Geek Confessions & Blasphemies

I thought she was curled up because she'd just been the object of an enraged Hulk's anger.

Yeah, none of the other guys had to face the Hulk, well, 'cept Banner obviously, but being a part of him makes the broody and staring much more likely.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I was at least hoping for a pity chuckle from "Not all blue people are related, racist," but all I get is sarcastically quoted and characterized as full of burning hatred for saying Whedon should be the god of competence (it may not seem that way, but when I'm full of burning hatred for someone, I'm unlikely to proclaim them a god of anything). Story of my life. My burning hatred is reserved for his perceived infallibility, because I see him as very, very fallible.

Looks like mildly criticising Joss Whedon is the greatest Geek Blasphemy of all.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

The jarring, anachronistic, and pointless misogynist insult is when Loki tries to rattle Black Widow...

That's gotta be exhausting looking for things like that. As I often say, it's all about perspective. From my perspective, Loki is a bad guy who considers humans to be nothing more than fleas and he'd have no problem throwing out any kind of insult if he thinks it will hurt someone. The Black Widow, a human with no superpowers, was the only one with the skills to interrogate him. And she outwitted the God of Mischief.

Against the Hulk it freaked her out a bit. A character that appears to never get rattled actually showed a moment of vulnerability, of humanity. That moment is shown of all superheroes, but usually in their own movies. If it's not shown, then they are just a 2d character with no depth. If you wanted to rant against the fact that she doesn't have her own movie, then that's at least understandable (though I've said that Cap 2 should have been called Captain America and The Black Widow). But in the Marvel movies, so far, the Black Widow has been portrayed as strong, capable and cool.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Robert Kirkman has great supervillains.

Is that the Walking Dead guy, or the Ex Machina guy?

Yes, he wrote The Walking Dead but I was thinking of his Invincible characters.

I'm very sure that Sanderson saved the Wheel of Time.

Jordan had long since veered off the path. I even wish they had split the series down the middle, with three or four books per author.

My Geek confession:

I do not like Dr. Who.

Watched the first two seasons (which is more than I give most TV shows BTW) and, while they had a few stand out episodes, most of the episodes were crappy. The ending of Season One was just horrible, lazy writing.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Looks like mildly criticising Joss Whedon is the greatest Geek Blasphemy of all.

I don't mind people loving his work if they didn't always push it on you as if you are wrong and just need to experience something else he created to form the "right" opinion. The discussion never ends with "I don't like Whedon's work", it's always "But what about...."

I had an ex-girlfriend who subjected me to that stuff. Yes, I know about Firefly. I know about that Buffy episode where nobody talks. I still think his writing is terrible.

I like to wear fedoras and trillby's (or is it trillbies?) and always have. In fact I have 3 fedoras and 4 trillby's and wear most of them regularly. I'm disappointed that these young whippersnappers have decided to adopt them into their style. On the bright side, it has made it easier to find good quality ones at local tailors/clothing stores. I'm that geek that wears a fedora but I'm usually wearing a button up shirt as well so it's not too bad. T-shirt days are reserved for ball caps.

Texan/Southwest confession: I don't have a cowboy hat.

Geek confession: when I see an adult reading a comic book, I immediately assume that they're puerile and too dumb for a grown-up book without pictures.

Yet I'll see an adult playing a DS and think "hmm, wonder what they're playing?"

Jonman wrote:

Geek confession: when I see an adult reading a comic book, I immediately assume that they're puerile and too dumb for a grown-up book without pictures.

Yet I'll see an adult playing a DS and think "hmm, wonder what they're playing?"

IMAGE(http://bygonebureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/saga03.jpg)

Tenebrous wrote:

My Geek confession:

I do not like Dr. Who.

Watched the first two seasons (which is more than I give most TV shows BTW) and, while they had a few stand out episodes, most of the episodes were crappy. The ending of Season One was just horrible, lazy writing.

Can't really blame you for not falling over in love with the show after only spending time with Rose around. To me, the show got infinitely better once Martha showed up in Season 3. After watching to the end, its pretty hard to re-watch season 1 again.

bilbodiaz wrote:

I like to wear fedoras and trillby's (or is it trillbies?) and always have. In fact I have 3 fedoras and 4 trillby's and wear most of them regularly. I'm disappointed that these young whippersnappers have decided to adopt them into their style. On the bright side, it has made it easier to find good quality ones at local tailors/clothing stores. I'm that geek that wears a fedora but I'm usually wearing a button up shirt as well so it's not too bad. T-shirt days are reserved for ball caps.

Texan/Southwest confession: I don't have a cowboy hat.

I agree. The problem with fedoras isn't the fedoras, it's that people wear them with casual clothes. It's like trying to wear a tie with a t-shirt. You're going to look stupid, and not because the tie is bad.

I hate to be that guy, though, but... trilby's what? What do the trilbies own that you like to wear?

[size=1]Seriously, you pluralize "fedoras" correctly but then put an apostrophe in "trilbies" not once, but twice, so I can't explain it away as a typo.[/size]

cheeba wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

The jarring, anachronistic, and pointless misogynist insult is when Loki tries to rattle Black Widow...

That's gotta be exhausting looking for things like that. As I often say, it's all about perspective. From my perspective, Loki is a bad guy who considers humans to be nothing more than fleas and he'd have no problem throwing out any kind of insult if he thinks it will hurt someone. The Black Widow, a human with no superpowers, was the only one with the skills to interrogate him. And she outwitted the God of Mischief.

Against the Hulk it freaked her out a bit. A character that appears to never get rattled actually showed a moment of vulnerability, of humanity. That moment is shown of all superheroes, but usually in their own movies. If it's not shown, then they are just a 2d character with no depth. If you wanted to rant against the fact that she doesn't have her own movie, then that's at least understandable (though I've said that Cap 2 should have been called Captain America and The Black Widow). But in the Marvel movies, so far, the Black Widow has been portrayed as strong, capable and cool.

qft

Nah, stamina-wise, you two and your eternal vigilance are the real heroes.

NathanialG wrote:

Yes, he wrote The Walking Dead but I was thinking of his Invincible characters.

Ok, and good--I haven't heard anything good about TWD villains in their comic form (but hearsay is hardly the stuff to found blasphemy upon).

kuddles wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Looks like mildly criticising Joss Whedon is the greatest Geek Blasphemy of all.

I don't mind people loving his work if they didn't always push it on you as if you are wrong and just need to experience something else he created to form the "right" opinion. The discussion never ends with "I don't like Whedon's work", it's always "But what about...."

I had an ex-girlfriend who subjected me to that stuff. Yes, I know about Firefly. I know about that Buffy episode where nobody talks. I still think his writing is terrible.

Respeck Knuckles--except, if you wanna know the irony, I'll totally got to bat for the first five seasons of Buffy and Angel.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

if you wanna know the irony, I'll totally got to bat for the first five seasons of Buffy and Angel.

Fanboy.

I don't understand the love for Christopher Nolan. He's not bad, but I'd put him on par with Michael Bay as a director with a very blunt, graceless directoral style. It works for big budget action movies, but it leaves a lot to be desired from an artistic standpoint.

As a storyteller, he's pretty dependent on blunt storytelling. Memento and Inception are interesting ideas used in the most direct way possible with very little spark or surprise in the dialogue. And the Dark Knight movies are a mess of confused themes under a very broad umbrella of "vigilantism" and "heroic sacrifice".

There are directors whose work I don't enjoy, like Wes Anderson or Spike Jonez, who I can at least understand what their work brings to the table and what people enjoy about them. I just don't understand the love for Christopher Nolan as a brand name director.

Polish, I think - his works are generally stylistically consistent, and beautifully polished, like a highbrow Michael Bay. I'd say that of his movies, Memento and The Prestige are the ones that are the most well done, but he's a master craftsman, rather than an eccentric artist.

Tanglebones wrote:

Polish, I think - his works are generally stylistically consistent, and beautifully polished, like a highbrow Michael Bay. I'd say that of his movies, Memento and The Prestige are the ones that are the most well done, but he's a master craftsman, rather than an eccentric artist.

That's the thing: I don't see the craft, either, and polish is to be expected when you have that much money. His style is incredibly workmanlike, never using one graceful shot when he could use three.

Compare him to a director like Alfonso Cuarón, who I wouldn't describe as being an eccentric artist, but his direction is fascinating and he does absolutely wonderful things with his cameras. The spinning shot inside the car in Children of Men is subtle but breathtaking, and it's in the context of an action sequence in a sci-fi movie.

Christopher Nolan and ersatz sophistication in geek culture: a step up, or down, from the Wachowskis?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's the thing: I don't see the craft, either, and polish is to be expected when you have that much money. His style is incredibly workmanlike, never using one graceful shot when he could use three.

So how soon after the movie comes out will you be pointing out how much you dislike his work in the Interstellar thread?

Atras wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's the thing: I don't see the craft, either, and polish is to be expected when you have that much money. His style is incredibly workmanlike, never using one graceful shot when he could use three.

So how soon after the movie comes out will you be pointing out how much you dislike his work in the Interstellar thread?

There's a reason I posted this here instead of there.

Further geek confessions: Spaceballs is the beginning of the end for Mel Brooks. If we weren't all such fans of Star Wars/Trek (Clock and other posters in this thread excepted), we'd acknowledge that it's a major step down in quality over his earlier work

I think there's a different sort of impressive skill that Nolan has as well in regards to practical effects. Even if what we can do with computers these days is surprising, and especially how little you can tell some sequences that look completely practical are touched up, there are a lot of neat tricks Christopher Nolan pulls off exceptionally well.

However, you're right in that there's a lot that he also doesn't do. Alfonso himself really, really enjoys those single-take sequences and uses one in just about every film he does, if not multiple. They're an excellent method of keeping the viewer in the action, but they also require a lot of coordination on the part of the actors. They're really tough to pull off, but when you do, they're pretty damn excellent.

I think what gets me about Christopher Nolan is just that he's above average, and in some ways that's enough for me. I enjoyed Batman Begins, but The Prestige as an original film is what forced me to sit up and take notice.

Maybe part of it is that, with the exception of certain portions of Inception, Christopher Nolan happens to be a terrible action director, at least in regards to Batman. The actual fights and brawls tend to be messy and kinetic, and while he gets better as the films progress, the stuff he does the best are more ...I guess you could say the flashier moments of the action, perhaps?

But let's be honest with ourselves, people know his name more than Alfonso's because he directed Batman and saved the franchise from Joel Schumacher. Otherwise, if he went right from Memento to The Prestige, he'd still be obscure and probably would have never gotten the budget for Inception.

Tanglebones wrote:

Further geek confessions: Spaceballs is the beginning of the end for Mel Brooks. If we weren't all such fans of Star Wars/Trek (Clock and other posters in this thread excepted), we'd acknowledge that it's a major step down in quality over his earlier work

Speak for yourself. That movie cracks me up to this day.

Tanglebones wrote:

Further geek confessions: Spaceballs is the beginning of the end for Mel Brooks. If we weren't all such fans of Star Wars/Trek (Clock and other posters in this thread excepted), we'd acknowledge that it's a major step down in quality over his earlier work

I agree. It's interesting to watch his earlier films and compare them to his later ones. Movies like Young Frankenstein have humor popping at all levels: the subtle and the obvious, the high-brow and the low-brow, the easy targets and the obscure ones. From Spaceballs onward, his movies increasingly hit just one note, an easy satire of a pop culture phenomenon. It's funny, but if it were satirizing anything other than Star Wars, I doubt many people would pay much attention to it.

Tanglebones wrote:

Further geek confessions: Spaceballs is the beginning of the end for Mel Brooks. If we weren't all such fans of Star Wars/Trek (Clock and other posters in this thread excepted), we'd acknowledge that it's a major step down in quality over his earlier work

But Robin Hood: Men in Tights was spectacular even if you're not a Spaceballs fan!

mrwynd wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Further geek confessions: Spaceballs is the beginning of the end for Mel Brooks. If we weren't all such fans of Star Wars/Trek (Clock and other posters in this thread excepted), we'd acknowledge that it's a major step down in quality over his earlier work

But Robin Hood: Men in Tights was spectacular even if you're not a Spaceballs fan!

IMAGE(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m79psifb7p1rziwwco1_400.gif)

It has its moments - some good one liners, but overall, it's a sad affair, compared to Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, let alone The Producers.

Tanglebones wrote:
mrwynd wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Further geek confessions: Spaceballs is the beginning of the end for Mel Brooks. If we weren't all such fans of Star Wars/Trek (Clock and other posters in this thread excepted), we'd acknowledge that it's a major step down in quality over his earlier work

But Robin Hood: Men in Tights was spectacular even if you're not a Spaceballs fan!

IMAGE(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m79psifb7p1rziwwco1_400.gif)

It has its moments - some good one liners, but overall, it's a sad affair, compared to Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, let alone The Producers.

Personally, I celebrate the man's entire catalog.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/mhdFDnt.gif)

Eh, I'm not sure Mel Brooks ever had a strong run as a whole where he was firing on all cylinders. I've seen the spoof of Vertigo and thought it was alright, but it wasn't fantastic. Also seen a bit of Silent Movie, and while it's amusing, I don't think I'd watch it again.

I feel like part of what makes The Producers and Blazing Saddles notable is that they have that South Park vibe of being out to troll certain people, primarily those in charge of the money at entertainment, with Blazing Saddles also poking fun at racism. Blazing Saddles is especially a movie that just couldn't be made today, not without a lot of backlash and major studio involvement.

Spaceballs was essentially the first Mel Brooks movie where he toned all that stuff down and made jokes. Sure, there were the occasional pokes at Hollywood ("Moichandising!") and his constant poking at the Jewish presence of Hollywood ("Just what we need, a Druish princess"), but on the whole Spaceballs is just poking fun at sci-fi fantasy in general. While it certainly works in regards to a Star Wars parody, it also stands on its own as just a silly movie in general.

But it was basically the last film he made that was really of any quality. I'll watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights if its on, but I don't think I'd ever bother buying it. The great elements are too few and bland or boring elements too many.

Now here's my Geek Confession: I actually liked the musical remake of The Producers better than the original.

EDIT: Also, nice sneaky Supernatural gif there, Tangle.