Godheval

We could’ve had this:

But thanks to Manoj Shymalamdingdong and the power of YT, we get this:

And so that you understand my sadness, watch this:

Ugh.

So earlier tonight I saw Transformers: Rise of the Fallen.  To describe it in a word:

Long.

Which isn’t to say that it was a bad movie, but it was certainly a case of overstimulation.  It was practically a full-time job for my eyes watching all of that transforming and merging and shooting and exploding and collapsing.  It was almost as difficult as that third Lord of the Rings movie.

With Transformers being one of – if not the – summer blockbuster, I figured I was in for previews of some big upcoming movies.  Unfortunately, one of those was – wait for it:

M. Night Shymalan’s
The Last Airbender

…

That pause was for me to compose myself.  It failed.

Where the FUCK does this pompous douchebag get off putting his hack name in front of an Avatar movie?  As if he had anything to do with its creation.  Or maybe he’ll be taking credit for what will inevitably be a complete bastardization of a wonderful franchise?

Michael Bay probably deserves a lot of credit for how he’s modernized the Transformers franchise and made it accessible to a wider audience than us nerds who grew up with the TV series in the 80s.  And yet, for all he’s done, this latest movie was not called:

Michael Bay’s
The Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

So how does Manoj – who has been riding the wave from The Sixth Sense (the only film of his that can pass for “good”) for 10 years now – figure he’s entitled to take someone else’s intellectual property and attach his name to it?  I mean, at this point, M.Night Shymalan is like King Midas – the revisionist version who touches things and they turn into shit.

For Aang’s sake, did you see The Village?  The Happening? Would someone tell this mother fucker to stop making movies?

So putting his name on Avatar: The Last Airbender – which boasts a quality of writing, direction, and overall fantasticness that Shymalan couldn’t manage on his best day – is like taking a dump on a really delicious pizza.

Would you eat a shit pizza?  I didn’t think so.

FUCK M. Night Shymalan.

And as for his penchant for surprise endings, the only one I’ll accept is the one where Shymalan himself dies and is unable to complete the movie.

Surprise!

Often when I mention a good movie that features issues of racial prejudice, people also want to bring up “American History X”. However, it is usually people who have never experienced racism firsthand, and as a result fail to see the glaring flaws prevalent throughout the movie. For those of you who were won over by this “touching story” of redemption, perhaps it’s time to take a closer look. For those of you who haven’t even seen the movie, it might be a good idea to stop reading here.

American History X is a movie with a message. But what exactly is that message? Ed Norton plays Derrick Vinyard, a character who begins the story as a staunch racist. The movie does a good job of presenting a neo-Nazi perspective, giving solid – albeit grievously misguided – justifications for such a worldview. Listening to Derrick explain his problems with African-Americans, you might even be inclined to agree: “What is their problem?” What Derrick fails to consider, as do most real racists, is that he cannot possibly understand the plight of a disenfranchised minority without existing within that context. He disregards the influence of socioeconomic factors (e.g. inferior education), and ironically, the counter-progressive effects of racism itself.

Early in the movie, two black men attempt to either rob or vandalize Derrick’s car, but with shotgun in hand, our protagonist chases one away and holds the other at gunpoint. He then “curb-stomps” the man to death (an act so brutal it has to be seen to be understood). Unfortunately for Derrick, the police are drawn by the gunshots and after finding the gruesome scene, place him under arrest. Derrick, clearly indifferent to the consequences of murder, smiles as he is taken away. At this point, he is clearly portrayed as someone who feels a hatred so deeply that he takes pleasure in killing.

A friend and I were talking about the “validity” of CG “porn”. By that I mean the use of computer graphics to depict sexually suggestive or even explicit imagery. In all of his righteous indignation, he swore it off as stupid, as ridiculous, and as something for people “who can’t get real girls”. Could not the same argument be made against pornography in general? Oh, why watch two other people have sex, when you can do it on your own? Well, gee…perhaps because not everyone has carte blanche access to sex at all times of the day? Maybe they’re watching it to masturbate? I don’t even have to argue this point, I’m sure, since I think as a society we’ve past the point where pornography is taboo, and most people – at least the honest ones – can acknowledge the practicality of self-satisfaction.

Anyway, so the crux of my argument was that whether it be a real or CG depiction of sexual material, the purpose is the same. It is not the actual physical breast that turns a person on, because what is it really, other than a fat-filled sack of flesh intended to nurture offspring? Is it really the fleshy folds of a woman’s labia that turns a guy on? I would say no. Sexual desire and the fulfillment of that desire occurs on an abstract and deeply internal level. There is no rationalization behind it. It’s not as if you look at pornography and think “My, I just love the way that penis is parting those labia. And the angle of insertion? Magnificent!” That’s ridiculous. It’s more subconscious than that.