreamcast. Right now, I own a Gamecube and a Gameboy Advance SP. I play them regularly, and play a number of PC games as well. I'm not against video games, and though I generally don't prefer them, I'm not against games with adult content either.

But I am against games with adult content being played by young children. For other people's kids, I have no say. All I can do is offer my opinion. But I am aware that it can be extremely difficult for a non-gamer parent to know which games are suitable for their kids and which are not. That's where the ratings come in, but they aren't going to do any good if they are ignored! So if you have kids playing video games, check out that little white box before you buy a game, before your kids see something they can't un-see.

I’ll admit it: I’m a fan of reality TV. Some of it, at any rate. Many of them strike me as a cross between sports and elaborate game shows. I enjoy Survivor thoroughly.(See my post about Chris winning) Last season of The Apprentice was better than this season, but I’m still watching every episode. I’ve caught an episode or two of half a dozen others as well. I don’t like the relationship shows much. (The Bachelor, Temptation Island, etc.)

I've enjoyed The Amazing Race as well, but last night something disturbing happened. If you were watching, then I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. If you didn’t, essentially we saw the team of Jonathan and Victoria move from slightly creepy to full-blown upsetting. You can read the official episode summary here. In particular, this bit:

Jonathan & Victoria drove into the city limits of Berlin, arguing over directions. Jonathan warned, "If another Team beats us, I'm going to lose it." Pulling into the parking area at the same time as Freddy & Kendra, Jonathan & Victoria dashed from their car, taking the early lead in the footrace to the Brandenburg Gate. Soon, however, Jonathan's pack proved too heavy a burden, and he opted to ditch it on the street. Fearing the bag would be stolen, a frantic Victoria screamed, "No! They're going to take it, " and carried both their packs as Freddy & Kendra passed them. Furious, Jonathan ripped his bag from Victoria's shoulder, screaming, "Why did you pick up my bag? Why?"

As Jonathan & Victoria continued to quarrel, Freddy & Kendra stepped onto the mat in first place. Host Phil Keoghan informed the Team they had won a trip to exotic Mexico, compliments of American Airlines' website, AA.com. Just before stepping onto the mat in second place, Jonathan continued his attack on Victoria, shoving her and shouting, "How could you do that?" After being checked in by Phil, Victoria walked off the mat crying, to which Jonathan remarked, "She has to live with her choices."

(My Italics) Let me also point out that she was literally sobbing throughout this and he was screaming at her with very aggressive body language.

Throughout this season, we have seen Jonathan verbally and emotionally abusive toward Victoria over and over again. This was a particularly heinous example, but when he shoved her, he crossed yet another line. Yelling was extremely tacky. He was being a complete... well, let’s say ‘jerk.’ It was a very abusive dynamic, but emotions are high and many of the couples yell at each other from time to time. Shoving her was completely out of line, and to me, speaks of a great deal more beneath the surface. Realize, this shove was outside, in a public place, on national television! If his self-control is that lacking, what is he doing to her in private?

So to me, it’s pretty clear that he’s abusive, emotionally at least, and if the physical abuse hasn’t started yet, then I doubt it’s far off. I noticed at the time, but then this post over at Hannah Bowen’s blog got me thinking about it some more.

What is the responsibility of the show producers in all this? Legally, I doubt there’s any. With all the release forms they all sign, I doubt there is any real liability, but what about ethically? Morally? I imagine that, if he actually assaulted her, they would disqualify them from the show. I know that Survivor has a rule about striking the other competitors. But what can you do with this? If the shove is as physical as it ever gets, and if she continues to apologize for him, what can the producers really do? Not to mention the fact that if he's disqualified, he'll almost certainly take it out on her. It’s like with any domestic violence situation, only it’s playing out on the national stage. Clearly, unless this guy gets himself into some serious anger-management therapy, she needs to dump the creep, but if she doesn’t want to do that, do we as fellow human beings have a responsibility to force the issue? Or is it none of our business? How about watching on TV? Suddenly I feel voyeuristic and dirty for watching.

Perhaps on the next episode of the show, there will be continued ramifications. I certainly hope so. I really don’t want them to just let this go. I know that if they don’t do anything about it, I may stop watching the show. I want to watch a race, not an exploitive documentary about spousal abuse, staged as a competition.

John Varley is one of my all time favorite writers. If you've never heard of him, he writes science fiction. His book, Steel Beach, has got to be one of my top 5 favorite books. His short story, "The Persistence of Vision" has the number one spot locked up, and has since I read it about eight years ago. His writing contains interesting, sophisticated, well-developed characters, real emotions, cool imagery, exciting concepts, and analysis of how real (but unique) people would act in extraordinary circumstances. That, plus the fact that most of his characters view the amazing technology around them with about as much wonder as we would devote to a microwave oven. It just gives the whole thing an emotional legitimacy that I don't see very often. He's got a wonderful short-story collection out right now, The John Varley Reader. It's got my favorite in there, as well as a number of other wonderful stories. Check it out.

But the reason I bring him up just now, is that he's also a huge movie buff. As a fellow movie buff, I was delighted to no end when I saw that he had posted a list of his Top 25 movies on his site. He's got fabulous taste in film, and he knows that there were good movies made before 1994. Before 1977 even! I haven't seen all the movies on his list, (I'll bet good money you haven't either,) but all of the ones I have seen are excellent. The ones I haven't, I plan to. Check out his list and take it with you next time you head to the video store. They do have movies that aren't in the New Release section after all.

So, Disney is making a movie version of "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe." It's not the first live-action movie done of the story, but it is certainly the biggest, the most notable. I don't think there is any doubt that the project got green-lit on the strength of the "Lord of the Rings" box office. The special effects are even being done by Weta, the SFX power-house that did the LoTR trilogy.

What I'm wondering is how they are going to handle the religious allegory that is so inherent to the story. To remove it entirely would outrage huge sections of their potential audience, but to leave it is a big risk too, because allegory can easily become preachy. It's a razor's edge that this movie will have to walk, and I'll tell you, I'm looking forward to seeing if they pull it off.

To be sure, the stuff Weta is putting together looks fantastic. Over at Aint-It-Cool-News, they've got this story with a behind-the-scenes look at the pre-production work. Check out the link to a quick-time movie with even more. It's got a pretty impressive non-cgi minotaur!

So, Chris won Survivor: Vanuatu! Makes me happy. I'd been cheering for him since mid-way through the season, and his comeback was pretty darn impressive. It also made for a very interesting finale, because between him and Twila, he lied a lot more than she did, but her one real lie was a much bigger deal to everyone. Anyhow, I thought this season was fantastic. To anyone who still refuses to watch Survivor, I strongly recommend you give it a shot. But give it at least six episodes, because it doesn't really start getting good until you've had a chance to get to know the people involved. Also, for next season, check out the Survivor Fantasy League! Makes it even more fun.

There's a lot of crappy Reality TV out there these days, (*cough*TheSwan*cough*Wife-Swap*cough*, goodness, excuse me!), but I figure that they are the price we pay to have the good ones. Just like we put up with tons of crappy sitcoms or angsty teen dramas, in order to keep the quality shows around.

Wow. The Golden Globe Nominations came out today and I haven't seen hardly any of these movies. *sigh*

Okay, now that my movie-buff ego has been set back a notch, I can look at the silver lining. This just means that, for me, the best films of the year may be yet to come! That's always good. One of the great things about movies, (books too!) is that you'll never run out of good ones to watch.

Over at The Daily Meme, I found this one about movies. The idea is to take the American Film Institute's list of Top 100 Movies and highlight the ones you have seen. So here goes...

* - Movies I've Seen
** - Movies I Own
(Movies that I've seen, but long enough ago that I don't remember them are not marked.)

Of the 100 movies, I've seen 70, including the first 16, and own 21.
The Complete List:
1. CITIZEN KANE (1941)*
2. CASABLANCA (1942)*
3. THE GODFATHER (1972)*
4. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)*
5. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)*
6. THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)*
7. THE GRADUATE (1967)*
8. ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)*
9. SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)*
10. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)*
11. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)*
12. SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950)*
13. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957)*
14. SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)*
15. STAR WARS (1977)**
16. ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)*
17. THE AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)
18. PSYCHO (1960)*
19. CHINATOWN (1974)*
20. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)*
21. THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940)
22. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)**
23. THE MALTESE FALCON (1941)**
24. RAGING BULL (1980)*
25. E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)*
26. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)**
27. BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967)*
28. APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)**
29. MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
30. THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948)*
31. ANNIE HALL (1977)*
32. THE GODFATHER PART II (1974)*
33. HIGH NOON (1952)
34. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)*
35. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)*
36. MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)*
37. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
38. DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)*
39. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965)** (Note: I bought this one on it's reputation, but still have not watched it)
40. NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)*
41. WEST SIDE STORY (1961)*
42. REAR WINDOW (1954)*
43. KING KONG (1933)*
44. THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915)
45. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1951)*
46. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)*
47. TAXI DRIVER (1976)**
48. JAWS (1975)**
49. SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)*
50. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)**
51. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940)
52. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953)
53. AMADEUS (1984)**
54. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)
55. THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965)
56. M*A*S*H (1970)**
57. THE THIRD MAN (1949)*
58. FANTASIA (1940)**
59. REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955)
60. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)**
61. VERTIGO (1958)*
62. TOOTSIE (1982)*
63. STAGECOACH (1939)
64. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977)**
65. THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)*
66. NETWORK (1976)
67. THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962)**
68. AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951)*
69. SHANE (1953)
70. THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1971)*
71. FORREST GUMP (1994)*
72. BEN-HUR (1959)
73. WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939)
74. THE GOLD RUSH (1925)**
75. DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990)*
76. CITY LIGHTS (1931)**
77. AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973)*
78. ROCKY (1976)
79. THE DEER HUNTER (1978)*
80. THE WILD BUNCH (1969)
81. MODERN TIMES (1936)**
82. GIANT (1956)
83. PLATOON (1986)*
84. FARGO (1996)**
85. DUCK SOUP (1933)
86. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935)
87. FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
88. EASY RIDER (1969)*
89. PATTON (1970)
90. THE JAZZ SINGER (1927)
91. MY FAIR LADY (1964)
92. A PLACE IN THE SUN (1951)
93. THE APARTMENT (1960)*
94. GOODFELLAS (1990)**
95. PULP FICTION (1994)**
96. THE SEARCHERS (1956)*
97. BRINGING UP BABY (1938)
98. UNFORGIVEN (1992)*
99. GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER (1967)
100. YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942)

Have fun!

Well, this isn't exactly a brand new story, but a woman is suing Warner Brothers and the Wachowski Brothers, claiming that they illegally stole her idea. She is actually suing about the Terminator movies too. All this story is really saying is that the case is actually going to go to trial.

Now, my gut reaction when I hear about this type of story is skepticism, because it happens all the time that two people independently have similar ideas, so just because someone wrote a story that has some things in common with the Matrix, doesn't mean they stole it from her. But at the same time, this story seems to suggest that she might actually have a legitimate case! Supposedly she actually submitted the script to them before they made the movie, and supposedly, they actually referred to it repeatedly during pre-production, then took footage out of the final picture in order to limit liability.

The inclusion of the Terminator movies does raise my skeptical reflex though, because Harlan Ellison already sued them, saying that the movies were based on his stories. He won, and newer prints of the movie include a credit for him. The likelihood of those movies also being based on this woman's ideas sounds like a stretch.

***UPDATE***
Kat Allen apparently did a little more research than I did, and in an email on the OWW mailing list she pointed out this and this saying that the Terminator suit was settled out of court over Cameron's objections, so the legitimacy of the claims was never tested. The second article contains the following:

During the pre-release hype for the movie The Terminator, Canadian director James Cameron made the mistake of stating, in an interview, that he had been inspired by two episodes of the old Outer Limits TV series — "Demon With a Glass Hand" and "Soldier", both written by famed SF author Harlan Ellison. Now, let me tell you something about Ellison. Ellison is what is charitably called "a character". He first gained prominence in the 1960s for his short story writing, which won him a gazillion prizes, then even more prominence when he wrote the most popular episode of Star Trek, "The City on the Edge of Forever". But over the years, he has cultivated a furiously combative personality, and it is for that that he is best known today. He doesn't suffer fools gladly — which can be amusing so long as you aren't the "fool" in question.

Needless to say, when Ellison learned of Cameron's admission, he made like Yaphet Kotto at the end of Live and Let Die... (Remember? Remember? Come on, people, keep up with me.) Then he did what any famous writer with a bit too much time on his hands would do — he sued. Since Cameron had, after all, admitted being inspired by Ellison's scripts, the production company figured it was better to settle out of court than fight a battle they would probably lose. (Some websites claim Ellison sued and "won", but he didn't. They settled out of court, and that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.) To the credits on the video release of The Terminator were added the words: "Acknowledgement to the works of Harlan Ellison". Which seems fair enough, right?

So who knows? We'll have to follow the trial I guess.

There's a trailer out for the new Tim Burton / Johnny Depp version of "Charlie and the chocolate Factory" and...

Wow...

Seriously, I'm near speechless! Now, you can never count on trailers being truly representative of the final film, but if this one is, I'll tell you, this movie could be everything I could possibly hope for from a Tim Burton / Johnny Depp version of Willy Wonka. This trailer is really twisted in the most delicious way, but I wasn't kidding about that subject line. The trailer is here, but don't say I didn't warn you. Enjoy!

So I was surfing over at Matociquala's blog and I came across this post, discussing the idea of fetishizing books. To paraphrase her point, books are not stories. She loves stories, and could care less about 'books'.

On the one hand, I think she has a very good point. For me, and I imagine for most, the whole concept of liking 'books' is really based on the idea that they are stories given physical form. Why are books cool? Because they have stories / knowledge in them. In some cases, there can also be a historical element, but I think that primarily it is the story or the knowledge that ultimately has value, not the book itself.

I agree with her preference for paperbacks over heavy hard-covers, and likewise, I'm not particularly careful with my books. At the same time, I know I prefer reading a book to reading the same story on a computer screen. Something about actually holding the book in my hand makes a difference, and I think it's more than the absence of eyeball melting monitor radiation. Stories that exist purely as electrical information with no physical form somehow seem less real to me.

I imagine this sort of feeling will gradually grow less and less common as the generations go by, simply due to the increasing ubiquity of computers and the Internet. I use them myself, obviously, writing all my stories on the computer and generally only printing them when they are finished.

But I know that a print publishing credit would feel more satisfying to me than an e-zine, because it's something I can hold in my hands. Touch it, taste it (mmm, paper!) and smell it. Stick it on my bookshelf to impress guests, etc. This is not to say that I've never submitted to e-zines, only that I have an emotional preference for one over the other.

But what will all this mean in the future? For the time being, lots of people are like me in their preference for printed books over e-books, but how much of this is due to habit and the lack of the technology required to make e-books as convenient as the paperback? In the coming decades, both are surely going to change. So what is the future of books? Electronic paper? Recycled mega-cheap printing? *shrug* Beats me, but it's an interesting thing to think about. In my current WiP, my protag's father is a teacher, and she thinks it's amusing how he still likes to print his students' papers out before grading them.