T Tries to Convince C to Keep Watching "Watchmen"

C is a stubborn cuss. Some have even described him as a curmudgeon, but he has told those people to shut their yaps and get the hell off his lawn. The stubbornness often extends to the entertainment world, where his demands for quality do not always coincide with what he is given. Part of that is because, as a fiction writer, he feels that too many people who write both novels and screenplays are lazy, overpaid hacks while he works harder than he probably should to strive for his best. He concedes that he does not always succeed but the effort is put forth.

C is also a huge Alan Moore fan, especially when it comes to "Watchmen" the graphic novel. He isn't a Moore fanatic, however, as evidenced by his brusk dismissal of the John Constantine character as a mostly dull, lazily rendered character who only becomes interesting when he's interacting with other DC Comics characters. 

"Watchmen," however, holds a special place in C's heart. It is, in his words, a masterpiece of style, plot, characterization, and understated yet dynamic art. It is also flawed and he agrees with Grant Morrison that there was a better ending Moore should have considered.

C felt the Zack Snyder film was a faithful adaptation that actually improved upon the ending, but it was still a movie made by someone who understood what he read before doing his own thing with it. This brings us to the HBO "Watchmen" series and T's attempt to talk C into not giving up on it after a rather negative reaction to the first episode:

(Beware! There be spoilers here because T can't keep his yap shut!)

C; I'm watching watchmen and I have no idea what the fuck is going on.

T: Just wait. It gets good.

C: I have faith in the series creator

T: I was a little confused at first, then it got good

C:  I couldn't place the time setting at first

T: Yeah I know then they start giving you clues

C: Tell me if I'm right. Rorschach's journal started a movement!

T: Oh yeah. They twisted it.

C: Fuckers stole my idea!

T: 

C: Honestly I'm giving this show one more episode. It probably doesn't help that I don't particularly care for Regina King (An understatement. he thinks she has the range of a drowning puppy)

T: I wasn't wild about her either, but once it gets into the plot

C: (After the first episode has ended) Color me disappointed.

T: It starts slow, but it gets good.

C: this is the first Damon Lindelof show where I wasn't riveted from the first few minutes. I don't think this is his element. Nice to see Lou Gossett though.

T: Man, there is a hidden story you won't believe. Trust me its worth watching

C: Yeah the Gossett is starting to spill portions of it. So if Dr Manhattan is on Mars, isn't this happening before Rorschach and Nite Owl confronted Veidt? But there was a newspaper headline saying Veidt was dead.

T: Thats whats gonna blow your mind when you find out the truth

C: I doubt it will outdo Doomsday Clock

T: The show is nominated for multiple Emmys

C: That's meaningless.  I wipe my ass with Emmys. (He does, too! It's nothing you ever want to bear witness to either!)

T:  Just give it time.

C: I'm giving it another episode. I'm not getting stuck in another Stranger Things trap. (For more on C's views on "Stranger Things, click here and here)

T: They explain Viedt and everything. And when you find out about Dr. Manhattan and what's on Mars. 

C: Honestly I'm not really being made to care.The show is kind of annoying. I don't even like the premise.

T: It's got a mean twist.

C: Meh. Twists are so early 2000s. Just tell a fucking story...now I've lost whatever flow I had.

T: Well Hooded Justice was a Black man in White face under the hood (Young Lou Gossett Jr), he's Regina Kings grandfather and they were reunited by Dr. Manhattan also Viedt was imprisoned escapes to keep his evil clone genius daughter from trying to take Dr. Manhattan's power for herself and Dr. Manhattan is actually Regina Kings husband in hiding

C:

C: The fuck? Why did you just tell me all that? I might as well just return it (to the library) now! I mean that all sounds like really shitty and stupid writing but at least let me experience it on my own.

T: Trust me the rest is worth looking for.

C: I'm taking it back

T: SMH

C: Oh shake THIS, Mr. Judgment! It is boring and annoying.

And clearly written by people who didn't understand the comic.

T: Shame; you don't know what you are missing

C: You are way too accepting of mediocrity my friend

T: You have to watch it to make that statement. LOL

C: I did. 1.25 episodes LOL

Last time I had this conversation, I was guilted by someone into finishing season one of Stranger Things. T: Not enough.

C: That's what she said! She was wrong. So, so wrong.

T: Stranger Things is Millenial garbage. (Send your hate emails to T at hesaidit@gmail.com)

C:

Brian Fontana agrees with me!
T: Well, I'm not the person that recommended Stranger Things to you.

C: No but you have recommended some real turds in your time.

T: We both have LOL

C: I rarely recommend things. I just say whether or not I liked something. I'm used to hating what others love and vice versa I don't even think the show is well made..It looks cheap. But even if your insentivity spoilers aren't the only mysteries, what you told me sounds so goddam dumb. An evil clone daughter did these assholes even know what Alan Moore was doing???

T: It gets good around the 4th show

C: ...

Avengers: Endgame. What the Hell is Wrong with the Fans?

On this post, C flies solo, so don't blame T for it's content!

I was planning to write a rather extensive review of  “Avengers: Endgame” that dealt with the film’s numerous faults and my dismay at not having enjoyed it even remotely as much as its brilliant predecessor. I had my bullet points ready and was prepared to be the lone voice in the wilderness of adoring sycophants daring to say the emperor had holes in his underwear (with apologies to Bud Bundy).

Yep, that was the plan. But two things happened that changed all that:

First, amidst the enormous groundswell of initial praise, I started noticing quite the opposite. Obviously there are always people poised to hate a popular thing, but even when discounting those types, there was still a rather vocal minority pointing out the film’s many shortcomings. And they had well thought out reasons!

Some of these people absolutely hated the movie. I didn’t. There were some good moments just not enough of them to justify the film’s three-hour runtime. I found the film uneven, as if it had been shot using an outline rather than a completed, polished script. Some of the character beats were poorly chosen and rendered and the entire plot felt lazy and phoned-in. I feel let down and it has diminished my interest in the MCU to the point where I doubt I will allow myself to become invested in an ongoing story arc again.

Still, like-minded people weren’t enough to change my plans. That’s where the second thing comes in.

Anybody who expressed dislike or even disappointment with the movie was immediately attacked by those who loved it like white blood cells to a virus. It’s easy to dismiss them as paid Disney trolls but let’s be honest: That’s total horseshit. Disney has no need for such things because real people are beyond willing to devote their time and energy to defending them whenever someone has the nerve to not heap praise. This is especially true regarding the MCU which, at this point, can do no wrong to its cadre of unquestioning devotees.

They are fanatics. The Marvel movies are their god and they will keyboard warrior like mad to prevent any perceived blasphemy against him. So, like any fanatics worth their glassy-eyed stare, they label those of us who don’t agree with names designed to make us look like either terrible people or those who have yet to accept the good news. There’s also another facet to their fanaticism that most people might not recognize...they speak their own language. Words that don’t mean what they think they mean are used to continue their bizarre, pointless agenda.

Much like how Evangelical Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses use “worldly” as an insult when its true meaning is complimentary, the MCU cult uses phrases such as “DC fanboy” as if it means anything more than someone who considers DC Comics their favorite comics publisher. The same thing was done to the word “liberal” in the 1980s, a tactic that proved so successful, liberals started calling themselves “progressives” instead.

In the right (or wrong, depending upon your point of view) hands, re-engineering language can be a powerful tool for controlling how people view things.

We have entered a time when even disagreement over a movie can turn ugly. Since I expected something like this to happen, I decided to sit back and observe. Whenever I saw someone on an “Endgame” related Facebook post make any sort of non--fawning comment about the movie,  I clicked on it to read the reactions. True to form, the majority were antagonistic, hostile, dismissive and, in some cases, demeaning. Two weeks after the initial giddiness had worn off, however, I started noticing a small but steady wave of people daring to share negative opinions. Some of them were obvious trolls, of course, and some were far less kind to the movie than I’ve been, but the response was the same no matter what.

I finally decided to see about getting a substantive response to why these clearly insecure fanatics are responding this way. To do that, I decided to choose a thread where the initial comment was resoundingly negative.

I agreed with some of the original commenter’s points but not all of them. Again, I did not hate the movie. I found it underwhelming with a lackluster second act (my normal criticism of problematic movies is the third act) and a victim of lazy, phoned-in writing but there were moments that were very enjoyable. Just not enough of them considering the near perfection of its predecessor.

It didn’t take long for the guy to be labelled a troll; jokes were hurled at him implying he’d been molested as a child (some obscene metaphor online jerks use to indicate your dissenting opinion comes from striking back at the world because you were tampered with) and a “Butthurt DC fanboy,” which is apparently the worst thing one can be in the eyes of a MCU Zombie. The original commenter seemed to find this all rather amusing while I decided to use it as a way to see if I could get a better idea of their so-called thought-processes.

I wrote, “I found the movie disappointing and lackluster. Am I a butthurt DC fanboy, too?”

The response, “You either are or you’re not,” came straight from the fanatic’s songbook. In fact, it’s a paraphrase of a response I received when I asked a religious fanatic if I was going to Hell for not being a believer.

I repeated the question. To my pleasant surprise, the second response was measured and thoughtful. He informed me his comments were really about the people who slammed the movie with words such as “sucks” and “garbage etc. I thanked him for the reply and the adult way he did it. One other person was not so mature and I had to remind him I’m not his “bro.”

It occured to me that the guy with whom I’d mostly interacted was probably caught up in a moment of fanatical fervor. He also likely realized how like the original commenter was coming across when I did not react with hostility. Sometimes it is possible to make a fanatic think.

Now if we could just do something about that toxic “Star Wars” fanbase.

Life and it's Obnoxious Tendency to get in the Way!

We will be back with more soon.

Liam Neeson's Comment Examined

Liam Neeson made a huge mistake recently. He decided to be honest about how he felt and contrasted it with the way he feels now.  Why was this wrong, you ask?

Honestly, the only way you could be asking is if you spent zero time on the Interwebbings, which means you're most likely not reading our post either. Still, here's a brief recap of the incident and ensuing controversy:

In an interview with The Independent, Neeson revealed how he reacted to news of a female friend of his being raped.

“I asked, did she know who it was? No. What colour were they? She said it was a black person.I went up and down areas with a cosh, [
a thick heavy stick or bar used as a weapon; a bludgeon} hoping I’d be approached by somebody – I’m ashamed to say that – and I did it for maybe a week, hoping some [Neeson gestures air quotes with his fingers] ‘black bastard’ would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could,” another pause, “kill him.”

The point of this admission, according to the actor, was to point out how horribly he felt about his actions and what he learned as a result. He refers to the experience as "awful" and says he finally reached a point where he asked himself what the fuck he was doing:

"“I come from a society – I grew up in Northern Ireland in the Troubles – and, you know, I knew a couple of guys that died on hunger strike, and I had acquaintances who were very caught up in the Troubles, and I understand that need for revenge, but it just leads to more revenge, to more killing and more killing, and Northern Ireland’s proof of that. All this stuff that’s happening in the world, the violence, is proof of that, you know. But that primal need, I understand.”

Neeson appears to be coming from a place of regret and insistence that he learned from that experience and is disgusted that he ever committed those actions in the first place. He views his comments as a way to express the aspects of human existence most people refuse to face, as is often the path taken by artists. So, of course, the online crucifixion began immediately.  Naturally the by now worn out expression "toxic masculinity" was used, thereby ignoring eons of human development and behavior.  Even if it is an example of toxic masculinity (which is a thing, don't get us wrong) it's also an example of a man realizing that and confessing his sins. Or is it? Read the discussion below to find out what we thought:


C: First of all, how can Key and Peele be wrong?
T: Key and Peele are never wrong.
C: Except that one time.
T: We don't talk about that.
C: Talk about what?
T:Exactly.
C: ...
T: ...
C: *Clears throat*
T: Hey, did you hear about that Liam Neeson thing?
C: Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I thought we could discuss it on this here blog right here.
T: I'm sort of conflicted on how I feel about his admission.
C: How so?
T: Part of me respects the fact that he was honest about it and admitted he was wrong. That shows growth. But at the same time I'm bothered by the fact that if he had run into a random black man, this would be a different story.
C: It might not be a story at all. Somebody might have died without it ever being known.
T: That may very well be true.
C: My issue is with the criticism and the hypocrisy.
T: This should be interesting. Explain.
C: People like to pretend they don't have a dark side. It's why they look down on people who like horror.
T: They do. And honestly, that's what I respect about what [Neeson] said. He owned his darkness and took responsibility for it.
C: He also used it as a learning/teaching moment. This happened forty years ago! The world was a very different place. That's not an excuse for bigotry, it's an attempt to set proper context for actions he clearly regrets and, even more, is ashamed of. Y'know, so many Christians claim they love stories about redemption but the ones they seem to love are bullshit spin jobs used to manipulate them. A real story of redemption comes along and they scream "BOYCOTT that penitent man!"
T: I understand it happened forty years ago and honestly I don't believe he's racist; I do believe he had a bigoted moment and the fact that he owned up to it of his own free will speaks volumes about the man he is.
C: Exactly. Who knows if he ever had an overt racist thought in his head before that? Probably not. This one experience forced him to face an ugly part of himself that might have remained buried. I feel the need to tell a story.
T: Go for it.
C: Someone whose identity I won't reveal but who i relatively close to me saw something when he was returning home from the South on a bus. This would've been either the 1950s or early Sixties. A group of young white guys grabbed a young black guy and beat him severely right there in the bus station. This person remembers seeing the victim get kicked under another bus right before his pulled off.
T: That's fucked up.
C: He said all he could think was how when he got home he was going to grab the first white guy he saw and beat the shit out of him. Unlike Liam Neeson, he did just that. This wasn't even because of someone he knew personally.
T: That's just sad. But back then attacks on blacks were commonplace.
C: Absolutely. But this was the first thing that sprang to mind when I heard Neeson's comments. This person regrets his actions, too. But it's an all-too human response despite the attempts to label normal behavior as toxic masculinity.
T: That's probably why his story hits a nerve to some degree. There was a time when whites would destroy an entire black neighborhood for an accusation of what happened to his friend. Even though he admitted being wrong, it still reminds us of those stories from the past.
C: Entire towns were wiped out in some cases.
T: Yeah.
C: Excellent point. In a broader sense, though, you can't go around saying white people are racist by virtue of the system you're living under and then chastise one when they admit to a racist impulse and express disgust about their own actions. It's hypocritical.
T: I don't think all whites are racist but there is a large majority that is biased towards what they're conditioned to believe [about non-whites]. But then again aren't we all?
C: Not me. I'm awesome.
T: Is that what they conditioned you to believe?
C: It's what I conditioned them to believe.
T: Nice.
C: I know you don't think that, however, the accepted viewpoint on living in a racist society is that the majority power race is racist even when they don't want or mean to be me.
T: That is very true.
C: What are your thoughts on the online attacks?
T: Senseless and serves no real purpose. I really wish someone would ask him to sit down with them and discuss his story, hopefully someone of color. I don't think the interview would be taken seriously otherwise. And he needs to shut up now. The more he tries to explain, the worse it gets.
C; Anything else?
T: The one thing we can take from this incident is that we, as a nation, need to have a real conversation about race and racism.
C: I feel like if Neeson stood up and testified with this same story in front of a black congregation instead of in a press junket, he would have been applauded.
T: You might be right about that. The conversation needs to honestly deal with racism against people of color in particular. You can't make a better future until you're willing to confront the past.
C: Let me piggyback off that by saying a portion of that includes not condemning someone for trying to have the conversation when the facts upset us.
T: Absolutely.


Let the hate comments commence~