Jean Valjean

I'm under the impression that she's the most powerful character in the comics, but the movie seemed to present her as being fairly standard issue for a Marvel hero. Definitely more powerful than Iron Man, but conceivably I can see Scarlet Witch reaching the same power levels. Now that Thor has his new ax and ability to summon the Bifrost, I'd say that he's more powerful. Then again, Kara Carol Danvers has had a couple of decades to become familiar with the extend of her powers. Either way, I still don't necessarily see her as the most powerful character in the MCU, because of Thanos and Doctor Strange (who's incredibly powerful even without the Time Stone). She's powerful enough that, you're right, she needs a villain that she can't just punch, and to that end the Skrulls were perfect for her. It didn't even occur to me that this was a good way to set up a conflict that she can't win through punching, so if that's any indication, the movie did pretty smoothly with that. Although once it got to the point where she figured out who was who, the conflict of the story became pretty straightforward. I think that the climax was satisfying because it was built up to pretty well and had a good structure, although I would classify it more as "simple fun" rather than "dynamic suspense." It became obvious in a real jiff how much of a one-sided fight it was. (Also, just for fun, if I were to rank my favorite Superheroes, I might list them as Superman, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, Spider-Man, Aquaman, Supergirl, Iron Man, and...I dunno after that. Maybe Robin from Teen Titans. The recent Into the Spider-Verse Miles Morales version of Spider-Man was pretty cool, too. Within the X-Men universe, I guess that Rogue was probably my second-favorite, and I also liked good old Nightcrawler.) 24601

You never go back. At least, that's what I hear. Honestly, if I went Mac, I probably wouldn't go back, either. It isn't because it's so much better than everything else, because I actually never liked the interface of Macs. At least they have changed their mouses from those ugly early 2000's which thought that it was a good idea to be featureless. Still, fewer viruses are written for them. Once you get to a certain age, you become a single-issue voter when it comes to which computer gets your vote. Interface is completely irrelevant if your computer doesn't have the best security on the market. That, plus if you buy one thing from Apple, you're strongly incentivised to make all of your other products Apple in order to make everything compatible. Anyway, I'm going to stick with my regular PC for another five years. I spent over two thousand dollars on it, and I want to get all my money's worth before replacing it. If I can make my computer last at least eight years, preferably over ten, then I'm happy. When it finally gives up the ghost, then I'll upgrade to whatever the most advanced Mac laptop is by then. Which means that I'm likely to spend $10,000 on the laptop alone. And then I'll probably want whatever flagship iPhone is on the market, which I'd imagine will be amazing in 2025 or so. They'll probably be out with Bluetooth 7 by then, too. Honestly, I get pretty confused by those people who upgrade their phone with every new model. Are the incremental improvements worth $1,000? I only just upgraded to a smartphone for the first time less than half a year ago. That's right; just a few months ago, I was using a dinosaur phone. Imagine the contrast when I upgraded to a used 2017 smartphone. That phone was worth $100 when it was first released, but compared to my flip phone it was a $1,000 upgrade. It has quite a few new features. And sure, some of the new phones have even more features, but how many of those are worth an extra $1,000? Because I'm not going to pay that money for a phone whose features I mostly already have. I'm basically buying my current phone, plus something else that may be tacked on to that. Until such a time that I do upgrade, I'm keeping an Excel sheet of all of the new technologies and estimating a dollar value for the usefulness of each. I'd like to quantify exactly how much better my eventual replacement phone will be compared to my current one. Anyway, that's part of how I look at things. Also, the Galaxy Note 9 isn't a piece of junk. There's still quite a bit of latency with its S Pen. Apparently people think it's perfect, and I'm looking at it like it's a piece of tech in its early stages of development. It's a cool idea, though. I can imagine buying my father something from the Galaxy Note series in a few years. He likes the idea of getting a Ring, but they're made for people who use contemporary phones, and he still uses a dinosaur phone. I figure that maybe the only way he'll upgrade is when his Fliposaurus rex goes extinct and a smart phone is his only choice. He hates them, much like me, but he might like something with a built-in stylus. So yeah, when he's forced to transition give up on the 90's (it will be painful for both of us, because I haven't fully given up on the 90's, either), I think I'll help him get a Galaxy Note 13 or whatever is out by then. Some people are saying that the smartphone will be dead by 2025, and if a couple of years out from that these rumors are looking increasingly plausible, then I'll probably hold off even longer. If he's going to upgrade, he may as well get the best possible upgrade to make it worth it. Also, sometime in the 2020's is when I'm going to be the age he was when he had me, and from then on we'll both be closer in age than we are apart, and we'll be members of a couple of older generations spectating the developments of a newer generation who are native inhabitants of this millennia. 24601

If Never Gonna Give You Up was as good as its memes, then it would be a catchy song. If John Williams won another Oscar, he'd be remembered as one of the most talented film composers. If Michael Phelps won his last race, he'd be the most decorated swimmer in Olympic history. Ah, so you think the meme is your ally. I was born in it. Molded by it. I didn't see the full movie until I was a young man, and by then IT WAS NOTHING TO ME BUT BLINDING!! 24601

First of all, I need to address other reviews about this movie. It's apparent that there are reviewers that are highly vested in promoting either a positive or negative opinion on this movie. Everyone wants people to share their opinion, and apparently it's divisive. My understanding of this is that the lead actress, Brie Larson, said things in the name of feminism that were deemed as hostile, but I have intentionally not paid any attention to this drama. As far as I am concerned, I only judge her on her acting career, because that's all I see of her. With that having been said, what was the movie like? What would make you want to see it or not see it? Who is this movie for, and who is it not for? First of all, anyone who loves Stan Lee should see this movie. Marvel Studios constantly makes it difficult for me anoint one in particular as the best. For a while there I thought that it was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but they keep on getting better. Second, there are feminist themes, evoked about twice, both with regard to the Air Force. The setting justifies this, since Carol Danvers faced some discrimination in the Air Force during the 80's. Go back and watch a movie like G.I. Jane and you'll see that the feminist topics in this movie are a good fit for the times. The most feminist thing that the movie did, and the only thing that might be remotely overreaching, was changing an established character from the comic books from a man to a woman. Some people are going to be fine with that, others won't, and I think that it ultimately depends on how attached you were to that character from the comics. Third, there was surprisingly little 90's nostalgia. On one hand, I'm very nostalgic about the 90's and was disappointed. On the other hand, exploiting decades' nostalgia is pretty gimmicky, so it could be a good thing that they didn't harp it to the same extent that the Guardians of the Galaxy movies did. The best 90's stuff in the movie actually wasn't the overt references to popular culture, but the things that I subconsciously picked up on, such as the make of the cars, the technology, and even the architecture. These details created an ambient sense that I was watching a 90's film, because I remember what 90's technology feels like. But let's get to the real questions that people are asking. Was the main character any good? Well, it's complicated. The trailers didn't do this movie justice, since they chose all of the most monotone moments of line delivery to represent this character. She does have some humor and charm. However, I don't think that she's quite as magnetic as some of the other Marvel leading characters, and I'm not fully invested in her as I would have liked. I'm not entirely sure if this is the fault of the director or the actress, and I feel conflicted saying this because I've seen Brie Larson in a few other things, and she's definitely a talented actress. There was something missing. I've seen a couple of reviews saying that she's now officially the most charming person in the MCU and that Tony Stark can step aside; these reviews are clearly pushing an agenda. At the end of the day, her performance isn't burned into my memory quite like Josh Brolin's Thanos was, or perhaps to make a more apples-to-apples comparison, Melissa Benoist's Kara Danvers. I've had some time to think about it, and I think that the one element that was missing was vulnerability, at least in the performance. It was also somewhat there in the directing, particularly during a big moment in the movie when Carol Danvers realizes who she is, and why she's going to "end" the war instead of "fight" it. It was a moment that should have played strongly on the character's internal conflict, and while it was there in writing, the directors breezed through the scene too easily. As I said, her greatest moment of self-revelation should have had some vulnerability and made our hearts break for the character. That isn't to say that the character is unlikable. She does have a decent story arc, good writing, and isn't a Mary Sue, as some people were speculating. She does earn her powers, does go through growth, does have complexity, have interesting relationships, and she isn't wantonly over-powered. I'm actually surprised at how nerfed her powers were, given the hype I was hearing from some that she's the most powerful person in the MCU, and the MCU's version of Superman. Based off of what I've seen in this movie, she's about as powerful as Thor, but not as powerful as Doctor Strange and Thanos, and definitely not the MCU's Superman. I go on all of this at such length because, in context, this film is under heavy scrutiny over whether or not the character is a Mary Sue. Ultimately, my verdict is that she isn't, not the way she's written. I don't foresee there being too many Youtube videos criticizing this movie's in the same way that Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi was. However, if you thought that you might have a problem with Brie Larson herself, then you just might walk out from viewing this with it unchanged. The highlight of this movie is 90's Samuel L. Jackson. He's easily the best part, and looking at other reviews, people are consistently coming to this same conclusion. You don't notice the de-aging in the slightest. People have also been saying that the cat from the trailers also stole the show, and the breakout star, but I don't necessarily agree. As nice as the cat was, I don't really think that it's one of the best parts of the film. For me, that was Stan Lee, although I already said that. To name something other than him and Samuel Jackson, I did like Ben Mendelsohn. Overall, it was a standard Marvel movie. In my personal estimation, a little bit better than the trailers. There's a chance that you might think that it's the best one to date. Everyone seems to say that about the most recent Marvel movie. They said it about Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Avengers: Infinity War., back to back. I don't see it that way. To me, this is closer to Ant Man and the Wasp, which is just fine. Perhaps the only area in which that is a problem is that the end-credits scene from Avengers: Infinity War hyped this up so much as being something as groundbreaking as Thanos, and this film was meant to build up to be a real game-changer for Avengers: Endgame, but I didn't necessarily find that it has the gravitas for that. I also don't know how invested I am in this character over others that will be appearing in Endgame. With that in mind, don't watch this because of the next Avengers movie, but rather to enjoy the adventure of this story on its own merits. It stands on its own quite well. ... Wait...isn't she technically the "First Avenger?" At least by name? Or if we're going to say that Captain America was the first on the basis that he was around before her, would then Thor technically be the first Avenger? 24601

I watched this mainly because it was produced by James Cameron, and I was curious to see if his perfectionist fingerprints were all over it. They indeed were. I know that this was directed by Robert Rodriguez, but it was definitely a joint effort. You can see Cameron's contributions in how meticulously the engineering of the world is conceived, how meticulously the action scenes are constructed. They're all unique, easy to follow, and visually distinct from each other. They don't become the same after a while, and you can watch more or less any part of this movie and say, "That was the best part," which reminds me of T2: Judgment Day. Also, you can see Cameron's involvement in the way that the film is paced, because even though this movie is packed, it also takes its time to build up the story and move through the various plot points. Cameron always pushed to have his stories more drawn out. The only downside in this is that by the time the movie was near its end, I thought that it would go on for another hour. It felt like this was going to be a genuinely lengthy epic with three hours of buildup to the climax. As it turns out, it was almost exactly two hours, and it ended on a terrible cliffhanger. It did not give me the emotional resolution that I was looking for. I was pretty disappointed that the film ultimately didn't bring us to the Big Picture conflict that defined the setting, and instead it I watched the first two acts of a movie before being cut off from the juicy third act. Otherwise, every moment of the film, in the moment, is pretty good. I'm never bored with the characters, the visuals, the worldbuilding, the action, and the conflict at any point. That's all pretty good. Alita was definitely a great character, as many people have been saying. Again, the only real problem is that it ends so abruptly. I strongly believe that this should have been a three-hour movie. It had the feel for one. Hopefully there will be a sequel, but I would have preferred a standalone movie that ran extra on time, since that would have been more epic and cinematic. 24601

Wow, you're taking me back man. I haven't made an MOC in forever. There's a chance that my first MOC might actually still be stashed away in a box somewhere. By the way, do you have pictures of the distinction between light gray and light bluish gray? I actually don't know what you're talking about. I have a hunch, but that's not the same as knowing. 24601

I didn't necessarily think that I wanted more time with the people in Rogue One, to be honest, so I didn't necessarily find that I had a feeling of loss. I know a lot of people liked the movie. I'm not sure how I feel about it, other than that it was...good. As in, I can see why people like it and I see why it's good. For me, personally, there was something missing. I didn't even realize it until now, when I thought about the movie and realized that after two and a half years, it didn't leave much of an impression on me. I thought that maybe it did, because I watched it twice, and I really liked the concept, but I guess that was about it. I liked the concept and the story, but at the end of the day, you typically do need characters to get attached to, so I'm probably going to see that Obi-Wan movie when it comes out. Or if they ever make a movie about Mace Windu or Yoda or one of the other Jedi. Jedi are pretty awesome. I know that ex-Jedi Darth Vader was in Rogue One, although I also feel weird about that as well. I think that they had the right amount of Tarkin, and it felt right to have Leia, and I think that Vader would have been good if they limited him to just the Mustafar scene as a tease, but they went beyond a tease and gave him a full, epic scene. I dunno. That's just something that felt off to me in an otherwise good film. Perhaps if he wasn't in the climax, then my last impression as the film ended would have been of the main characters, and they would have stuck with me longer. I don't mean to nit-pick. As I've said, it's a good movie. As for the video games, I'm so sorry, but I have no comment. I'm not a gamer in the slightest. The last game I played was the minimalist game diep.io, and I gave that up for my New Years resolution. Although I played Soul Reaver once upon a time. How much of a fossil does that make me? 24601

I do find Iaredios's point to be interesting. That is, in most art there is no "rules," no "ought." Yet when it comes to movies based off of history, perhaps there are some ethical concerns to take into consideration. These days, filmmakers and artists are very concerned about how their art may influence people in the real world, beyond just entertaining them, and so long as we're concerned about that, I'd imagine we'd have to include ahistoricism in our list of concerns. This concern really came up when I watched Eddie the Eagle, which played fast and loose with a real story, and it really disappointed me. The movie loses a lot of its special magic when you realize what the real story is. I think that this was the tipping point where I started to care more about whether or not non-fiction movies were historically accurate. I always cared, but Eddie the Eagle made me care more. And that was about a relatively unimportant person, and it was praising him? What about movies where there are controversial figures? How do I know that I'm not watching propaganda? Nowadays, I always do extensive research, because I can't simply watch a film about history and enjoy it as a film if I'm simultaneously worrying whether or not I'm damaging myself with misinformation. If I were to recommend a historic film about a powerful figure, I definitely recommend the made-for-television movie Stalin, starring Robert Duvall. My sister and I both did many days of research after watching the movie and were able to confirm just about every beat of it. More or less, the only thing that they made up was the dialogue, but every last plot point was actual history. For a movie like The Favourite, I think that these concerns could be alleviated rather plainly with a disclaimer. There are films that a based on real events, films that are inspired by real events, and films that are inspired by history in general and are historical fiction. I was thinking about how the MPAA issues ratings for films so people can know how comfortable they will be with the content, and I wondered if it would be within reason for them to issue similar ratings for historical films. Something like D (documentary/facsimile), BE (based on events), IE (inspired by events), and HF (historic fiction). The ahistoricism that you're describing, to me, sounds like what I would classify as "historical fiction." I wouldn't necessarily compare this to Westerns or Metal Gear Solid, though, since it's historical in more than just its setting, but also its people. Plus, I'm actually familiar with who Queen Anne is, so it's not like it comes off to me like a generic historical setting like in Frozen. I'd imagine that the British audience saw that knew that Queen Anne was an actual person, too. In any case, from the way you describe the movie, it sounds as though it made it clear with its tone that it was historic fiction that tells its story mainly with its imagination. From what I've heard, The Favourite was a pretty good movie. I didn't have time to watch it. If I had known that it would have been an Oscar nominee, sure I would have, but I didn't, and so it flew under the radar. I did have some interest in watching Green Book, perhaps because it was clearly marketed as something that wanted to win an Oscar or two, but I didn't have the time for that one, either. And then I really, really wanted to watch Bohemian Rhapsody, but when I found the time for it, it was the day after they pulled it from my local theatre. I still really want to see it. There's a good change that I'll end up seeing the latter two films. A couple of people at work highly recommended them, so I might watch those with them sometime. 24601

I'm not sure if I'd put Into the Spider-Verse at #1 or, because I'm a sucker for Spielberg, Ready Player One. But objectively, it's probably Into the Spider-Verse. It was an amazing film. I also really liked Aquaman. Part of that is my pre-established love for the character, but I genuinely did like the movie. After all,I would have hated it if it didn't capture what I like about him. Like what happened with Man of Steel. As for Annihilation, I watched that one recently (finally). I've been meaning to look through your blog to find the old post about it to share my thoughts, but anyway, I have a few different thoughts on it. I think that the first act was terribly directed, the second average, and the third act genuinely pretty good. The scientists were utterly unscientific and it suffered that problem of nobody doing a single thing that could be construed as logical. And lest I hand-wave it as "They were only illogical because the Shimmer was making them illogical," they were acting illogically before the Shimmer happened. I couldn't get over how unrealistic the military procedures were. It all felt like the director knew nothing about the real world and had only ever seen it through movies. Yet, the themes of the movie were pretty good. A bit blatant, and not the slightest bit subtle, but they were poetic all the same. Likening affairs to cancer, and then contrasting those with a creature that creates new things by combining them, was all retty interesting. It god a bit Lovecraftian by the halfway mark, which few films really achieve. The deep base in the abckground really helped enhance the sense that the Shimmer was Beyond and Incomprehensible. So as science fiction, it was pretty good. It did an exceptional job of doing what science fiction is supposed to do. And even though I didn't care for it so much as a film, thinking that the book would probably be better, it at the same time managed to do a great job transitioning Lovecraftian ideas to the visual (and audio) medium, so in that sense it definitely succeeded as a film. I'm still not sure what I actually think, but the friend who recommended it to me definitely had it right when he said that it definitely provoked thoughts that were along my wavelength. And finally...I don't care what you say about Bumblebee. I'm not giving that franchise any more of my money, even if it's good. I just can't do it without feeling exploited. 24601

I had something nice and comprehensive typed up, and then (I kid you not) my dog deleted it. Thanks dog! In addition to what you said about it reminding you of Warhammer 40,000, I was reminded of Lord of the Rings. For a while, I've speculated that in the unlikely scenario where an Aquaman movie did the character some semblance of justice, the filmmakers would have to be ambitious enough to channel a little bit of Peter Jackson. I said in my own review that it reminded me of this, as well as TRON: Legacy, Avatar, the other Avatar, The Abyss, Indiana Jones, Journey to the Center of the Earth, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Godzilla, WWE wrestling, 90's action movies, 30's pulp serials, Johnny Quest, the Sam Raimi Spider-Man, and so on. I thought that there was no way that it could capture all of these things, and I'll be darned; it came about as close as you can realistically get. So I'm impressed. I can't remember when I came around on Aquaman as a character. Like many people who grew up with Superfriends as their sole source of information on Aquaman, I started off with a "meh" opinion on him. I wouldn't say that it was paticularly harsh, because hispowers were better than no powers, but he wasn't someone that I identified with or projected any of my wish fulfillment on. Maybe Michael Phelps changed that. I was on a swim team back in the day. I don't know; I believe that my admiration of Aquaman began sometime around 2010, which is decidedly after the Beijing Olympics. I remember more Michael Phelps enhancing my admiration of Superman. Then again, maybe I did change my opinion around 2008, because that was when Iron Man came out, and that was the time when I was looking at big hits like Spider-Man and Batman Begins and thinking, "They have a movie for just about everyone these days. Is there anyone else to make a superhero movie about?" Ignore for a minute just how laughably limited my definition of "just about everyone" was. What I was thinking to myself was, "If I was a prominent director, I would want to do a superhero that hasn't been done yet. What about Iron Man?" I knew nothing about Iron Man at the time other than that I thought he looked like a cool Boba Fett meets Samus Aran type; that's some real awesome sci-fi right there. He was on the cover of some really old comic that I had back in the 90's, flying through an interdimensional war zone. I liked the idea of a solder/bounty hunter/mercenary in a high-tech suit, and the suit looked awesome... BUT THE POINT IS... I underwent a change in my thinking process where I thought that no hero was truly lame. I thought that everybody had potential and I was curious to see what lesser-known characters we could enjoy once we ran out of Spider-Man films. Robert Downtown Abbey comes along, makes me realize that I'm going to have to aspire to direct a different obscure superhero, and then it turns out that the movie was not only better than Daredevil, but it became the basis for the largest pop culture phenomenon since Star Wars. In light of this new line of thought, I didn't have any negative opinions of Aquaman. After all, I loved Gali. Perhaps I did wonder why he was considered a major member of the Justice League who was mentioned in the same breath as Superman and Green Lantern. Still, I didn't think that he was necessarily lame. About when the New 52 came out, I became an actual fan. My first real exposure to the character came before I read those comics, in Smallville, which...wasn't the greatest representation. He was kind of this hokey and only cared about environmental things, and he dried up like an ant under a magnifying glass when out of water for more than two minutes, but the character did engage in some interesting acts of sabotage. I think that was about when I began getting interested in the character, especially when I thought it through and realized that his powers were actually pretty nifty and would come in handy all of the time. With that in mind, and knowing that people hated on the character and made fun of him on shows like The Big Bang Theory, I decided to give this character a look and defend him. The character had withstood the test of time; surely he lasted past the 40's for a reason. Injustice was my first real good glimpse of the character. I have to admit, he was pretty cool. And then I real the New 52 comics, and really conected with him. As you've described him, he has this complicated political conflict he has to deal with. There was something downright Shakespearean about it, especially when you consider that Orm is a rather tragic villain. In the New 52 (if I remember correctly), Orm actually loved his brother, admired him, and wanted him to take the throne, and then he eventually abdicates the throne when Arthur accepts it. Only to make the mistake of abdicating while on U.S. soil in the middle of an invasion, and he was surrendered over as a prisoner of war, because that's how diplomacy works. And then Arthur swears that he's going to help Orm out without breaking any international laws. And then it's discovered that Volko was behind the invasion all along beause he was so loyal to Arthur that he would start a war just to force Arthur's hand. Arthur had Volko arrested immediately, and the guy is happy about it because he would not want to be arrested by anyone else other than the true king. He's subsequently visited for advice while in prison, a la Hannibal Lechter. These are some pretty cool character. After reading a bit, here are a few things that I discovered. The most unique thing he has to contribute to the Justice League in his power set, talking to fish, is overly specialized? He can use that power to command Krakens and armies of the deep. Maybe even give people seizures while he's at it. Batman has a the Batmobile that everyone wants? Aquaman rides said Kraken. Batman is also cool in the dark? Aquaman naturally sees in the dark. Aquaman's only cool near the oceans? That happens to be where DC comic's Cthulhu expy resides, and he has to lock it away every year when it awakens. Aquaman fights Cthulhu. Beyond just that, there are so many other opportunities to tell real good adventure stories. Even if you're still asking, "Yeah, but how am I supposed to care about him as a surface dweller? I'm not invested in any of his conflicts." The majority of the world's military might is invested in potential naval warfare. Had Aquaman been around during World War II, he would have quickly turned the tide. Lame villains? What, and you thought that the Green Goblin wasn't lame? Not even a little? A silly character who isn't as cool as Batman? Aquaman has the legal authority to kill and doesn't hesitate as much to do it. He also had his hand cut off and replaced with a harpoon. And he had to bury his son, who did not return in typical comic book fashion. And to top it all of, yeah, there's that element of Shakespearian tragedy. There is so much stinking potential, because you can go with that Shakespeare thing, but you can also channel Lord of the Rings, or focus on the adventure and channel Indiana Jones or Johnny Quest, and so much more. I realized that this was a pretty awesome character with a lot of potential. But what really grabbed my attention is just how much I related to him. His parents come from two different worlds, which are so tightly interwoven and yet seem and completely incompatible. He sruggles to be loyal to both, to please both sides of his family, and to balance his identity. I have a Catholic mother and a Reformed father; I know how that feels. Because of this, I saw so much of myself in him, and he resonated with me. I really resonated with Superman for a while, and he's still the hero that I attach myself the most to, but if anyone comes in a close second, it's Arthur Curry. Perhaps I didn't quite relate to Jason Momoa's depiction, since I personally see myself more in the New 52 version of the character, who resembles me a little more specifically, but I have to appreciate what they did with him. They say these days that we should use films to help us to relate to people that we don't normally understand. Typically, in the world of Oscars, that means understanding people who belong to a different race or sex. What I found interesting about this movie was that, given my investment in Arthur Curry as a character from the comics, I was forced to see myself in Jason Momoa's rendition. I'm not the type of person who normally sees himself as having much in common with a person looking like a biker. Society kind of prejutices us to think of them as something "other," still people but not necessarily "the everyman." You don't look at them and think, "that could be me." They're considered an offshoot from what it means to be "the standard person." So it interested me when Momoa's version of the character is treated as an everyman, as someone that I should relate to. I didn't know what to make of the experience, but once I watched the movie several times over, he had lost some of that other-ness, and he became just a normal guy. I will still always see myself more in the Aquaman from the comics, if only because I literally see myself more in that character, but this movie did something unusual for me, and in hindsight I've decided that there's nothing to forgive Warner Brothers for for casting Jason Momoa. It is good to see that you enjoyed it, too, and I'm glad to hear someone else make the case for the character in these blogs. I also appreciate your positive opinion of Batman v Superman. While I didn't love it, I thought that the hate it got was a little over-the-top, seeing as in my opinion it was actually an improvement over Man of Steel. I liked the lighting and cinematography better. It had more atmosphere. It flowed like a comic-book event story, and it didn't use the same formula that Marvel was using. It defined itself with an identity that was distinctly DC and not just "The Anti-Marvel." This doesn't mean that I liked it, but there were definitely things that I appreciated about it. I haven't watched the extended cut yet, and I've always meant to, so hearing your recommendation makes me consider getting around to it. I don't know if I will, because I'm a busy guy, but we'll see. Until then, I'm glad to hear you fearlessly sharing your opinions without putting anyone down. 24601

Holy cow, that was back in 2009? It's been a decade already? I still have Malum, by the way. He's wickedly cool. Sure, he could have been Mata red, but at least he wasn't 50% gray. I was definitely on the bandwagon of people who despised the overuse of gray and other colorless pieces from 2003-onward. I would personally love it if Bionicle comics were released again, with multiple different titles so that things like this guy in the background could be explored. Perhaps it wouldn't be a hit, but one could always dream. You never know, though. It seems that after 30 years, Hollywood begins to cash in on the nostalgia of your childhood. So by that logic, in 2030's we just might see a giant Bionicle revival that could rival anything, including minor details like the Glatorian in Malum's background. 24601

Don't worry, I didn't interpret your post as aggressive at all. I just know that whenever there's a disagreement online, people seem to think that everybody must hate each other, but I personally love it that we're able to have this discussion and bounce around a few different ideas. It's a lot better than having no conversation at all. My feelings are that a movie can be meant for one thing, and then end up as another thing, and we should judge them based on the final result. In my opinion, one of the best Star Trek movies is The Motion Picture, and the ironic thing is that it was actually meant to be a pilot episode for a spinoff series on television, but then they scrapped that idea, padded out the run time, and made a really interesting movie that has a cult following among Trekkies. Should it have been nominated at the Emmy Awards instead of the Oscar awards? And if I'm going to bring that up, then I may as well being up the pilot episodes for Marvel's The Inhumans. It was made for television, but they initially released those as a special experience in IMAX. I believe that before The Clone Wars was aired, they released their first three episodes in theatres as a single movie to raise excitement. I interpret both of these as being cinematic releases and technically eligible for the Oscars, even though they barely qualified as movies. But then, short films are nominated for Oscars, and short-form documentaries are nominated, so I guess that technically these would count. As for people saying that Roma was a bullet dodged, I don't really agree with their wording. Under current Academy rules, it's not a controversy; it fit the rules. And though I can't afford Netflix, I really want to see it because it looks gorgeous. If I could make a distinction between movies that are "officially" streaming movies and those that are "officially" made for the silver screen, I would want a movie like Roma released first in the theatres, even if only for one weekend on a limited release, before being pulled and released online. In that way, it's born into world as a child of the Silver Screen. It's the ceremonial unveiling that, if we're to draw distinctions, matters to me. After that, if your producer was an online streaming service and you're limited to your platform, I don't really care. There are many movies with limited theatrical runs that go straight to DVD within weeks. And some of them win Oscars. Perhaps there should be an award ceremony that celebrates the film genre specifically and not medium. For that, I guess we have the Golden Globes, but they aren't quite in the same league as the Oscars and Emmy's and Tony's (and the future Pewdies), which were established to correspond with their medium. Speaking of which, we're talking about film as a genre across many mediums. Imagine if ongoing shows were a part of all the main mediums. We have them on television and streaming, but imagine if some trailblazing entrepreneur found out a business model that allowed him or her to show every episode of his show on Silver Screens around the world every Thursday? I'd imagine that, technically, this would be eligible for an Oscar, since it isn't necessarily a single movie by genre, but it fits into the medium that the Oscars focus on. My main question is whether or not the "Cinema Show" would be judged by the Academy based off its merits as a show as a whole, based off of its season, based off of the episodes that were released that year (which may be the end of one season and the beginning of another), or if each episode would be judged as a movie. That's a really curious idea to me, and to be honest, if I was a big-shot who could do whatever he wanted, I always liked the idea of taking on idea for a rather cinematic idea for an adventure serial I had in mind and put it on the actual big-screen instead of over the airwaves. And then people would just buy a Season's Pass and all watch the latest episode communally. For all we know, something like that could become mainstream in the distant future, and it's hard to predict where the institution of cinema will go. A quarter of a century ago, who would have thought that the Big Screen would receive competition from mobile phones? So perhaps there's an award ceremony specifically for more long-form standalone entertainment, and an awards ceremony for serial entertainment. The main problem I see with this is that at this point we're obviously getting a bit heavy in the sheer number of mainstream awards ceremonies. There are some mediums that nobody has been talking about, either. For example, if you go to Walt Disney World, they have several attractions that are theatrical, but they are non-standard in their format. Their documentary showing of O Canada! takes place on a 360 degree circular screen. They may have additional bells and whistles, such as props meant to augment the reality of the screen. Or if you go to the Minneapolis Science Museum, there's the Omnitheatre, which is a semi-spherical screen that wraps around your whole vision. I also once watched a play put on that had a big screen in the background constantly showing flashbacks; it was a play and a movie at the same time. Then, eventually, virtual reality will become more mainstream. How are we to address that? Will all virtual reality, from movies to shows to games, be acknowledged in the same awards ceremony, or will they be acknowledged differently? Plus, not all of the virtual reality will be quite the same in its implementation. At Walt Disney World, there was a VR ride called Soarin' which created a more communal virtual experience. What we're able to create a VR experience where we're not alone in our headset, but physically surrounded by the VR, along with our fellow viewers, so that we can interact with our friends as we're being entertained? Am I speculating too much? But actually, I do think that this level of speculation is necessary moving forward. As we figure out how we want to categorize our awards and recognition, we do need to seriously think through all of the possibilities for how things can be categorized in the future and speculate all possible combinations of genres, mediums, and interfaces. 24601

I can get behind that sentiment, too. I like the idea of there being special theatrical showings of a bunch of these during awards season, and Academy Members being invited to screen it and get a feel for how a movie is experienced in a communal setting. By the way, I wouldn't have complained if Roma won. As things currently stand, it's not against the rules. And if Roma won, it would have legitimized online streaming services in a really big way and opened new creative opportunities. Anyway, I don't necessarily have a problem is movies produced by Netflix show up on the big screen. What I think is the issue is whether or not a movie first appears on the small screen or the big screen, and that would be the standard way of determining whether or not something is considered private or public entertainment. I still stand by my point of view that there should be a separate ceremony, since movies made for television get categorized outside of the Oscars. So it's clear that the Oscars categorically don't cover movies as a whole, as a generic catch-all. They're quite specifically an ode to the theatrical experience, and always have been, especially since home media wasn't invented when they first institutionalized the awards. When new technology opened up new means of entertainment, they created a new ceremony for that, called the Emmy Awards. Regardless of here we stand, I do find your viewpoint interesting, and your input always has been and always will be appreciated. 24601

Some controversy has been raised on this subject, courtesy of my idol Steven Spielberg. He's a big believer in the power of the Big Screen, and that the Oscars celebrates the culture of the Big Screen every year. It isn't necessarily a celebration of all movies across all mediums. After all, movies that are made for television win their awards at the Emmy's. So how does Netflix fit into this? Netflix movies have budgets, and major directors and actors attached, and they aim for a cinematic experience. In terms of quality, they seek to be indistinguishable from a movie released on the Big Screen. They do not flow like movies made on television at all. So do films initially released on Netflix have a place at the Oscars? My sentiments align with Spielberg's. He has made things for screens of all sizes. He also loves video games. The guy is aware of the various different mediums of entertainment, I agree that each medium should have its own separate awards ceremony. People are telling him to get with the times and acknowledge that Netflix movies are not inferior to theatrical movies, but I actually think that he's ahead of his time, as he always has been. Here's how I see it: online streaming services should have their own award ceremony for their medium. They have reached the point where they have become distinctive enough as a medium that they cannot be categorized as TV or Big Screen, and they are mainstream enough to deserve their own ceremony. Think about it: there's not just Netflix, but Hulu, Youtube, Amazon, and more. Disney is coming out with its own pretty soon. You can bet that in the next decade, new entrepreneurs will pop up. If you try and lump this in with the Oscars, you're essentially denying that this is its own unique and upcoming thing with its own distinct identity. You're trying to define it in terms of the past and in terms of its visionary future. Streaming isn't like TV, because it often doesn't rely on commercial breaks. It isn't like the Big Screen, not just because of the different sensory experience but because it creates an entirely different kind of communal experience. It's just so different. It can create magic just as much as TV and the Big Screen, but it's its own kind of magic. If I may, when such an awards ceremony becomes mainstream, I propose that they be called the Fonso's.. EDIT: Guys, I take that back. Such an awards ceremony should be called the PEWDIE AWARDS. Also, make sure to never, ever subscribe to Youtube channels run by large corporations and record label companies. Losers who live in their mothers' basements, unite! WE SHALL BE REPRESENTED! 24601

To be honest? Probably Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. I expected good animation. I wasn't expecting something that was great in every conceivable way. It was some real movie magic. Otherwise, here were some of the other movies that were among the best of the year but were not nominated for Best Picture. A Quiet Place, Crazy Rich Asians, The Mule, Ready Player One, 12 Strong, First Man, The 15:17 to Paris, and Game Night. I highly recommend all of these. Lemme see...yeah, and now the MCU has its first Oscar wins. Costuming makes sense, and I can't complain in clear conscience because I always root for movies like that to win this ward. Way to go, Academy. Continue to give the Best Costume Design category to superhero and fantasy films. They're literally designed for that category. ...but it kind of makes me mad that it won Best Original Score. And to think, John Williams never won for his Superman score, nor Danny Elfman for Batman, nor Hans Zimmer for any of the Dark Knight movies, just to put that in perspective. C'Mon. You know what had the best score? Of the ones that I've heart, either Into the Spider-Verse or First Man. Though I haven't listened to it, it's highly likely that Mary Poppins Returns had, if nothing else, a great score. Why they don't consistently give this award to musicals escapes me. 24601

*sigh* And so ends the streak. Here's hoping that DC at least wins Best Picture before Marvel ever does. Also, Spider-Verse was the best picture overall last year. Didn't see that coming, but when I look backonthe year as a whole, it was definitely the best. 24601

Alfonso Cuarón is, in my opinion, one of the greatest directors of all time. He's basically up there with Spielberg and (when he's on a roll) James Cameron. So I'm absolutely rooting for him to win Best Picture and Best Director. And also Best Cinematography, because his movies have consistently had some of the best cinematography I've ever seen. I'm also a sucker for black and white. Furthermore, he's more talented than Alejandro González Iñárritu, and deserves as many Oscars as him at the very least. I also think that it's kind of cool that we've had the Best Director award go to a Mexican four times this decade, and I just want to go with the trend. If Cuarón wins again, then officially half of this decade belongs to Mexican directors. Furthermore, I think that it's about time that we have the first foreign-language film to win the Best Picture award. It should have been La Vita è Bella, back in 1997, but Titanic came outthat year, so what can you do? If anyone's going to take home that historic first, it might as well be my man Cuarón. So what else is there... Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse for Best Animated Film. That was really good, probably the best comic book movie of all of 2018, and that's saying something. And I hope that Black Panther literally comes home with nothing. I like the MCU, but I also won't hide my DC bias. Someone once pointed out on this blog that Suicide Squad has more Oscars than the entire MCU combined, which I thought was hilarious, and I hope that it stays that way. Black Panther was still good, though, and I hope that the sequel makes even more money and blows my mind away. I hope that Lady Ga Ga wins Best Actress. Call it the Cher effect. Also, she gave a good Super Bowl halftime show that one time, an we still owe her our ongoing thanks. Show her you care, Academy. Couldn't care less about Best Actor. They all look awesome and I don't know who to root for. But if I'm going to bring in fanboy bias and sentimentality, Rami Malek, because I'm a huge fan of Freddy Mercury. I like Sam Rockwell, and he did a great job as George W. Bush. Although as a runner-up, I think it would be hilarious if Ben Solo won Best Supporting Actor (the guy deserves some compensation for all the hate he gets playing the Darth Vader fanboy in Star Wars). The sound categories should go to Bohemian Rhapsody, because Queen. Queen is all you need. And Best Documentary Short Subject should go to End Game. It'll be the closest the MCU will ever get to winning an Oscar. 25601

There are over twenty different songs quoted in this. And so, so many inside jokes. Names have been edited out, but otherwise, I hope you're entertained by this little glimpse into my life. This was incredibly fun to write. Also, to put that first line in context, I send gold earrings with the letter. It's a little more extravagant than last year, when I sent a paper flower, but last year's letter was a bit more...more than this one. Among other things, I quoted the most awkward, on-the-nose passage in all of Song of Solomon. That's another inside joke. 24601

Grade A for the references. One of them totally fits into the conversation, other is pretty great purely for existing. 24601

I arrived to the Super Bowl party late and only saw the last half of the fourth period. Fortunately, that was the only part worth watching anyway. Otherwise, I wasn't particularly motivated to watch this game, since I didn't have a horse in the fight and didn't care to win. Vikings are my homeboys. With that being said, the results of this Bowl made me feel strangely...patriotic. 24601

For the last few years, I've had a certain perception of masculinity. Just before I sat down to write something, I noticed that someone had carved into the public desk I was using a rather rude way of saying, "Earn lots of money and get girls." This struck me as peculiar. Since when was a man's masculinity dependent upon picking up girls? Why should men obsessed with masculine things find so much value in mingling with some"thing" so fundamentally opposed to their masculine pursuits? Sometimes a video pops up on my feed on Youtube by a pickup artist or dating coach. Some of them are sleazier than others, and I give credit to the ones who I don't find outright chauvinistic. However, it strikes me as curious that so many men are insecure about their ability to attract members of the opposite sex. After a while, it becomes rather toxic and unattractive, especially when all other subjects of interest to them mirror their own masculine nature. It would be different if a man wanted to start a relationship and if his concern wasn't ultimately selfish. But so long as you're going to be selfish and only care about living the high life, I'd imagine that having girls would be a drag. They would surely hold such men back from their natural wont, and obsessing over them makes a man look rather feminine himself. Okay, I suppose that it socially validates you, and that validation might get you other things that you want, but in a life of purely material pursuit, I don't see the appeal of attaining women in and of itself. About a year ago, I discovered insecure men of a different stripe on Youtube when I stumbled upon the hashtag MGTOW. It was on a video where a woman described herself as a classical feminist but not a contemporary feminist. You'd think that she would gain a lot of support from the many men who are reactionaries to today's feminism, but those reactionaries disliked her, too, because they knew that she would only marry a man who could be a breadwinner, and they deemed this against their economic interests and offensive to their demographic. Hence, MGTOW, "Men Go Their Own Way." In some ways, I have more respect for people who insist that men go their own way than men who just want to treat women as a luxury item. Both groups are looking for lives of luxury, and both want those luxuries to share their masculine personality. At least one of those groups knows that one such "luxury" doesn't march in step with their masculinity. Really, though, both of these outlooks are ridiculous. Men, don't focus on whether or not you have girls. It shouldn't matter. You should look after your own holistic health, and share that health with others when it's appropriate to do so. You can never rid yourself of your insecurities, but you can control them instead of letting them control you. Act mature. Live a while, and you'll get even more mature. If you're pursuing women for your own validation and gratification, you aren't going to be happy. This feeds into your insecurity, and it gives you an incorrect and juvenile perspective on your masculinity. There is absolutely nothing emasculating about being single without escorts. One day, your outlook will change, if you let it. I know it sounds cliche, but you end up finding things when you aren't looking. When that day comes, the question will no longer be "What can or can't women do for you?" but "What can you do for others?" You'll have a servant's heart. You give to others because you care, not because you're showing off. You'll appreciate how humility doesn't emasculate you; it makes you a truer man than anything else you pursued before. 24601

I'm alive, which is reason enough for me to be cheerful. Which annoys the heck out of everyone around me. Apparently being alive isn't a good enough reason to have a positive outlook. What can I say? I tried the pessimism thing and it didn't work out for me. 24601

If I were a rich man (da ba de ba de ba de ba de ba de ba de ba dum) I would be a sponsor for a few thousand people trying to immigrate to America, although because I'm someone eccentric, there would a a certain condition. Lately, I've been offering several friends to pay for all of the expenses should they legally change their last names to "Skywalker." So anyway, in the age-old tradition of Americanizing the surnames of immigrants, if I could pay ten thousand people to change their last name to that, and then immigrate to the United States with my sponsorship, we'd then have a substantial population of people with the surname Skywalker. That needs to be a common Amerian surname. Plus, I think that that people will get naturalized more quickly it they clearly and visibly embrace STAR WARS. Yeah, I know, other rich people think, "Cool! I can get a cheap source of labor!" And then there's me, thinking, "Hey! I can artificially increase the number of Skywalkers in America!" Well, I don't have the money to actually do that for ten thousand people. In the meantime, there's a friend of mine who has a boring last name, and I'm offering to pay him to change it to "Dangerkill." 24601

Panic time, guys! Who would you rather be the #1 Youtube channel, an individual who embodies the Youtube ideals of people with ADHD vlogging for fun, or an established corporation that is merely using Youtube as one of many prongs in its multi-media empire? Subscribe to Pewds! (Also, how do I talk him into going to the Amazon and doing that Bullet And ritual? How do I contact him, period?) 24601

Hmm, well in reaction to the one about STAR WARS always being anti-capitalist, I'm not entirely sure. Certainly, there's a moral that money isn't everything and an inherent understanding that greed is bad, but then it isn't like everything being pointed out as capitalistic is capitalistic. The Trade Federation had their own senators, which is technically corporatism and oligarchy. And then it seemed that in a galaxy where every transaction was legal, there wouldn't be a need for smugglers. You're right, though, it was certainly intentional in Episode VIII, although I think there's still a legal debate there over what that would constitute as. I debate if it's capitalism or anarcho-capitalism, because in the real world a country can be capitalistic while also barring its industries from creating weapons for the enemy. So they're capitalistic within their own borders, but internationally there's some "reasonable restrictions" on free trade. That is to say, selling things to criminal organizations or enemy powers is by its very nature illegal. It could very well be that this was all, nonetheless, intended to message against capitalism by George Lucas, regardless of the delivery. I wouldn't know and can't read his mind, although I know that there were other political, social, and religious themes that he had intended from the beginning, so this could very well be one of them. However, I do think that STAR WARS does make a point that money isn't particularly important, and generally speaking the language of fantasy casts characters who care about money as greedy, or as people who aren't virtuous. It would be interesting to see a STAR WARS character like George Bailey, though. It might not fit into the genre, but then, we've made room Rose Tico, who in my estimation is the first true "normie" of the franchise. If Holdo had lived, I could have seen her as the type of character who would look at the pragmatic financial end of rebuilding the Rebellion. Anyway, that bit with the Trade Federation gave me an idea a while back, since I always wanted to create a sci-fi civilization that was a pure oligarchy run by business, and I developed this idea that there's a world run by a Senate represented by the 64 largest businesses. Every year, the largest businesses would be reevaluated, and any changed in the top 64 would be accounted for in the Senate. So it isn't quite capitalism so much as corporatism, and the citizens of that world tend to be real cut-throat businessmen. Technology and information tended to be the largest businesses. It worked out, in part, because the planet's population has a really, really strong ethnic identity. Ah, anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. Nice list. It's also good to get a reminder that you've lived in Singapore. I know about the boat, but I seem to recall reading something where you mentioned Singapore as well, a long time ago. I remember wanting to ask you a few questions about it last September, in case I paid a visit there. It's on my shortlist of international visits that really interest me. If I can make a request, you should write a blog entry about it sometime. It's something I'd greatly enjoy reading. 24601