Escapist Podcast - Movies and TV: 001: How Spider-Man 2 Sucks
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
(not showing up on the main page so I'll post here)
Great first episode.
--- Spiderman ----
Not a fan of Tobey Maguire mumbling lines while Kirsten Dunst sleepwalks through every scene. The new movies are not better than the old movies, just more entertaining if predictable and stupid. I can live with a lot of movie sins, just don't give me boring actors.
--- Too Many References ----
"...it doesn't feel very organic even if it's exceedingly clever..." basically sums up the Lego movie for me. Yes I loved it, but I don't believe it will stand the test of time with this generation like Secret of Nimh, Dark Crystal, Goonies, Beaty and the Beast, Last Unicorn, Neverending Story, Return to Oz, Snow White, Stand By Me, Mask of the Phantasm (...etc) did for their generations.
There's been a recent trend in movies not to be comfortable in their own skin, especially with fairy tales. They add subtle winks to the audience (parents), pop culture references and retreaded parodies in an attempt to be as Inkoo Kang said it, clever, but in reality it comes across as not being earnest. I have no doubt kids loved the Lego movie and even Frozen, but are these solid pillars of film for young viewers to grow an varied movie pallet from? I don't know - that's way outside my understanding and most likely tinted with strong nostalgia.
--- Game Of Thrones ----
With GoT, throughout the series they've (the producers, no not Nathan Lane!) tried to slowly paint Cersie as a sympathetic character with a true 'arc'. This was a missed opportunity in the books as she was a witch through and through until just recently when J.R. Martin finally realized what he can do with her.Changing a consensual sex scene to a semi rape scene cemented the tv show's goal for her in my mind.
TV show Cersie is now a character shaped by the world around her, grasping for solid footing in a hurricane, with no bastion of relief (thanks a lot Jamie). She now has depth and fits in the theme of GoT much more evenly even if it was a lazy attempt to pull at heart strings. That not withstanding, even the subtle mannerisms Lena Headey adds each episode has been a joy to watch and has slowly turned her into one of my favorite characters, or at least the most interesting.
--- The Last Thing Talked About ----
I can't remember what the last topic was... oh yea Office Space and Silicon Valley, bleh. I'll be honest this was the most boring part of the podcast. The discussion was not focused and eventually boiled down to "well we'll see"? Not much for a listener to build off of but I'll give it a shot since I've made it this far and as a whole really enjoyed the episode.
I live in Austin, Tx and work for a small tech startup looking to get acquired. I fit the mold of both the Silicon Valley and King of the Hill parody set forth by local Austinite Mike Judge. Look I'm not against him and really believe he's trying to be thoughtful, but from the few episodes of Silicon Valley I've seen the characters are over indulged characterchures of all the low hanging fruit previously swatted down by Big Bang Theory, Workaholics, Betas and even Office Space.
Sure tech shows distort reality; not ever engineer is socially awkward, you don't have to be an asshole to get somewhere, and not every idea is a million dollar one, but I was hoping for more from Judge who was in the tech industry back in the 80s. Right now it feels like normal tech industry dribble that's much less interesting of a story than the Social Network while amazingly being less believable.
I can only imagine how true detectives must feel...
Great first episode.
--- Spiderman ----
Not a fan of Tobey Maguire mumbling lines while Kirsten Dunst sleepwalks through every scene. The new movies are not better than the old movies, just more entertaining if predictable and stupid. I can live with a lot of movie sins, just don't give me boring actors.
--- Too Many References ----
"...it doesn't feel very organic even if it's exceedingly clever..." basically sums up the Lego movie for me. Yes I loved it, but I don't believe it will stand the test of time with this generation like Secret of Nimh, Dark Crystal, Goonies, Beaty and the Beast, Last Unicorn, Neverending Story, Return to Oz, Snow White, Stand By Me, Mask of the Phantasm (...etc) did for their generations.
There's been a recent trend in movies not to be comfortable in their own skin, especially with fairy tales. They add subtle winks to the audience (parents), pop culture references and retreaded parodies in an attempt to be as Inkoo Kang said it, clever, but in reality it comes across as not being earnest. I have no doubt kids loved the Lego movie and even Frozen, but are these solid pillars of film for young viewers to grow an varied movie pallet from? I don't know - that's way outside my understanding and most likely tinted with strong nostalgia.
--- Game Of Thrones ----
With GoT, throughout the series they've (the producers, no not Nathan Lane!) tried to slowly paint Cersie as a sympathetic character with a true 'arc'. This was a missed opportunity in the books as she was a witch through and through until just recently when J.R. Martin finally realized what he can do with her.Changing a consensual sex scene to a semi rape scene cemented the tv show's goal for her in my mind.
TV show Cersie is now a character shaped by the world around her, grasping for solid footing in a hurricane, with no bastion of relief (thanks a lot Jamie). She now has depth and fits in the theme of GoT much more evenly even if it was a lazy attempt to pull at heart strings. That not withstanding, even the subtle mannerisms Lena Headey adds each episode has been a joy to watch and has slowly turned her into one of my favorite characters, or at least the most interesting.
--- The Last Thing Talked About ----
I can't remember what the last topic was... oh yea Office Space and Silicon Valley, bleh. I'll be honest this was the most boring part of the podcast. The discussion was not focused and eventually boiled down to "well we'll see"? Not much for a listener to build off of but I'll give it a shot since I've made it this far and as a whole really enjoyed the episode.
I live in Austin, Tx and work for a small tech startup looking to get acquired. I fit the mold of both the Silicon Valley and King of the Hill parody set forth by local Austinite Mike Judge. Look I'm not against him and really believe he's trying to be thoughtful, but from the few episodes of Silicon Valley I've seen the characters are over indulged characterchures of all the low hanging fruit previously swatted down by Big Bang Theory, Workaholics, Betas and even Office Space.
Sure tech shows distort reality; not ever engineer is socially awkward, you don't have to be an asshole to get somewhere, and not every idea is a million dollar one, but I was hoping for more from Judge who was in the tech industry back in the 80s. Right now it feels like normal tech industry dribble that's much less interesting of a story than the Social Network while amazingly being less believable.
I can only imagine how true detectives must feel...
Just noticed that, thanks!TiberiusEsuriens said:
PS: Was a bit tired at that time after coming back from the gym so probably didn't read the whole description through.
We're still working on how we'd like to brand the original Escapist podcast, as to if we're going to start calling it the Videogame Podcast or if we're going to leave it as is and use it also as a platform for our various bonus podcasts. We'll let you all know as soon as we sort that out!Doom-Slayer said:
I really liked this podcast, although I couldn't find it on iTunes at all for whatever reason, the link just came up blank.
Although admittedly (and this is not to disagree or agree with any opinions expressed) the rape talk got a bit heavy during the game of thrones bit. "Too real" if you will. Not that these topics should be avoided, far from it, but I felt like it dragged a bit.
Still I want more of these, good stuff.
Although admittedly (and this is not to disagree or agree with any opinions expressed) the rape talk got a bit heavy during the game of thrones bit. "Too real" if you will. Not that these topics should be avoided, far from it, but I felt like it dragged a bit.
Still I want more of these, good stuff.
Excellent podcast over-all, I'm looking forward to the next one.
@Moviebob
The one point that Bob was way off in the corn field was on Google, San Francisco, and start-up culture.
Google's not doing anything to San Francisco. At all. Every one of SF's problems is either directly their fault or caused by their inaction. In California, there is a law (Prop 13) which severely limits property tax to increase at only 2% per year, but cities can tax business at rate they want. Now you have to provide expensive services to actual residents whereas business don't need a lot. So cities are only interested in bringing in businesses and are doing everything they can to limit population growth. In this respect, Mountain View, where Google is actually located, have blocked every attempt to build more or higher density housing nearby. Further, San Mateo county, the heart of Silicon Valley, has blocked BART expansion to the area. So even transit to the area sucks.
Further, when the nerds talk about 'disrupting' industries they're talking about making them suck less. Let's pick up on Bob's example of Taxi drivers losing their job. Taxi drivers aren't losing their job, they're losing their monopoly. SF has a hard limit on the number of cabs. As such, service sucks. Drivers are only interested in the best fares, want a ride to the Sunset district or Oakland. Nope, drivers will refuse to take you. Want to pay with a credit card, the machine is "broken". Have a complaint against a cabbie? "We don't know who was driving specifically, but it's not like you have a meaningful choice". It's so bad, that the city council *unanimously* approved Uber et al as being totally within the law. It's about removing economic sponges to the benefit of everyone else.
The one thing that sucks about start-up culture is the extreme business focus. Everyone has a start-up, that does stuff, on a mobile phone. The goal isn't profitability, or even sustainability. It's getting big, fast and then negotiating a buy-out from a major company. Although, I think business culture is general is pretty lame, so it could just be me.
@Moviebob
The one point that Bob was way off in the corn field was on Google, San Francisco, and start-up culture.
Google's not doing anything to San Francisco. At all. Every one of SF's problems is either directly their fault or caused by their inaction. In California, there is a law (Prop 13) which severely limits property tax to increase at only 2% per year, but cities can tax business at rate they want. Now you have to provide expensive services to actual residents whereas business don't need a lot. So cities are only interested in bringing in businesses and are doing everything they can to limit population growth. In this respect, Mountain View, where Google is actually located, have blocked every attempt to build more or higher density housing nearby. Further, San Mateo county, the heart of Silicon Valley, has blocked BART expansion to the area. So even transit to the area sucks.
Further, when the nerds talk about 'disrupting' industries they're talking about making them suck less. Let's pick up on Bob's example of Taxi drivers losing their job. Taxi drivers aren't losing their job, they're losing their monopoly. SF has a hard limit on the number of cabs. As such, service sucks. Drivers are only interested in the best fares, want a ride to the Sunset district or Oakland. Nope, drivers will refuse to take you. Want to pay with a credit card, the machine is "broken". Have a complaint against a cabbie? "We don't know who was driving specifically, but it's not like you have a meaningful choice". It's so bad, that the city council *unanimously* approved Uber et al as being totally within the law. It's about removing economic sponges to the benefit of everyone else.
The one thing that sucks about start-up culture is the extreme business focus. Everyone has a start-up, that does stuff, on a mobile phone. The goal isn't profitability, or even sustainability. It's getting big, fast and then negotiating a buy-out from a major company. Although, I think business culture is general is pretty lame, so it could just be me.
Overall not a bad start, but I did notice several factors that might be a problem going forward.
A: Too much Bob. Ross appeared to be the "moderator" of the podcast as part of his role as Host, and if that was/is the intent then he did a poor job in trying to incorporate Ingoo Kang into the conversation. There was a lack of balance between the two commentators. I don't know if that was because the two commentators weren't perceived to have an equal amount of knowledge to bring to the discussion. For example it seemed like Ingoo had nothing to say about Amazing Spiderman 2, which gave Bob a lot more airtime. If this is going to be a common issue going forward, it would behoove the moderator of the podcast to try to broaden the discussion to include topics that all commentators can provide input for.
Ai: In some cases it might be better to assume that the listeners have actual knowledge of the Escapist shows... and since it is blindingly obvious that Bob hates the rebooted Spiderman... that perhaps the moderator doesn't allow the podcast to dwell on a topic that is already well known to the Escapist fans? At most a passing mention and perhaps links in the description for people who want to get more information, and try to get new information in the podcast? Other than the one note about the death of Gwen Stacy and the potential sexist overtones, nothing else was really all that new. It was like 15+ minutes of listening to Bob swear about Amazing Spiderman 2...
B: Way too much unnecessary swearing. It made the Amazing Spiderman section nearly unlistenable thanks to Bob just swearing left, right, centre, top and bottom. It made me think of how often people these days think "Mature" = "Doing Stuff You Mother Told You Was Bad". It takes away from the mature discussion that came later
C: Doing it live and not editing anything may be a good thing, but man... this podcast needed some on the fly editing. Maybe having segments where you stop recording, take a moment behind the scenes to discuss how things are going and where you want them to go... and maybe bring up things like verbal ticks that might be good to stop doing? Bob and the swearing, Ingoo and her using "Like, you know" even more than Bob using some variation of the word "Fuck". Maybe having a few minutes to draw attention to things like that between segments might be able to cut things like that down?
All in all I enjoyed the podcast after the Amazing Spiderman 2 section (as I've listened to Bob's stuff on the Escapist about the topic, so it was pretty much just listening to him criticize it AGAIN. Yes it needs to be criticized, but it's getting tiring.) and I look forward to the next one. Don't take my issues as trying to say this podcast sucks - I liked it and I want it to be something I look forward to every week. I want it to get better.
A: Too much Bob. Ross appeared to be the "moderator" of the podcast as part of his role as Host, and if that was/is the intent then he did a poor job in trying to incorporate Ingoo Kang into the conversation. There was a lack of balance between the two commentators. I don't know if that was because the two commentators weren't perceived to have an equal amount of knowledge to bring to the discussion. For example it seemed like Ingoo had nothing to say about Amazing Spiderman 2, which gave Bob a lot more airtime. If this is going to be a common issue going forward, it would behoove the moderator of the podcast to try to broaden the discussion to include topics that all commentators can provide input for.
Ai: In some cases it might be better to assume that the listeners have actual knowledge of the Escapist shows... and since it is blindingly obvious that Bob hates the rebooted Spiderman... that perhaps the moderator doesn't allow the podcast to dwell on a topic that is already well known to the Escapist fans? At most a passing mention and perhaps links in the description for people who want to get more information, and try to get new information in the podcast? Other than the one note about the death of Gwen Stacy and the potential sexist overtones, nothing else was really all that new. It was like 15+ minutes of listening to Bob swear about Amazing Spiderman 2...
B: Way too much unnecessary swearing. It made the Amazing Spiderman section nearly unlistenable thanks to Bob just swearing left, right, centre, top and bottom. It made me think of how often people these days think "Mature" = "Doing Stuff You Mother Told You Was Bad". It takes away from the mature discussion that came later
C: Doing it live and not editing anything may be a good thing, but man... this podcast needed some on the fly editing. Maybe having segments where you stop recording, take a moment behind the scenes to discuss how things are going and where you want them to go... and maybe bring up things like verbal ticks that might be good to stop doing? Bob and the swearing, Ingoo and her using "Like, you know" even more than Bob using some variation of the word "Fuck". Maybe having a few minutes to draw attention to things like that between segments might be able to cut things like that down?
All in all I enjoyed the podcast after the Amazing Spiderman 2 section (as I've listened to Bob's stuff on the Escapist about the topic, so it was pretty much just listening to him criticize it AGAIN. Yes it needs to be criticized, but it's getting tiring.) and I look forward to the next one. Don't take my issues as trying to say this podcast sucks - I liked it and I want it to be something I look forward to every week. I want it to get better.
Interesting overall. It's nice to see regular contributors like Bob get a longer venue to further expand on subjects that had been presented in their regular shows/columns.
To speak briefly on the Game of Thrones issue that's presented itself recently. I'm glad to hear Inkoo address the consummation of Daenerys and Drogo's marriage.
It's baffled me to no small degree that folks have suddenly taken issue with the alteration of a scene from the book into an implicit rape scene when the show established from day one that this was a course it was willing to take.
To be clear, I'm not saying that complaining about it not is too late just that I've started to wonder why this particular instance raised so many eyebrows when the previous did not.
To speak briefly on the Game of Thrones issue that's presented itself recently. I'm glad to hear Inkoo address the consummation of Daenerys and Drogo's marriage.
It's baffled me to no small degree that folks have suddenly taken issue with the alteration of a scene from the book into an implicit rape scene when the show established from day one that this was a course it was willing to take.
To be clear, I'm not saying that complaining about it not is too late just that I've started to wonder why this particular instance raised so many eyebrows when the previous did not.
This scene garnered higher scrutiny because it means one of two things...
- Jamie's redemption story is complete nullified.
- It's ok to rape someone if that person is evil.
One has major story implications while the other is more of an indictment on culture. The dichotomy between the two is what drives conversation.
- Jamie's redemption story is complete nullified.
- It's ok to rape someone if that person is evil.
One has major story implications while the other is more of an indictment on culture. The dichotomy between the two is what drives conversation.
I actually really enjoyed this podcast. Got to hear a few different voices (not that there is anything wrong with the normal podcast people/voices) and a different subject matter as the "primary" focus.
Looking forward to hearing more of these, especially with the burst of new movies coming out over the next while.
Looking forward to hearing more of these, especially with the burst of new movies coming out over the next while.
I can't help but think you all missed the point of the end of Office Space. It want that he wanted to be a real man. He just didn't enjoy office work and that was a him problem. So now he has an out door job and a pre-stripper Jennifer Aniston girl friend.
Interesting Podcast. I'm really liking all the new content on The Escapist with the extra channels.
Couple of things about ASM2 (I enjoyed it by the way, thought it was flawed but as good as Raimi's.)
I'll concede any points about Garfield's accent simply because since I'm a non American I wouldn't have a notion about whether was consistent or not.
Didn't notice the clocks. That went over my head. Liked the speech by Gwen. Looking at her character, her dad died in the line of duty, her boyfriend refuses to fully commit to their relationship because he's afraid of her (possibly) getting hurt. Why wouldn't a smart girl like her write a speech talking about doing what you can in the time that you have it? I think it was loyal to her character and I liked all the foreboding. All movie long Peter was terrified of losing Gwen. and then he lost Gwen. Awesome, tragic enough, and totally Spiderman.
The cheesy bit in ASM1 where they move the cranes around wasn't half as bad as the crowd throwing rubbish at the green goblin in Spiderman, or even in Spiderman 2 when Peter Parker is unmasked on the train (Am, Hello? secret identity?) and then they carry him around on some kind of weird quasi-holy crowd surf. Ugh.
The death scene...I didn't like all the clockwork stuff either but the death scene was as good as in the comics, IMO.
And you're discounting the several amazing fight scenes and moments of awesome in the movie; The fight in times square, Spiderman trying to catch all the radioactive cannisters, the hilarious chemistry between Paul Giamatti...
Also we had three people on the podcast, one had seen the movie and was panning it, the other two hadn't seen it had no notion of seeing it, but were agreeing with the opinion that the movie was terrible? Really? Where is the actual discussion in this?
Also, I didn't think that this vision of Spiderman was all that dark. Not compared with anything in the Nolanverse anyway.
Now I wouldn't say that this vision of the character is perfect by any means, but for me its a worthy one.
As worthy as Raimi and McGuires anyway.
/Rant
Couple of things about ASM2 (I enjoyed it by the way, thought it was flawed but as good as Raimi's.)
I'll concede any points about Garfield's accent simply because since I'm a non American I wouldn't have a notion about whether was consistent or not.
Didn't notice the clocks. That went over my head. Liked the speech by Gwen. Looking at her character, her dad died in the line of duty, her boyfriend refuses to fully commit to their relationship because he's afraid of her (possibly) getting hurt. Why wouldn't a smart girl like her write a speech talking about doing what you can in the time that you have it? I think it was loyal to her character and I liked all the foreboding. All movie long Peter was terrified of losing Gwen. and then he lost Gwen. Awesome, tragic enough, and totally Spiderman.
The cheesy bit in ASM1 where they move the cranes around wasn't half as bad as the crowd throwing rubbish at the green goblin in Spiderman, or even in Spiderman 2 when Peter Parker is unmasked on the train (Am, Hello? secret identity?) and then they carry him around on some kind of weird quasi-holy crowd surf. Ugh.
The death scene...I didn't like all the clockwork stuff either but the death scene was as good as in the comics, IMO.
And you're discounting the several amazing fight scenes and moments of awesome in the movie; The fight in times square, Spiderman trying to catch all the radioactive cannisters, the hilarious chemistry between Paul Giamatti...
Also we had three people on the podcast, one had seen the movie and was panning it, the other two hadn't seen it had no notion of seeing it, but were agreeing with the opinion that the movie was terrible? Really? Where is the actual discussion in this?
Also, I didn't think that this vision of Spiderman was all that dark. Not compared with anything in the Nolanverse anyway.
Now I wouldn't say that this vision of the character is perfect by any means, but for me its a worthy one.
As worthy as Raimi and McGuires anyway.
/Rant
I also got the impression that it was the particular business he worked for, Initech, that was such a terrible place to work. Basically it represented all the worst elements of a white collar office job magnified. But presumably (or at least hopefully) the place his friends ended up working for was more tolerable.bdcjacko said:
Yes, I'm removing my FB posts because too much MAD not enough civility. Trying again.
Game of Thrones and Rape:
Let's try some contextual complexity.
Either, A) it wasn't a rape, it was a rough fuck and Cersei, bitchy, vicious, ruthless Cersei took it and liked it or B) Jamie is a flawed character who did a terrible thing because he loves her. To someone who's killed for less.
That's not a small thing: if Cersei was actually violently violated by the person she loves (as much as she can love anyone) how does it make the slightest sense for her not to exact a horrific revenge? CERSEI. RAPE. MERCY. EVER.
It's also possible for someone to have a severe character defect and yet to otherwise be a human being. How shallow can you get to demand ALL RAPISTS MUST BE THE MOUNTAIN, THIS IS MORAL LAW.
There doesn't have to be any hidden meaning besides "boy are these two people fucked up!"
There's no RAEP IZ GUUD message encoded there. It's ambiguous, not zomg blindly wrong. And cognitively dissonant as it may be to see your own mores contravened if the actors and the directors stumble into the glare of public outrage and say "we didn't think it was a rape..." then maybe they'd be the ones who'd know?
I know sexual assault is a mess to establish and prosecute IRL but if the victim, who's not a minor and who is plausible possessed of a competent mental state, claims not to have been raped then they probably weren't raped. No victim, no crime (-George Lucas did not actually "rape your childhood!" You just feel that way, and I'm sympathetic, but it's overwrought bullshit).
And because this is Teh Intarwebs, and mob justice is a thing, I'm not demanding anyone agree with me. I'm demanding that this conversation try a higher intellectual level of congress then IT'S GOOD AND EVIL ONLY. Fucking hell. "Jamie Lannister: bleach-white-knight or baby-eating-RAPIST, choose!" In fucking Game of Thrones!
And who the fuck actually WANTS to live in Westeros?! With the plagues and the wars and the Lannisters and Winter Is Coming and Castle Black and Legalized Slavery and the absence of things like plumbing and the rule of law. Anybody who thinks "oh, I'd be fine" and isn't already The Hound in real life should expect a fantasy life characterized by a rough start, a long boring middle, and a terrifying, agonizing conclusion.
Game of Thrones and Rape:
Let's try some contextual complexity.
Either, A) it wasn't a rape, it was a rough fuck and Cersei, bitchy, vicious, ruthless Cersei took it and liked it or B) Jamie is a flawed character who did a terrible thing because he loves her. To someone who's killed for less.
That's not a small thing: if Cersei was actually violently violated by the person she loves (as much as she can love anyone) how does it make the slightest sense for her not to exact a horrific revenge? CERSEI. RAPE. MERCY. EVER.
It's also possible for someone to have a severe character defect and yet to otherwise be a human being. How shallow can you get to demand ALL RAPISTS MUST BE THE MOUNTAIN, THIS IS MORAL LAW.
There doesn't have to be any hidden meaning besides "boy are these two people fucked up!"
There's no RAEP IZ GUUD message encoded there. It's ambiguous, not zomg blindly wrong. And cognitively dissonant as it may be to see your own mores contravened if the actors and the directors stumble into the glare of public outrage and say "we didn't think it was a rape..." then maybe they'd be the ones who'd know?
I know sexual assault is a mess to establish and prosecute IRL but if the victim, who's not a minor and who is plausible possessed of a competent mental state, claims not to have been raped then they probably weren't raped. No victim, no crime (-George Lucas did not actually "rape your childhood!" You just feel that way, and I'm sympathetic, but it's overwrought bullshit).
And because this is Teh Intarwebs, and mob justice is a thing, I'm not demanding anyone agree with me. I'm demanding that this conversation try a higher intellectual level of congress then IT'S GOOD AND EVIL ONLY. Fucking hell. "Jamie Lannister: bleach-white-knight or baby-eating-RAPIST, choose!" In fucking Game of Thrones!
And who the fuck actually WANTS to live in Westeros?! With the plagues and the wars and the Lannisters and Winter Is Coming and Castle Black and Legalized Slavery and the absence of things like plumbing and the rule of law. Anybody who thinks "oh, I'd be fine" and isn't already The Hound in real life should expect a fantasy life characterized by a rough start, a long boring middle, and a terrifying, agonizing conclusion.
Anyway. Not a bad start, but less opinion and more information.
Calling The Hero of A Thousand Faces generic to some proto-society is impressively ballsy without some actual source for that bald a claim.
Also whatsername is out of her depth, at least by 38 mins in. Enough with "lol you must have been nerds." That's on the same level as claiming that all cosplayers were, are, and forever will be attention whores. To share that thought isn't reason enough to inhale, nevermind actually voice that sentence aloud.
Edit: ok, the "wow I so agree with you because you're saying what I'm saying" part of the Game of Thrones discussion is waaaay to long. I'm skipping ahead twenty minutes.
Edit2: Actually, no. I'm pretty sure Game of Thrones does not relate to you. You watch it, you are clearly engaged, but it's not about you. It's its own thing; a stand alone complex.
Try this: take "X relates to me" and try other kinds of fictional things.
"Birth of a Nation relates to me."
"MAG (PS3) relates to me."
"The Book of Mormon relates to me."
"The original Battlestar Galactica relates to me."
"Brazzers relates to me."
See? These things do not actually "relate to you." They exist and you interact with them, or don't, but they don't address you directly. You project your interest onto them and you maybe influence them in a very abstract way, but they aren't specifically communicating to you.
This podcast does not relate to me. I'm interested in it, and I'm discussing it, but it doesn't not at all speak to me. It speaks to everyone and I listen -it's a one-way street except for threads like this.
Calling The Hero of A Thousand Faces generic to some proto-society is impressively ballsy without some actual source for that bald a claim.
Also whatsername is out of her depth, at least by 38 mins in. Enough with "lol you must have been nerds." That's on the same level as claiming that all cosplayers were, are, and forever will be attention whores. To share that thought isn't reason enough to inhale, nevermind actually voice that sentence aloud.
Edit: ok, the "wow I so agree with you because you're saying what I'm saying" part of the Game of Thrones discussion is waaaay to long. I'm skipping ahead twenty minutes.
Edit2: Actually, no. I'm pretty sure Game of Thrones does not relate to you. You watch it, you are clearly engaged, but it's not about you. It's its own thing; a stand alone complex.
Try this: take "X relates to me" and try other kinds of fictional things.
"Birth of a Nation relates to me."
"MAG (PS3) relates to me."
"The Book of Mormon relates to me."
"The original Battlestar Galactica relates to me."
"Brazzers relates to me."
See? These things do not actually "relate to you." They exist and you interact with them, or don't, but they don't address you directly. You project your interest onto them and you maybe influence them in a very abstract way, but they aren't specifically communicating to you.
This podcast does not relate to me. I'm interested in it, and I'm discussing it, but it doesn't not at all speak to me. It speaks to everyone and I listen -it's a one-way street except for threads like this.
One more thing on Nerds and Tech.
Ok, revenge is a possible motivation but consider this: isn't that what everyone does when they "win"?
Seriously. Look at capital venture firms. Or any powerful corporation. Or politician.
"I'm using my power to wreck this other guy's shit" is basic American Victory 101. Getting your way over the broken, steaming corpses of the weak is exactly what we expect will happen, and it's what happens. I want to point out that Corporate/Conquest Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum -it's Us, it's our flag, our slogan.
For example the whole idea of opposing a monopoly is hilariously hypocritical. With that a corporation's accepted mission statement is "prosper as much as possible by any means permissable" we have the gall to get pissy when that's exactly what happens? Of course a given corp, say Microsoft, wants a monopoly! That's the whole point -start winning, keep winning, and fuck the collateral.
We have this stupid double-standard wherein with public life we demand a basic equity of outcome -nobody should just starve and die because they're dumb or unlucky or under-prepared, but it private business that's EXACTLY WHAT WE DEMAND OCCURS! FUCK THE WEAK! THE STRONG ARE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE MIGHTY, AND MIGHTY BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT! 'MURICA!
And then we pretend that these two spheres are somehow separated by some sacred unspoken law. It is "wrong" that corporations make laws?
Yeah. BUT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, IS IT?!
Fuck's sake.
I don't like Monsanto, but I don't pretend Monsanto is somehow blindly malicious. They're playing the game for which we wrote the rules, and when they don't profit from the rules they change them using our laws. There's a saying, "the scandal is not what's illegal, but what's legal."
Well, guess what. Our rules clash with our values. And we're upset. But we're not paying enough attention to actually win and we're loading our culture with moronic double-standards and then we wonder why our best and brightest tend to have terrifying streaks of ruthlessness.
Well I've give you a hint: "winner take all." We tell them they should, but we get upset WHEN THEY TAKE EVERYTHING!
Ok, revenge is a possible motivation but consider this: isn't that what everyone does when they "win"?
Seriously. Look at capital venture firms. Or any powerful corporation. Or politician.
"I'm using my power to wreck this other guy's shit" is basic American Victory 101. Getting your way over the broken, steaming corpses of the weak is exactly what we expect will happen, and it's what happens. I want to point out that Corporate/Conquest Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum -it's Us, it's our flag, our slogan.
For example the whole idea of opposing a monopoly is hilariously hypocritical. With that a corporation's accepted mission statement is "prosper as much as possible by any means permissable" we have the gall to get pissy when that's exactly what happens? Of course a given corp, say Microsoft, wants a monopoly! That's the whole point -start winning, keep winning, and fuck the collateral.
We have this stupid double-standard wherein with public life we demand a basic equity of outcome -nobody should just starve and die because they're dumb or unlucky or under-prepared, but it private business that's EXACTLY WHAT WE DEMAND OCCURS! FUCK THE WEAK! THE STRONG ARE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE MIGHTY, AND MIGHTY BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT! 'MURICA!
And then we pretend that these two spheres are somehow separated by some sacred unspoken law. It is "wrong" that corporations make laws?
Yeah. BUT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, IS IT?!
Fuck's sake.
I don't like Monsanto, but I don't pretend Monsanto is somehow blindly malicious. They're playing the game for which we wrote the rules, and when they don't profit from the rules they change them using our laws. There's a saying, "the scandal is not what's illegal, but what's legal."
Well, guess what. Our rules clash with our values. And we're upset. But we're not paying enough attention to actually win and we're loading our culture with moronic double-standards and then we wonder why our best and brightest tend to have terrifying streaks of ruthlessness.
Well I've give you a hint: "winner take all." We tell them they should, but we get upset WHEN THEY TAKE EVERYTHING!