*Originally published on 8/11/09
You may have heard that someone made posters with President Barack Obama wearing Joker makeup. It's been a pretty big story in the news and it has created quite a controversy.
At first glance, the poster doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Obama's a pretty far left guy. He wants to create a system of order, whereas the Joker is an extreme anarchist. He wants to tear down any semblance of order and wreak chaos wherever he can. So at face value (no pun intended) the picture doesn't fit.
I do find it kind of funny though, that during the campaign, Obama was frequently compared to Harvey Dent, another character in The Dark Knight. It's possible that the creator of the poster had this reversal in mind when he put Joker makeup on the president. The Harvey Dent comparison made quite a bit of sense and was easy to make (though the release of Barack Obama commemorative coins was off putting given the connection).
Going back to the Joker, maybe the joke is something else entirely. It doesn't have to be a 1 to 1 connection like Obama/Dent. Obama ran on the idea that he was a moderate. His record was pretty leftist, but he expressed a desire to hear the opposition's ideas to come up with the best plan possible. He was a pragmatist above all else. Obama said that he was going to put an end to partisan politics.
So far, every instance of criticism (a significant amount of which has been raising legitimate questions) has been met with "Oh, that's just crazy Fox watching conservatives. I don't care what they say". People got together to protest the stimulus package trying to recreate the Boston tea party. People on the left giggled and made jokes (understandable given the rallying cry, the conservatives walked into that one) but the message of cutting government spending was largely ignored.
Obama's healthcare plan has been met with some resistance as well. The response has been the same. "Oh, this is manufactured anger" etc.
What happened to sitting down and discussing the issues to reach a compromise? Rachel Maddow does it, O'Reilly does it, even Jon Stewart does it. Though I rolled my eyes when he mocked the woman who questioned the government's ability to manage healthcare when they couldn't even handle Cash 4 Clunkers. Yeah, you can't dismiss legitimate points just because you disagree.
Despite his claims to the contrary, politics are more partisan than ever.
Some say that the poster is racist. Oy, alright, the poster isn't racist. I can kinda see why the question would come up, but I don't think that's the case here. It's a movie reference. You can put that make up on anyone and people would still get what you were going for. People did the same thing to President Bush and I'm sure there are others that will end up getting the Joker treatment in the future. This has more legitimacy than some of the other claims, such as Janeane Garofolo's claim that anyone who disagrees with the President is a racist, but I doubt the racial angle was a component when the person made the poster.
I've also heard people express the sentiment of "How dare you! He's the president, you can't compare him to this homicidal madman, it's disrespectful!" This would be a good point, except for the fact that these are the same people who spent the last 8 years comparing Bush to the Joker, Satan, and Hitler. He was called a lying, fascist, Nazi, war monger who ate babies and stole your socks from the dryer when you weren't looking.
Let's get this out of the way right now, George Bush was not Hitler, Barack Obama is not Hitler. Hitler was Hitler. Someone I know clarified, saying that Obama is like Hitler only in the way that he rose to power by winning over the masses with charisma and rhetoric. OK, maybe, but you could make that claim for a lot of politicians. The connotation of the Hitler comparison is too strong to throw it around so lightly.
The Joker comparison may be a bit extreme. Mr. J is, after all, an agent of evil. Obama may be a socialist, but socialism doesn't equal evil. People shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it either, as there was definitely a joke involved.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Novel Review: Doctor Sleep
You can read my review here.
Related articles
Could There be a Sequel to "The Shining"?
*Originally published on 11/27/09
A couple of days ago, Entertainment Weekly posted an article that brought up the idea that Stephen King is brainstorming a sequel to his classic novel, The Shining (I would link it, but hyperlinks haven't been working for me lately). It's an idea that the author admitted was rolling around in his head, but he can't get seem to get down to it.
The tentative title King offered was Dr. Sleep. I, myself would've gone with The Shining 2: Psychic Boogaloo but I don't know if readers would be able to take that seriously.
The story would focus on an older Danny Torrance, who is now using his abilities to aid him in his work at a hospice.
An article was later posted saying that readers shouldn't hold their breath and that it would probably never happen. Much like Kevin Smith's Dogma sequel, it's just an idea at this point and it isn't very high on his list of projects.
With The Shining being one of my favorite novels, the idea of a sequel does leave me ambivalent. Going back to the Kevin Smith metaphor, people were wary of Clerks II and that turned out to be great. King also revisited Jack Sawyer in Black House and that was equally effective. You could argue that The Shining doesn't need a sequel, but it's interesting to think about what it would be like. I doubt King would do it unless he was absolutely sure that it was a worthwhile endeavor.
I won't hold my breath and I will definitely take this for the brainstorming session that it is, but I am intrigued to see if this does come about, and if so, how it will pan out.
Dr. Sleep Announced as a Work in Progress
Related articles
Could There be a Sequel to "The Shining"?
*Originally published on 11/27/09
A couple of days ago, Entertainment Weekly posted an article that brought up the idea that Stephen King is brainstorming a sequel to his classic novel, The Shining (I would link it, but hyperlinks haven't been working for me lately). It's an idea that the author admitted was rolling around in his head, but he can't get seem to get down to it.
The tentative title King offered was Dr. Sleep. I, myself would've gone with The Shining 2: Psychic Boogaloo but I don't know if readers would be able to take that seriously.
The story would focus on an older Danny Torrance, who is now using his abilities to aid him in his work at a hospice.
An article was later posted saying that readers shouldn't hold their breath and that it would probably never happen. Much like Kevin Smith's Dogma sequel, it's just an idea at this point and it isn't very high on his list of projects.
With The Shining being one of my favorite novels, the idea of a sequel does leave me ambivalent. Going back to the Kevin Smith metaphor, people were wary of Clerks II and that turned out to be great. King also revisited Jack Sawyer in Black House and that was equally effective. You could argue that The Shining doesn't need a sequel, but it's interesting to think about what it would be like. I doubt King would do it unless he was absolutely sure that it was a worthwhile endeavor.
I won't hold my breath and I will definitely take this for the brainstorming session that it is, but I am intrigued to see if this does come about, and if so, how it will pan out.
Dr. Sleep Announced as a Work in Progress
MMO's and Their Impact on Productivity
*Originally published on 7/2/09
With the immense success of the video game World of Warcraft, game companies are spitting out a bunch of online games in an effort to get their own piece of the pie. World of Warcraft was notorious for it's addictive gameplay. People would devote as many hours to that as they did to full time jobs and some even went so far as to neglect their families. While the individual games may not have the same massive success as WoW, productivity is sure to take a swan dive.
We've got a Star Wars MMO coming out in the near future. It ties into the popular, and also addictive, Knights of the Old Republic games released for the Xbox. I'm on the fence about this. The trailer did look pretty good, however I am also highly excited for the DC Universe MMO set to come out in the next year or so.
The DC game is still in early phases of production. I have, however, seen video clips and game demos, each of which filled me with excitement. Luckily, I'm able to keep my mind off the topic ninety percent of the time, but when I do stumble across mention of the game, I want it to come out that much more. While I'm somewhat disappointed you don't play as, but play alongside the major DC characters I suppose it makes sense. There can't be 20,000 Batmen running around, though I would love to see all the Hal Jordans gather together and declare war on the Kyle Rayners just to see the fanboy war manifest itself in digital combat.
Trekkies and trekkers will be able to come together under the banner of the upcoming Star Trek MMO. Each being given command of their own starship. It's every Trek fan's dream come true. If you aren't a fan of the federation and want to teach them a lesson, you can also play as a Klingon. In keeping with the show's theme of exploration, you will be able to beam down to various worlds as well.
Given my propensity for procrastination, I have no doubt that the addictive MMO will impact my work ethic. Even people who don't have a problem will find themselves glued to their computers for hours with these games. How on earth are we supposed to get anything done?
What of the people who buy more than one? If one MMO is able to take up 40 to 60 hours a week, a person running two games will be utterly screwed. There aren't enough hours in the week and while some of us try to fight it, we all need to sleep sometime.
There is an upside, with the economy the way it is. People who are out of a job will now have something to do, hooray? Better yet, let's turn it to our advantage. Most video games have you collecting coins of some sort, let's make it legal currency. The money can be deposited into your bank or paypal account online. I know the companies have to make a profit, but putting some money back into the players pockets will help in these hard times. If Halo players can make a living playing their video game of choice, I don't see why we shouldn't be given the same opportunity.
I think we should learn from WoW. Rather than giving into the highly addictive nature of the game, we should keep control and limit ourselves to only a couple of hours a day at most. I know video games are fun and can be hard to pull yourself away from, but MMO's operate on a whole different level. We all need to channel our willpower for the sake of our work ethic and make sure these games don't consume all of our waking hours.
With the immense success of the video game World of Warcraft, game companies are spitting out a bunch of online games in an effort to get their own piece of the pie. World of Warcraft was notorious for it's addictive gameplay. People would devote as many hours to that as they did to full time jobs and some even went so far as to neglect their families. While the individual games may not have the same massive success as WoW, productivity is sure to take a swan dive.
We've got a Star Wars MMO coming out in the near future. It ties into the popular, and also addictive, Knights of the Old Republic games released for the Xbox. I'm on the fence about this. The trailer did look pretty good, however I am also highly excited for the DC Universe MMO set to come out in the next year or so.
The DC game is still in early phases of production. I have, however, seen video clips and game demos, each of which filled me with excitement. Luckily, I'm able to keep my mind off the topic ninety percent of the time, but when I do stumble across mention of the game, I want it to come out that much more. While I'm somewhat disappointed you don't play as, but play alongside the major DC characters I suppose it makes sense. There can't be 20,000 Batmen running around, though I would love to see all the Hal Jordans gather together and declare war on the Kyle Rayners just to see the fanboy war manifest itself in digital combat.
Trekkies and trekkers will be able to come together under the banner of the upcoming Star Trek MMO. Each being given command of their own starship. It's every Trek fan's dream come true. If you aren't a fan of the federation and want to teach them a lesson, you can also play as a Klingon. In keeping with the show's theme of exploration, you will be able to beam down to various worlds as well.
Given my propensity for procrastination, I have no doubt that the addictive MMO will impact my work ethic. Even people who don't have a problem will find themselves glued to their computers for hours with these games. How on earth are we supposed to get anything done?
What of the people who buy more than one? If one MMO is able to take up 40 to 60 hours a week, a person running two games will be utterly screwed. There aren't enough hours in the week and while some of us try to fight it, we all need to sleep sometime.
There is an upside, with the economy the way it is. People who are out of a job will now have something to do, hooray? Better yet, let's turn it to our advantage. Most video games have you collecting coins of some sort, let's make it legal currency. The money can be deposited into your bank or paypal account online. I know the companies have to make a profit, but putting some money back into the players pockets will help in these hard times. If Halo players can make a living playing their video game of choice, I don't see why we shouldn't be given the same opportunity.
I think we should learn from WoW. Rather than giving into the highly addictive nature of the game, we should keep control and limit ourselves to only a couple of hours a day at most. I know video games are fun and can be hard to pull yourself away from, but MMO's operate on a whole different level. We all need to channel our willpower for the sake of our work ethic and make sure these games don't consume all of our waking hours.
Chud.com Reviews 'Misery' Bluray
*Originally published on 10/7/09
Yesterday,movie site CHUD posted a review of the newly released blu-ray copy of Misery.
The movie still stands as one of the great King adaptations and a great movie in its own right. Kathy Bates' Annie Wilkes still sits with the best of all time movie villains and turns in the performance of her career.
This review echoes my sentiments about the movie perfectly. I haven't had a chance to pick this up yet, but rest assured I definitely will.
I'm glad that this movie got a great transition to bluray. There are a lot of great movies that get subpar bluray transfers and it's a bloody shame. The image and sound quality is supposed to be amazing. I know
This bluray also includes the DVD, mirroring Disney's strategy. What's really peculiar though is that all of the special features (and there are quite a few of them) are on the DVD with just the movie on the bluray. I'm as befuddled as the Chud reviewer and I agree with the bluray.com review of the film when they say that this shouldn't become a regular practice. There's plenty of room on bluray discs, just put the features on the first disc and make it easier for everyone.
For King fans who've made the transition to bluray, this is a must buy.
The movie still stands as one of the great King adaptations and a great movie in its own right. Kathy Bates' Annie Wilkes still sits with the best of all time movie villains and turns in the performance of her career.
This review echoes my sentiments about the movie perfectly. I haven't had a chance to pick this up yet, but rest assured I definitely will.
I'm glad that this movie got a great transition to bluray. There are a lot of great movies that get subpar bluray transfers and it's a bloody shame. The image and sound quality is supposed to be amazing. I know
This bluray also includes the DVD, mirroring Disney's strategy. What's really peculiar though is that all of the special features (and there are quite a few of them) are on the DVD with just the movie on the bluray. I'm as befuddled as the Chud reviewer and I agree with the bluray.com review of the film when they say that this shouldn't become a regular practice. There's plenty of room on bluray discs, just put the features on the first disc and make it easier for everyone.
For King fans who've made the transition to bluray, this is a must buy.
Batman (1989) vs. The Dark Knight
*Originally published on 5/13/09
With Nolan's The Dark Knight having broken several box office records. I couldn't help but look back at Burton's first Batman film, which also happened to be a huge blockbuster that pit the caped crusader against his maniacal nemesis.
With 20 years between the two films, it may not seem fair to compare them. Burton's film was a product of the 80s. This is evidenced by the presence of Prince's music on the soundtrack. Were it not for that simple fact, I think the film would've held up much better over time. I know, Prince is a musical legend, but it doesn't really fit in a Batman film.
We're presented with two very different Gothams in these films. Nolan's is gritty and based on what real cities this corrupted by crime would look like. Burton's is also gritty, but it takes a gothic fantasy like approach to the city. I, personally, prefer Burton's take on it. I know, that's mostly because it's the Gotham I grew up with, but it just pops more.
As different as these two movies are, I was surprised to realize how similar they are. Both feature a Batman who's been active in Gotham for some time and has built something of a reputation among the citizens and criminals of Gotham. The mob plays a prominent part in both, only to be shown up by the arrival of a lunatic in clown make up who calls himself The Joker. Well, that's unavoidable, given how things are in the comics it's natural that the escalating war between the two characters would come across as similar.
Both films also feature Harvey Dent as the crusading district attorney trying to clean up the city. He gets a heck of a lot more screen time in The Dark Knight, and becoming Two-Face doesn't cause his ethnicity to change, but as Harvey he is the same emotionally balanced idealist who won't cower when faced with a deadly criminal mastermind in both films.
The Joker is a showman, and it's only natural for him to try to steal the show. In both films, he succeeds. This is helped by two dazzling performances by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger respectively. In fairness to TDK, Bruce was fleshed out very well in Begins and TDK was more of an epic ensemble piece. He still got shafted and had the spotlight stolen from him.
There are some striking differences as well. The motivations for the Joker are very different. In Burton's film, Joker is ticked that Batman is stealing all his press. Nolan's Joker is an anarchist who just wants to watch the world burn. Both enjoy killing people and have a dark sense of humor about it. Jack's is a bit more over the top. It's a blend of the darker psychotic Joker and the cackling goofball lunatic of Ceasar Romero's Joker.
Gordon is also different. One has to take into account, that by TDK, Gordon and Batman have already worked together and, as such, have a tighter relationship. Even in Begins, he was more open to the idea of Batman offering his own form of assistance. When Gordon first sees Batman in Burton's film, he wants Batman captured just as much as Napier.
Whichever film you like better is a personal preference. Both have their pros and cons. One of these days I'm going to watch both films back to back. I think it would make for an interesting double feature. Much like Manhunter and Red Dragon, we have two films that take the basic concept and story only to create two drastically different products that have an air of similarity due to drawing from the same pool of inspiration.
With Nolan's The Dark Knight having broken several box office records. I couldn't help but look back at Burton's first Batman film, which also happened to be a huge blockbuster that pit the caped crusader against his maniacal nemesis.
With 20 years between the two films, it may not seem fair to compare them. Burton's film was a product of the 80s. This is evidenced by the presence of Prince's music on the soundtrack. Were it not for that simple fact, I think the film would've held up much better over time. I know, Prince is a musical legend, but it doesn't really fit in a Batman film.
We're presented with two very different Gothams in these films. Nolan's is gritty and based on what real cities this corrupted by crime would look like. Burton's is also gritty, but it takes a gothic fantasy like approach to the city. I, personally, prefer Burton's take on it. I know, that's mostly because it's the Gotham I grew up with, but it just pops more.
As different as these two movies are, I was surprised to realize how similar they are. Both feature a Batman who's been active in Gotham for some time and has built something of a reputation among the citizens and criminals of Gotham. The mob plays a prominent part in both, only to be shown up by the arrival of a lunatic in clown make up who calls himself The Joker. Well, that's unavoidable, given how things are in the comics it's natural that the escalating war between the two characters would come across as similar.
Both films also feature Harvey Dent as the crusading district attorney trying to clean up the city. He gets a heck of a lot more screen time in The Dark Knight, and becoming Two-Face doesn't cause his ethnicity to change, but as Harvey he is the same emotionally balanced idealist who won't cower when faced with a deadly criminal mastermind in both films.
The Joker is a showman, and it's only natural for him to try to steal the show. In both films, he succeeds. This is helped by two dazzling performances by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger respectively. In fairness to TDK, Bruce was fleshed out very well in Begins and TDK was more of an epic ensemble piece. He still got shafted and had the spotlight stolen from him.
There are some striking differences as well. The motivations for the Joker are very different. In Burton's film, Joker is ticked that Batman is stealing all his press. Nolan's Joker is an anarchist who just wants to watch the world burn. Both enjoy killing people and have a dark sense of humor about it. Jack's is a bit more over the top. It's a blend of the darker psychotic Joker and the cackling goofball lunatic of Ceasar Romero's Joker.
Gordon is also different. One has to take into account, that by TDK, Gordon and Batman have already worked together and, as such, have a tighter relationship. Even in Begins, he was more open to the idea of Batman offering his own form of assistance. When Gordon first sees Batman in Burton's film, he wants Batman captured just as much as Napier.
Whichever film you like better is a personal preference. Both have their pros and cons. One of these days I'm going to watch both films back to back. I think it would make for an interesting double feature. Much like Manhunter and Red Dragon, we have two films that take the basic concept and story only to create two drastically different products that have an air of similarity due to drawing from the same pool of inspiration.
Marvel Comics Announces New Dark Tower Comic Series
*Originally published on 10/14/09
Both Marvel's website as well as Stephen King's announced today that a new series of Dark Tower comics entitled The Gunslinger would be released in 2010. Like the previous series, it will be a thirty issue series that is broken up into smaller mini-series. You can see the various announcements here and here.
I figured that after the battle of Jericho was covered, that that would be the end of it. It seems that this isn't the case. The same team will be working on the comics so I don't think we have anything to worry about as far as quality goes.
I'm curious to see if this is an adaptation of the first book or not. It has the same title and the announcement says that it will detail how and why Roland began his pursuit of the man in black. My guess is that it will start shortly before the first book and by the the end of the thirty issue run, we'll have reached the palaver that Roland has with the dark mage at the end of the first novel. It will be a partial adaptation with some new material thrown in there as well.
Then again, the very first issue opened with Roland in the desert and this whole thing has been a flashback. We might finally cut back to the present and just go from there. We'll have to wait and see how they play it.
Another question that arises is if this is a comic adaptation of the first book, will we see the remaining six? If that is the case, fans of the Dark Tower comics will be entertained for quite some time. I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves though. This is big news for fans of the books and comics. I myself am pretty excited to read it.
I figured that after the battle of Jericho was covered, that that would be the end of it. It seems that this isn't the case. The same team will be working on the comics so I don't think we have anything to worry about as far as quality goes.
I'm curious to see if this is an adaptation of the first book or not. It has the same title and the announcement says that it will detail how and why Roland began his pursuit of the man in black. My guess is that it will start shortly before the first book and by the the end of the thirty issue run, we'll have reached the palaver that Roland has with the dark mage at the end of the first novel. It will be a partial adaptation with some new material thrown in there as well.
Then again, the very first issue opened with Roland in the desert and this whole thing has been a flashback. We might finally cut back to the present and just go from there. We'll have to wait and see how they play it.
Another question that arises is if this is a comic adaptation of the first book, will we see the remaining six? If that is the case, fans of the Dark Tower comics will be entertained for quite some time. I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves though. This is big news for fans of the books and comics. I myself am pretty excited to read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)