Seeing Myself: The Importance of Representation

Every year it's the same problem: I go to pick out a new cosplay only to realize once again that anything I pick out I'll have to bend to fit my demographic. Rick of Rick and Morty becomes Fat Non-White Rick. Harley Quinn becomes Fat Boy Non-White Harley Quinn.

The only costume I could pull of with my ethnic traits and body type is Mario.

What Is Representation? 

Representation is the ability to see similarities in the characters one sees in media and one's own self. This can be anything, including age, gender, race, sexuality, religion, language or even personal experience. A person can enjoy a character even if none of these traits are apparent, how many people after all have bought Baby Yoda and Baby Groot merchandise without being a big eared alien or a tree? But when a majority of human characters look the same (i.e.Caucasian males between 16 and 25 with trim beach-ready bods and perfect hair whisking their equally athletic blonde love interests into the sunset, it's hard to not eventually take it personal.

The Street Rat

The first time I ever saw someone who looked like me playing the hero was in Disney's Aladdin. The titular hero has tanned skin, and while I am not from the Middle East, that one trait was enough to let me know that I wasn't alone in the world and that people of my own color could be heroes. After that Disney came out with a small pile of heroes I understood, like how Beast had a temper like mine when I was a kid, or how Quasimodo felt like a monster, a problem I faced most of my life since I feel like I look like a Mr. Potato Head that was left out in the sun. Being able to see myself, even partially, was valuable to me because it validated my existence as a person to see other people like me.

When Representation Goes Bad

Fast forward several years, the MCU is at the height of popularity, though unfortunately full of the white Caucasian slim-fits that were as alien to me as Drax. Spider-Man: Homecoming enters theaters and my friends all tell me that there's a character that reminds them of me down to a tee. Curious and excited I see the film to see the character they were talking about-Peter Parker's fat Filipino-American nerd friend. I wanted to be insulted. This. This is what my friends see me as. This is how I get represented. As a comedy character sidekick. This character is in the list of characters I could pull off in a cosplay, and it hurt.

I don't want it to come across that I thin the character shouldn't be there. He is fun and makes for a pretty good audience surrogate, but my issue is that he's the only person who looks like me in film. I want to be the hero, or at the very least get to be part of the action rather than delegated to a computer lab helping the hero save the day.

This sadly is not the most insulting comparison that's been made with me. One of the most offensive pieces of media in the last several years (in my humble opinion) is the TV series Big Bang Theory. The show portrays four geeks who follow every piece of geek stereotyping: Social ineptitude, obsession, oblivious to fashion, even portraying stereotypes long since thought to be overcome, including Jewish, Indian and people on the autism spectrum. While the show was on the air and in its hey day I was constantly hearing comparisons between myself and the characters, to which I would become legitimately insulted. I felt like my interests, my personality and the things I hold dear were being exploited for entertainment, and it made others think of me as the same joke character as these people were.

Onward and Upward

With as many missteps as are taken over the years hope still abides. This week Disney released a film celebrating geeks all over and giving them the proper Disney treatment. Chris Pratt, famed comedian and actor, plays Barley, a large nerd who enjoys life. From what we've seen of the trailers Barley is not portrayed as useless but more of following his own drummer, and while his skin tone is bright blue I am very pleased to announce that he is a more hefty fellow, calling back to Pratt's body shape before hunking up for Guardians of the Galaxy.
Onward.

It's important for people to see themselves in films, even briefly. Onward has caught online slack for featuring Disney's first in-canon LGBTQ character (though I would dispute that with Le Fou from the live action Beauty and the Beast but whatever). The character, a background cop with one line indicating that she has a girlfriend. Some picture the damage it could cause children to see this character, but I imagine the person struggling with their identity seeing a character like them, even if it's just one line in the background, and knowing that they are not alone in the universe, they're not a freak or a monster, they're a person.

Incidentally, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I am the proud owner of a large stuffed Barley. We play video games together.

-JOE

Also check out our review of "Onward"

Unpacking the Man-Child

The dinner party nears its end when the conversation at the table turns to the latest trends in Magic the Gathering. The men begin asking me what the new sets are like when two of the wives stand up and say "We'll be in the living room. Come ladies, let's leave the man-children to their games."

I have to suppress my shock as well as several unpleasant things about to come out of my mouth. 

The term man-child refers to an adult male who disregards his responsibilities for fun and games, or in other ways acts childish. The common image is the 30 year old man living in his parent's basement, playing video games and not bathing on a regular basis. 

A fine description until it gets thrown around near me.

Geeks Are Not Man-Children

The issue I have with the phrase is when it's applied to geeks in general or any male who expresses passion outside of going to and from work every day. I've heard it pulled out and used to apply to anything from fathers playing with their children to a man who lovingly restores cars. It seems that any time a man allows themselves to indulge in something they enjoy they are immediately called out for being childish, disregarding the fact that they may have a successful career, a loving family, or be a responsible priesthood holder. 

The labeling of men who have passion as man-children begs the question: What is expected of men if not to have passion? I've met men of prior generations who have devoted their entire lives to throwing themselves at work in order to support a family. The expectation to be the sole provider for the family and nothing else killed any drive to do or become anything else. These men would then come home exhausted and watch TV until bed, only acknowledging the family when they became annoying to him or disturbed his respite. 

I don't mean to critique a hard working man who provides for his family. I don't even blame a man for being exhausted by his job and just wanting to come home and have some peace. What I'm saying is that if a man does not fit into that mold and has the time, energy and resources to pursue a passion or hobby he shouldn't be chastised for it and compared to a child. 

The Power of Words

It may not seem like such a big deal. "I call him a man-child out of affection!" one might argue, but the problem is that words are what shapes how we think about a person or group. While the mainstream popularity of Dungeons and Dragons, Marvel and other properties formally kept to the back of the comic book shop have skyrocketed over the years, geeks still struggle to be taken seriously by the media and culture in general. When we call someone a "man-child" just for they express joy in something or because they want to talk about their favorite hobby, we're saying that their interest is not okay in our eyes, which then tells other people that expressing the same passions are not okay either, leaving them to maybe abandon something they once love in exchange for a perceived concept of normalization. 

The next time you refer to someone as a man-child, stop and think why you're using that term. Is it truly childish to love something so much you get excited over it? Is it childish to spend money on a hobby when it doesn't take away from time and expense with the family? Would you want something you love to be considered childish and told you couldn't do it because you had to be more of an adult? 

-JOE

Krypton and other Stupid Ideas

Yet another TV show is coming out based in the DC Universe but is only tangentially connected to anything worth making a show out of. I'm of course talking about Krypton, SyFy's new enterprise based on JorEl, the adventures of Superman's biological dad.

Ugh. 

Who is JorEl?

Normally we don't get much from JorEl except that he was a scientist who threw his baby in a rocket and launched it at Earth right before his own planet exploded. Occasionally we've got stuff like the crystal tech that allows him to talk to Superman and give him random advice and honestly that's all we really needed. JorEl's part in the story was done. On Krypton he was a scientist (presumably a geologist since he figured out Krypton would explode but he also built a rocket so whatever) and while a couple comics here and there have mentioned him we don't need much more. 

Not the First Time

This is an overall problem I'm seeing with DC and Marvel universes. They keep making TV shows about either the long drawn out origin story of super heroes, IE Smallville and Gotham, or the company's D List, IE Supergirl, Arrow, The Defenders and the Legends of Tomorrow. We'll let Marvel slide on this one because they seem to be legitimately trying to make a massive world with varying degrees of success but every one of DC's shows take place in different universes. 

A Thought on CW

The CW shows have a similar problem in that they focus on the part of the super heroes lives that we don't care about. Arrow and Flash's bigger plots are the always tired "Will they/Won't they?" TV storytelling trope. Between every awesome battle we have to stop the flow and talk about weather or not Oliver will tell whoever that he loves her or if Supergirl can date whoever-nobody-cares-man.

What If...

I don't want to see Superman's dad, or Bruce Wayne's training, I want to see Superman and Batman. If DC took all the money they keep pouring into these idiotic backstories and romantic comedies into one show about the Justice League, how they got together and them doing a monster/villain of the week thing, I guarantee it'd be more popular than Superman: Before The Cape could ever be. They could get smaller unknown actors to play the major parts, introduce other heroes later if they need to rotate the team as happens in comics, and maybe even make spin-offs as they need to. 

Tell me you wouldn't watch this show. 

-JOE

Spoiler-ish Yu-Gi-Oh Dark Side of Dimensions Review

In a world that is eating nostalgia up faster than popcorn during movie theater trailer, it’s not surprising to see so many franchises from the past 20 years and longer trying to make some sort of comeback. Power Rangers is doing that this year, Digimon started celebrating their 15^th anniversary a couple years ago, and we’ve already gotten 2 seasons of Fuller House on Netflix. So I was excited to see Yu-Gi-Oh’s 20^th anniversary movie this weekend, but I was underwhelmed and disappointed.

So the concept is solid: Pharaoh Atem’s spirit has been released for a while, but Kaiba having the big head that he does can’t leave it alone. He is determined to bring the Pharaoh back and duel him to settle his score. Next enter a new villain who has a vendetta and of course Yugi ends up right in the middle of it. While I liked the concept (the idea of bringing the Pharaoh back was intriguing because both Yugi and Kaiba were struggling to come to terms with his departure), the actual execution of this plot was not well done. And then in the end it was all wrapped with a deus ex machina that didn’t even get an ounce of explanation. So while Yugi and Kaiba got closure, I didn’t.

One thing I liked about this movie was bringing back the entire
gang back together again. Regardless of my other critiques,
the characterization of each of these were on point.

In a way the plot and mechanics of the movie were a little over-complicated. Instead of just a villain and a vendetta, we got oodles of backstory that I didn’t even care about. I mean, some villain backstory is necessary, but I felt like we got too much. Besides all that, the villain’s method of dueling was bizarre. If it had been properly explained, it might have been fine. Instead, things were brushed over. Also there were a lot of new cards added (mostly support cards for Blue-Eyes and Dark Magician) that I knew nothing about, so I was lost as far as exactly what they were doing. Granted, unlike in the TV show, the effects were written on the cards, but I don’t think split second shots to read card effects is sufficient.

Speaking of cards, I also didn’t care for the redesign of some of the cards. Dark Magician and Obelisk the Tormentor looked way too different from the original anime. Now if 100% of the cards had changed, I’d have been more okay with it. Instead, Dark Magician Girl and others looked exactly the same. I don’t know if it was to make the tone of the movie darker or what, but I didn’t care for it much. I certainly didn’t care for the inconsistency.

Dark Magician was the same in the card, so
why did the hologram change?

I’m also a bit sick of Kaiba’s overly prideful attitude. He’s always been obnoxious and a jerk (and a bit delusional), but I’d have thought after his experience in the Memory World and the final duel between Yugi and Atem (granted, that only happened in the anime, not the manga) that he’d be a bit humbler. Nope, instead he developed a god complex as he developed his new tech. Like I said, delusional.

One final critique: As much as this movie tried to tie up some loose ends regarding Bakura and Shadi and giving closure to Yugi and Kaiba, it left me with more questions, regarding the nature of the Millennium Items, the fate of the Pharaoh, and Shadi’s past (never mind that ending). I understand that this movie wasn’t planned when the original story was written, but the added details didn’t sit too well with me. It felt like there was inconsistencies in the story…. And having been a huge fan of Once Upon a Time and Lost, I have proven that I can handle inconsistencies and plot holes.

The movie had some good themes. The idea of fear and hate not being able to fix anything or make a better world is perfect for our world today. Like I said in a previous post, I see a lot of us vs. them going on (and Facebook is just a small microcosm of that) and it’s not going to solve anything in the world. A world of peace CANNOT be created through fear and anger.

As much as I have my issues with this movie, it was nice
to see Yugi finally face Kaiba all on his own.

Honestly, if this movie had been a trilogy or something, it might have been better, kind of like how Digimon is doing six movies for Digimon Adventure Tri. If we’d had more time, we could have gotten used to Dimension Duels and we could have had more time to develop the villain and we wouldn’t have had to rush through the duels we had.

All in all, there was nothing wrong with the movie… just hard to follow and process. Maybe if I watch it a second time I’ll feel differently, but I was frustrated enough with this that I’d rather not buy the movie. I’d rather watch one of the other two movies (“Pyramid of Light” or “Bonds Beyond Time”); they’re not perfect, but they were a lot more self-contained than this one.

Anyway, I’m done ranting. If you’ve seen “Dark Side of Dimensions”, let me know what you think. Would you recommend it? Do you disagree with me or am I on point?

The Problem With The Christmas Project

Get ready for a rant.

So I keep seeing commercials for the latest LDS Christmas movie The Christmas Project. For those who don't obsessively watch TV, here's a rundown of the plot as gathered from the commercials: There's a kid who's bullied at school and his family randomly decides to do a secret Santa project for his bullies family, who apparently live in a literal shack. The kid goes onto say how he learns that even the bully isn't as bad as he seemed as he sees the bully helping his little sister try on some gloves.

Here's my problem:

Sweet Christmas stories aren't supposed to be cinematic masterpieces, or even reflect reality in any way. However, I have a major problem with the idea that the victim of bullying is the one who needs to learn a lesson about accepting others through his bully and that that's somehow the solution to the kid's bullying problem. In no other crime (Yes, I say crime, because if these kids were adults then the kid would be well within his rights to press charges against his bully) is the victim expected to sympathize with their attacker. If we had a movie about a shopkeeper who is robbed at gunpoint, then the shopkeeper isn't going to track down the criminal, find out he was trying to feed his family and give him $50. As sweet as that concept is, the problem is that the guy was an armed gunman in the first place.

Bullying is a serious problem that's been addressed in media for decades. However, it's almost always addressed from the point of view of the victim, and the bully is usually an undereducated poverty stricken villain who is incapable of changing, leaving it on the Erkles and the Bart Simpsons of the world to find ways to deal with him in increasingly creative ways. While this certainly has entertainment value, it's still offensive to put solving the problem of bullying solely on the victim instead of addressing the real causes of bullying.

I have an idea:

The concept of this film isn't bad, after all if you truly want to learn to love someone else then service is the best way to do it, however I think the lesson needs to be learned by the bully and his family instead of the victims. So here's my rewrite:

We'll write it from the point of view of the bully. We'll keep it family and Seagull Book friendly, that's not a problem. So the bully, we'll name him Tommy, has this dad who is a high school basketball coach who's extremely competitive and has one of those strict traditional views of masculinity, basically if you're not into sports you're a wuss and a loser. He says this to his family constantly even pressuring Tommy into being an athlete. In Tommy's class we have Sam. Sam is your average geek, reading comic books, playing video games ect., basically the opposite of how Tommy has viewed what a boy should be. Tommy bullies Sam relentlessly. One day in early December Tommy's dad's team suffers a massive loss and his dad is furious, calling the other team geeks and losers. He doesn't abuse Tommy, but it is obvious he is angry about the loss. The next day Tommy goes to school and sees Sam do something that sets him off so he starts bullying Sam again. The situation escalates and either through violence or due to a relatively innocent accident Tommy seriously injures Sam. Tommy's parents are immediately called to the school and when questioned about why Tommy would hurt Sam, Tommy starts repeating the rhetoric he's heard at home from his dad. His dad, completely horrified that his own prejudices have lead to his son becoming a bully and injuring another student, decides to do something about it: He decides to secret Santa Sam's family. The rest of the movie is about Tommy and his father learning to accept those who are different than them as they serve Sam's family.

Okay, so my movie idea isn't exactly It's a Wonderful Life, but if we're going to write a Christmas movie about bullying let's make sure the right person learns the lesson about acceptance and the right person gets served. You wouldn't have Bob Cratchett show up on Scrooge's doorstep with his sad Christmas goose and Tiny Tim holding his laundry, so let's not have anymore kids try to show up to their bullies with the offering of friendship only to end up with a black eye.

-JOE

In Defense of Digimon

I don't know who made this fan-art, but I love it!

So I never did get around to that Once Upon a Time rant. I was calmed enough by the season finale that I let it go… for now. We’ll see how I feel when I watch the most recent season and/or when the next season comes out. For today though I have something else in mind. Time for a trip to my childhood: Digimon. I swear I still hear people commenting on how Digimon wasn’t as good as Pokemon. I love both franchises. They are my childhood. I still enjoy both of them. However, Digimon did not get enough credit. There are probably some things that Pokemon did wrong (I’ll touch on those, but that’s probably a discussion for another time), but there are definitely things that Digimon did right that were underappreciated. I was going to recap briefly the different seasons of Digimon for a quick refresher, but it got too long (nobody has time to read all of that). If you need a refresher, I suggest going to the Digimon Wiki.

One of the biggest things that sets the Digimon and Pokemon animes apart in my mind is the writing. For a children’s show, Digimon was very well written. Using Season 1 as an example, though Tai, Sora, and Matt probably got the most screen time, all eight of the Digi-Destined children got a pretty decent amount of screen time and each of them fleshed out and each of them get character development. This is actually pretty true of each of the seasons I’ve watched.

After he stopped being the Emperor, Ken had to fight the
darkness each day. That's what I call character development

A wonderful example of the character development is Mimi. She started out as a spoiled, annoying princess, but throughout the season she softened up and realized that there was more to life than shopping and keeping up appearances. In fact, she’s the one who in some ways has the biggest heart when some of their friends start dying. We see that continue into Season 2 when she is actually quite mature in how she teaches Yolei about being kind to people. Then there’s Ken in season 2. He started out as the Digimon Emperor, but when he learned that the Digital World was real and he was hurting innocent creatures, who had real feelings, he went through a huge redemption arc, struggling to find forgiveness for the horrible things he had done.

It is possible to age your characters properly, as seen in
Season 1, Season 2, and Digimon Tri (released last year)

Other points on the story-writing. While it’s a little annoying as the viewer to be jumping between

parallel world to parallel Digital World each season, it is refreshing because it’s new. One thing that Pokemon has done wrong is that they’ve stuck with Ash the whole time. Ever since the Pokemon anime started in the late 90s, Ash has been the star. His traveling companions have changed over time, but to this day, Ash looks exactly the same as the day he got Pikachu (am I to believe that almost two decades’ worth of adventures happened in less than a year?). It’s difficult to age a character on an animated show, but they could have possibly done more characters or mixed it up. That’s what my understanding is of the Pokemon manga. They have new characters each generation, like the games. Anyway, we’re not talking about Pokemon. We’re talking about Digimon. I would have preferred it if they kept their story to one world, like they did with seasons 1 and 2 and Digimon Tri (15th anniversary series), but all the same it’s refreshing to see new faces. It keeps the story from getting stale.

Can we just talk for a second about how awesome this was?

I have one more story-writing point: a cohesive plot. To my knowledge, the Pokemon anime doesn’t really have a cohesive plot, other than get badges, catch Pokemon, and the occasional criminal team story arc. On the other hand, each Digimon season has a cohesive story. I think the best example of this is Season 2: The children fight the Digimon Emperor, who reforms and helps them fight Arukenimon and Mummymon, who are working for Oikawa, who was possessed by MaloMyotismon, who orchestrated all of it to get power over the Digital World and the Real World.

Tangent: Seeing the Digimon Movie in theaters was epic

One of my biggest issues with television shows is that they want to go on indefinitely. That’s what was killing LOST in their third season and that’s what’s killing Once Upon a Time right now (that’s a rant for another time). However, while some of its stories are weaker, Digimon delivers what it promises and it doesn’t go on forever. They tie up loose ends almost 100% (other than that one time…). They don’t have near as many seasons as Pokemon, but thank goodness. I’d rather have less seasons with better stories than infinite number of seasons with stories that all feel the same (how many times is Ash going to fall for Team Rocket’s disguises?).

Anyway, that’s all I’ve got. I think this turned into more of a rant than I intended, but it happens. Did you watch Digimon growing up? Give me your thoughts on what you liked about Digimon and/or Pokemon. 

One distinct criticism about Digimon: MagnaAngemon was SEVERELY
underused. Probably because he was too powerful, but still.

The Apple Metaphor

Did you read the book? Did you love it? Did you imagine up your Harry Potter or your Edward or your Tris or your Katniess? Then did you see the movie? Did you hate it? Did "they" ruin the book? Yeah, you and I won't get along.

I absolutely dislike it when people compare books to movies. With vehement passion.

This issue started when I took an old girlfriend to see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. At this time, I had not read any Harry Potter. I didn't care much for Sorcerer's Stone. Chamber of Secrets was okay. And then the previous of HP:POA made me interested in watching it. (Come on, Hermione punches Malfoy. Awesome.)

And then after the movie, my date and I went to dinner. And she complained. "They did this wrong. They did that wrong. They left out all these 'important' plot points that were just wrong to leave out."

Here's the thing: had I read the book? Nope. Did I feel lost in the movie? Nope. So was the director wrong? Nope. HP:POA is absolutely my favorite of the series. I love the style, the music, and even the story. Did I need to know who created the Marauder's Map? Nope. It wasn't relevant for a movie. Did I need to know more about the back story of Lupin and Black and Potter and Pettigrew? No, actually as a viewer, I didn't. So in the end, what's left out from the book was not important for a viewer. 

Maybe a reader was upset. But that's not who goes to see movies. A reader isn't reading a movie, they're watching it. There's a difference. And just as a reader is reading an author's story, a viewer is watching an interpretation of that same story. They are not watching the author place actors about and tell them what and how to say.

Here's where the metaphor comes in.

The trigger to this post is Dan Wells' recent post on FB about having seen Into the Woods and that he loved it. If you don't know, Into the Woods is based off a play. So the "adaptation" conversation came up. And then I got tagged into the discussion. Rob Wells actually referred to a post I made a long time ago.

This is Rob's quote on my quote: 

" I heard a great comparison once from T.J. Bronley, talking about adaptations: He said that you're not taking the apple to remake the apple; you're taking the apple to make apple pie. In other words, the source material (book, play, music) is one of the ingredients that you draw on to make the new product--but it's not the only ingredient."

Hey, I said something that someone found noteworthy once upon a time! I'm taking credit for a moment. 

But I stand by the thought. You don't bake a pie and say "the apple was better." Well, I don't anyway. The farmer preps his apples. He hopes people will love them. But when a baker takes some of his apples to make a pie, why would someone compare the baker's apple pie to the farmer's apples?

When Twilight came out, I heard a lot of people say "That's not my Edward." Of course it isn't. You have someone very specifically placed into that role. When I read the first four books to the Newport Ladies Book Club, for some reason I had Annette Lyon portraying the role of Olivia. (Newport Ladies is a series of 9 books written by 4 different authors all told via the title characters' POV.) Someone said to me once (when I said that) that it was because it was Annette's book. Actually, Annette wrote Paige, not Olivia. Just the way Olivia was described, for some reason, I saw and even heard Annette.

If I were to go cast the movie, I probably wouldn't cast her (unless she wanted to perform the role). But when Julie Wright wrote the book, I don't believe she had Annette in mind. Nor did Annette have a friend of mine from college in mind when she wrote Paige. But that's who I saw.

Casting is just one the things that is extremely up for interpretation. It was easy to see Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint as I read Harry Potter 4-7. They'd already been given to me. But I hadn't seen the actress playing Umbridge. So I imagined my 2nd grade teacher. Vastly different person. But really, well done to the casting team for who played Umbridge. Man, was she awful! (The character, not the actress.)

Okay, I think I'm done ranting. What? Joe got his last rant of 2014 in last week. I just figured I'd start off the year following suit.

Alien abductions are involuntary, but probings are scheduled.

Joe's last rant of the year

Disclaimer: I know that living a homosexual lifestyle goes against the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, the church also teaches "Love Thy Neighbor" and in recent years has told members to love and care for our brothers and sisters no matter what their sexual orientation. To me that means that if I have a voice then they should be free to have a voice too, weather that's in politics, choice of partner, or in popular media. Homosexuality has been a marginalized voice in media for centuries, and my offense comes from continuing to portray a group of people inaccurately or like their very being is offensive. Happy new year.

I know that now's the time to look back on 2014 with fondness, maybe remember the good times or make a best and worst top ten list... But this has been sticking in my craw and I can't let the new year come in without getting it off my chest...

Legend of Korra.

You know the drill. Spoilers yeah yeah....

I'm late to the party on this so most LOK fans have already heard of the big controversy so for the uninitiated allow me to explain: At the series finale of Legend of Korra, our hero Korra and her friend Asami decided to go on a vacation together, getting away from all the crazy that's happened in the last five or so years. The last scene shows the two women about to start their new adventure, look at each other, and hold hands.

That's it.

Not so bad, right? Well it gets better.

The writers of the show immediately came out and said that the characters were gay, and that the last scene of them holding hands represented their mutual attraction to each other and that they were about to start their lives together.

That's when I got mad.

Okay, before you think I'm some sort of homophobe, my problem here is NOT the idea that they're gay. If the writers wanted to write gay characters then by all means. Legend of Korra is certainly not for children anyway, so the whole "They're corrupting our kids!" nonsense can be tossed. My problem is that up until the very last scene, and even then, the characters showed no signs of being gay or being attracted to each other. They don't need to be stereotypes, but these two were established as heterosexual. They even dated the same guy at one point. Even the holding hands scene isn't that monumental of a jump. The Golden Girls held hands to show solidarity. Thelma and Louise held hands at the end of their movie to show sisterhood. It's a common practice for women to hold hands in our society. That last scene was vague at best.

This is as bad as when JK Rowling told the press that Dumbledore was gay three months after the final book. Did anyone actually get that vibe? Yes, Dumbledore was unmarried and you never heard of him having an attraction to anyone, but does that mean gay?

My overall problem is that writers telling us about the sexuality of their characters after the final take to me isn't bold or fresh, it's cowardly. If you want to show support, show support! Otherwise, don't say anything. 

-JOE

Girls Not Allowed?!

So, I saw this video recently that some geek girls made about the sexual harassment they get because of being a girl in the geek community.  With this male dominant community of males finding safe haven of being unusual and a zealous love of interests, it would be easy for many of them to be threatened by new comers.  That said, I'm really surprised and pretty embarrassed that these girls have gotten this kind of treatment.  Many geeks and nerds have been the target of ridicule and abuse, it makes me sad to know they've treated a girl this way.

  (Some slightly explicit written language in the video.)   Also, these guys are totally shooting themselves in the foot!  I would love to have a girlfriend/wife with the same nerdy interests as me.  A girl that can hold her own in Magic: The Gathering and knows what I'm talking about when I talk about the X-Men is really attractive.  One of my friends, that is a girl, really likes Star Trek and I find that it is one of her more interesting quirks and quite endearing.  If these guys acted like gentlemen they could find a great romantic partner for them.

Felicia Day is the iconic geek girl.

Girls totally belong in the geek community.  In fact, I don't know if I would like the geek community without the feminine influence.  Some of the best cosplayers at conventions tend to be girls with high quality costumes.  Look at Felicia Day.  Felicia Day has pioneered online television and has been a voice for geeks around the world.  She's also a great example of balancing work and play and moderation in all things.  Felicia Day was at one point in time very addicted to World of Warcraft and had a very unhealthy attachment to it.  After seeing a counselor she kicked her addiction in the butt.  She didn't quit being a geek or games.  She just found a healthy balance and opened up creative outlets by making the Guild and later making Geek and Sundry.  I'm really glad she's so involved.

Another geek girl I love is my sister.  My sister Ashley is one of my closest friends.  We would play Dungeons and Dragons together growing up. We were even part of the same DnD group before she moved to Arizona.  (We had Tiefling brother and sister characters.)  It's so awesome to have a sister that understands my language when I talk about nerd stuff and shares the same interests as me.  Ashley even plays more video games than me.  In some ways, she's way more nerd than I am.

So with all of these awesome nerd girls in the community, why would guys not want them around?

Well, I think it's because guys like having an exclusive place to be with other guys.  Girls actually like this too and finding that is easy.  I know I've totally been one of those guys that feels threatened by a girl entering in an all male club.  Even though, I love DnD more with at least one girl in the group, I've also felt resistant to women entering a up-until-this-point male space.  What I've found is that an exclusive male space is okay to have.  It's normal for a guy like me to want that.  Girls want exclusive female groups and spaces too.  It's normal for them to have and want it as well.  Just look at all the female only gyms you have out there.

So is it okay to organize an all male DnD group, book reading club, or Magic tournament?  Yes.  State that when you first set up the group.  I get and understand why it's important to have a male space.  But would any of you guys really want to miss out on the joys that come from having women at comic con and FNM?  I know I wouldn't!  So guys, organize your male spaces and then when you go to Hastur's, Blakfyre, Dragon's Keep, Epic Games, or the Salt Lake Comic Con.  Be gentlemen to the ladies there.  They've gotten enough trash from the world outside and are there to have fun.  Don't just be civil, be welcoming and get to know them.  You will definitely find great friends among them and maybe even something more.

So Ladies, great job on being geek despite the backlash you may or may not have received.  Be patient with some of these guys.  Be understanding in how important male space may be to them.  (Or they may simply have insecurities about themselves and that results in them being douchey.) These guys are sometimes jerks to each other too so their actions aren't always because you're a woman.  Even if it is, that's their problem and has nothing to do with your self worth and contribution to the geek community. (Which I, definitely appreciate.)

In the end, if you need guy's/girl's night then go for it.  No one is stopping you from finding that.  When you go to the comic book store, play magic, or go to the midnight showing of Star Trek, there's no need to feel superior in your nerdness because you're a man that knows Vulcan.  The people around you, male and female, know what it's like to feel socially awkward and love unusual things.  They may have also been the targets of ridicule.  You're surrounded by friends at these events, would you really want to put up walls just because of their gender?

Yes, it will be this awesome.

This September 5th, 6th, and 7th will be the Salt Lake Comic Con.  Yours truly will be there.  I have plenty of guy friends that share my interests and some will even be at the con with me.  There will even be speed dating events I plan to get involved with.  Sure, women can be pretty intimidating sometimes but it's them I'm looking forward to meeting.

-Stephen

The "Other" Geek Definition

A while ago, I did a post where I defined the differences between "geek" and "nerd" and whatnot. Anyway, there are plenty of things that don't fit the original definition of geek. Like the phrase "geeking out". That really is more akin to "fanboy/fangirl" moments than a technology-based thing.

But really, what constitutes "geeking out"? Well, here's what I've come up with on that phrase. (This is my opinion, solely my opinion. Not agreeing with my opinion means you are human and have the possibility of thinking differently from me. Congratulations. Agreeing with my opinion means you are human and have the possibility of being extremely awesome.) To me, there are three pieces to being able to "geek out": 1) fanship 2) living 3) conversing

"Geeking out" requires being a fan of something, geek-related or not. To veer away from sci-fi/fantasy, I'm gonna use the TV show FRIENDS. (Will Ross and Rachel ever swallow their pride long enough to make a relationship last or even get into a relationship with one another? Meh, I care more about what Phoebe's gonna randomly say next.)

Now "geeking out" to me is defined by living/breathing/sleeping/eating/dreaming about your fan topic. Since "geeks" are deemed to be very knowledgeable, "geeking out" is being able to hold a discussion on (in this instance) FRIENDS without worrying about having to be a poser of any sort. You can admit not knowing the random episode here and there because "I don't really like that episode." Example: despite being really knowledgeable about this show, there are some episodes I really don't like. These include about half of the third season episodes, the Eddie episodes from season 2, and a small portion of the tenth season. But I can still refer to the episodes.

And finally, you need to have other people to geek out with so you can converse about this topic. One of my longest friendships is with my friend Casey, with whom I went to high school. She and I are both big FRIENDS fans. As much fun as it'd be to play Friends: Scene-It together, I bet it'd be something akin to World War III if we disagree on anything in the 10-year run of the show. But as she and I have random chats or text messages, we will throw in at least 1 Friends reference a week, easily. (The average is probably much higher.) Saying something like "Pivot. PIVOT. PIVOT!" or "My eyes! My EYES!" is not unheard of between us.

Now, there is a difference between "geeking out" and having a "fanboy/fangirl" moment. See, geeking out generally takes place away from any of the physical representations of what you are a geek on. Meaning: if I were to run into Lisa Kudrow or go to the Warner Bros. studio where there's a Central Perk replica and be as excited as a little kid at Disneyland (or some kids at Toys R Us for that matter), then I'd be a fanboy.

Okay, that's it for my nerdy knowledge/opinions for today.

Alien abductions are involuntary, but probings are scheduled.

Why Iron Man 3 is the Best in the Series and Joe is Wrong

You're probably reading this title with some amusement. The reason why I love writing for Mormon Geeks is that all of the authors here are some of my closest friends (one I consider my best friend) and we all have differing opinions on things.  Joe shared his thoughts on the future of the Marvel franchise and briefly talked about his opinion of Iron Man 3.  They were very nice opinions and now I would like to share my thoughts.

Let's talk about Tony Stark

Tony Stark is a normal man.  He's very flawed, arrogant, selfish, and unrestrained.  In Iron Man 1 we see his bubble of living the high life pop when he survives a bomb blast and create the first Iron Man suit.  He decides to cut all costs in manufacturing weapons and chooses to use his knowledge to become a super hero.

In Iron Man 2, Tony is once again living the limelight and no stranger to drawing attention to his super hero identity.  Still flawed, he makes the mistake of thinking that no technology can compete with his and suddenly the government is on his back.  If that isn't enough, he finds himself fighting against poisoning from the shrapnel and electromagnet heart.  He eventually creates a new heart and conquers the villain and once again Iron Man saves the day.  He continues to be steady from this point through the end of the Avengers.

Now it's after the alien attack on New York.  Tony is once again in the spotlight for being a hero and the face of the Avengers.  He went through a wormhole and came back to earth and hasn't been the same since.  He hasn't gotten good sleep and his mind has trouble accepting that there's other life out there.  Before New York, he was the man that knew everything and now he has anxiety attacks knowing that there is still so much he doesn't know.

In Iron Man 3, Tony is probably in his most humbling circumstances.  Though he had challenges before this time his confidence falters when it was something that always kept him going.  The previous movies were always about Tony Stark becoming and being Iron Man.  In Iron Man 3, this is a story about Tony Stark being a hero as much as and even more as his Iron Man alter ego.

This is why I like Iron Man 3 the most out of the series.  Although I love the nerd culture and geek storytelling there is a wrong idea picked up from super hero stories.  You get these geeks who drop out of high school and give up on life.  They work full time at a fast food restaurant and play video games on their free time.  They may go to Friday Night Magic and step into the role of a Plainswalker. (Their alter ego, if you will.)  They conquer enemies and feel powerful for once.  They do it again when they play a tabletop RPG, an online MMORPG, or a video game.  Why?  They misguidedly follow the examples they see on screen or on the page of the comic.  They don figurative masks and capes to fight inner demons but never actually become the heroes they idolize or pretend to be.

Is Tony Stark a Hero?

Iron Man 3 gives off a different message.  In some way this movie answers the question Steve Rogers (Captain America) asks Tony in the Avengers, "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that off, what are you?"
Though Tony responds with a cheeky comeback, the real question Steve asks is, "You're a hero on the outside but what are you inside?"  Is Tony Stark a hero without his armor?  Does he amount to anything without Iron Man?

Tony struggles with this question too.  What kind of hero is he when his flaws and imperfections come to bite him in the butt and create villains for him to face?  He's changed so much from when he survived that bomb blast but is now struggling with anxiety attacks, insomnia, his best friend being hospitalized, and difficulty emotionally connecting with his might-as-well-be-his-wife-but-is-his-girlfriend-instead Pepper Potts.  Eventually his new Iron Man suit loses power and his house is destroyed.  Tony is suddenly in a place where he's without his tools and armor.

This is where the movie shines for me.  We see Tony Stark fighting bad guys with homemade devices until his suit has powered back up completely.  Even in the finale of the movie he is in and out of his suit(s) like a model in and out of different outfits.  The message the movie delivers isn't just that Tony Stark is Iron Man but Iron Man is Tony Stark.  As much as they are alter egos of one another they are more like two different sides of the same coin.  Tony isn't a hero because of the armor he wears and his cool gadgets.  He's a hero because of who he is and what he chooses to be.

This is a Shane Black Movie

Iron Man 3 takes place at Christmas and is like a detective story.

Shane Black is known for violent, noir-esque, slightly dark, cleverly written movies that take place during Christmas.  I'm not even joking.  Lethal Weapon, The Long Kiss Goodnight, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang all take place during the holidays.  As bizarre as it sounds it actually kind of works.  There's something honest in a bunch of terrible things happening and a challenge that get's resolved by Christmas morning.  I really like Shane Black's style.  What I wish he did differently was make his movies a little bit cleaner.  The great thing about Iron Man 3 is that it's a Shane Black movie that happens to be PG-13.  It even takes place during Christmas.  I could add this movie to my list of unconventional Christmas movies that feel like a Christmas movie even though they don't have much to do with Christmas. (Future blog post... or podcast episode.  ;))

I like Black's style because it is refreshingly different.  It fits with the rest of the series while standing apart and could even be a conclusion to the Iron Man series. It still makes sense for Tony to be part of the Avengers, it just ends in a way that really rounds out Tony as a character.  I don't know if there's a style that fits Iron Man so perfectly.

The Marvel Franchise

Joe said that Robert Downey Jr. essentially is playing himself when he's Iron Man.  Yep.  I would definitely agree with that.  It also works for the movie beautifully.  Robert Downey Jr. once said he takes the role of Tony Stark as serious as Shakespeare.  We may not be impressed because he's essentially playing himself but, hey, if he does a good job what is there to worry about?  With the shift in Marvel Franchise of bringing these different worlds together I would say that the producers and directors involved have done a great job in making it believable.

Yeah, he's still dumb but a different kind of dumb.

Let's take a look at the other actors involved in the Marvel universe.  Chris Evans used to play the handsome dumb hunk in crappy teen movies and didn't get much better when he was cast as the human torch in The Fantastic Four.  A lot of fans were worried when he was cast to play Captain America.  Before that point, he played Lucas Lee in Scott Pilgrim versus the World and showed us he can handle playing a character very different from the dumb hunk.  (Lucas Lee is still a dumb hunk but still very different from what Evans normally plays.)  Chris Evans as Steve Rogers works great.  As far as I know, he isn't really playing himself but he does a great job with the role.  Steve is supposed to be a clean cut 1940s idealized American man.  Evans pulls it off quite well.

Chris Hemsworth as Thor is pretty much fantastic.  We haven't seen him much in anything else and we really don't need to.  Despite his talent, he tragically could not save Snow White and the Huntsman.  In Star Trek, his chracter stands apart without taking anything from the movie and despite being short lived.

The highlight for me is Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Bruce Banner.  (I'm sure he's great in a motion cap suit as the Hulk but it's even better to see him as the quiet reserved scientist.)  What I love about Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Banner is how he basically just plays an introverted and mostly normal scientist.  He's a hero but a very different kind of hero than the other Avengers.  He doesn't draw attention to himself or to his actions.  In many ways, he's the opposite of Tony Stark.  Perhaps this is why it's great to see their budding friendship in the movie because they're complimentary and kindred spirits to one another.

Joe rocks as cynic and as a friend.

Based off all this alone, I would say the future of the Marvel franchise is pretty bright.  It's definitely risky but they already pulled off an excellent Avengers movie and we would have never thought that could happen.  All of this success would be better if Marvel Studios owned the movie rights to their other franchises (such as X-Men, Spiderman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Blade, etc.) but seeing what they're doing with what they got is great.  I understand Joe's cynicism and fears but I have to disagree in that I'm looking forward to the future of Marvel's movies.

So, if you get the opportunity I would highly recommend Iron Man 3 and Joe... I love you, cynic and all!

-Stephen

Five TV shows that need to end

I’m probably going to catch a lot of flak for this, but that’s okay I’m used to it. There are just some shows I’m sick of seeing, hearing about, or being told that I “have to see”. Here is what’s sitting at the top of my list. And for the record, I really did try to get into these shows, but honestly I either can’t do it anymore or I never could like them.

The Office

All this show does is take the one joke from the film Office Space and stretch it out into 8 seasons. Yes, I know that offices can be quirky, but come on 8 seasons? How long is this documentary supposed to be? It’s as bad as that endless bedtime story How I Met Your Mother keeps telling. The camera angle thing and the breaking the fourth wall are cute, but at one point it just gets old. This show even did the whole Ross and Rachel/JD and Elliot/Bones and Booth thing nearly every other TV show ever has done. They even had a baby and this show is still going! What is the appeal?

The Simpsons

I wouldn’t be a good internet nerd with a blog if I didn’t at one point complain that the Simpson’s is still on the air. What’s interesting is that when this show first came out they’re were tons of parents and morality groups screaming for it to go off the air for being too racy. It was one of the first cartoons to be aimed at teens and adults, talking about adult situations and even swearing at times, and it pushed the envelope as far as TV and animation were concerned, and I admit I love the first few seasons. So then what happened? Well essentially they stopped pushing the envelope. Shows like South Park and Family Guy came along and went WAY farther than Simpsons ever dreamed of going.  Because Simpsons wasn’t willing to compete, they just sort of stagnated in the market, relying mainly on in-jokes and putting their characters in wacky situations with each other. It didn’t say anything, it didn’t make any statements, and it’s just there, taking up time. Matt Groening, either grow the kids up or focus on Futurama. Speaking of Family Guy…

                                                                                   
Anything Seth McFarlane has out right now

Seth, I love you. Stewie is one of my favorite characters. I loved him both as the world dictator and as the effeminate baby, but do we really need three cartoons about middle-class working families? In fact, do we really need three ultra-liberal anti-religious cartoons about middle-class families? Say what you want about South Park, at least their statements are varied and happily attack anyone they can find equally. Family Guy especially, since I fear if it’s not happening now it’ll end up being like the Simpsons in the very near future, just stagnant and not having much going for it. And no more clones of Family Guy. When it first came out everyone called it a Simpson’s clone, but now you’re kind of proving them right. At least when Groening was green lighted for another project; he set it 1000 years in the future and made half the cast aliens and robots.

Big Bang Theory

This is probably what I’m going to catch the most flak for. Everyone tells me I should love this show, but frankly I despise it. Its 2012 now, walk into any Elders quorum in the US and ask who Doomsday is and you’ll find someone who can tell you about the death of Superman, and for that matter, nearly any occupation in America. This isn’t Revenge of the Nerds people, not all geeks are scientists and socially awkward around women. I’m not even sure who the audience for this thing is supposed to be, since it makes fun of geeks for being geeks but then makes jokes and references only geeks would get. Who are you trying to alienate exactly?

Glee

Is this show really still on the air? I feel like whenever I watch Glee that I’m just tuning through different channels seeing what’s on. One minute they’re having kooky conversations, the next it’s a big musical number, and then some serious moment, and then an overdramatic romance scene, and then another musical number. Pick a tone, people! I admit I like a lot of the songs; I’m always a sucker for a good remix or cover. It’s the context I don’t like. And the fact that the entire series is this massive convoluted drama on top of that, featuring a dozen characters doesn’t help. You practically need a flow chart and a score card just to sit through this thing.

Okay start sending the complaints.

-JOE