I think it would be pretty easy to argue that the best humor is natural humor. Thought out jokes and routines can be very funny, but their humor is fleeting. That is to say that although the jokes themselves may continue to be funny with each retelling, the humor and good feelings that build pre and post joke don't stay. I think part of this has to do with that odd little socio-quirk of not laughing as much alone as you do when others are around. The jokes are just as funny, but the need to laugh out loud differs. This goes for wit as well. A good witty response or off-the-cuff joke generally comes across much funnier than something that was planned and written. This is what I call natural humor. It is humor that arises naturally in the situation. This is humor that is funny without the participants necessarily trying to be funny. I'm not going to try to argue this with some philosophical argument about "natural vs artificial." I just want to put that sense of natural humor into your minds. I think the best way to really describe it would be with comparing two nights. On one night, you go to see a stand up comedian. It's just you and a friend or two. You go to the show and have a good time. On a different night, you get together with a few friends, maybe have dinner together, and then sit around having a good time playing cards, playing a board game, or even just chatting over coffee. You laugh and joke and have a genuinely good time in their company. Granted this might depend on your group of friends, but isn't the second night the kind that stays in your mind? Isn't it the kind that builds inside jokes? Isn't it the kind of night that you want regularly?
I may have gone off track a little. I wanted to get the idea of natural humor across though because it is so important to this topic. As with anything, it is so easy for us to generalize things and make opinions without having enough exposure to something. This can be seen in many people's opinions of Britcoms. Most know Britcoms as being either insane like Monty Python or dry like As Time Goes By. It's the same as saying that all anime is kids stuff like Pokemon or perverted like something hentai. Regardless, I'm just trying to make the point of ignoring your opinions on Britcoms since I am not actually talking about them.
I am talking about panel shows. What is a panel show? Well, imagine a quiz/game show with two team captains and a host. The quiz/game show concept is pretty loose here generally. Oh yes, they will have quiz type questions, rounds, and points to be scored, but these are secondary to the show especially the points. These aren't games you go on to win. These are games you go on to have fun and entertain people. Also, not all of them follow the host and 2 captains formula. Each captain's team is then filled out with other entertainers. Sometimes they are Reality TV stars, sometimes they are musicians, but usually they are other comedians. Much of this depends on which panel show it is.
We have nothing like this here. Granted I don't watch much television, but the only two shows I can even think of that remotely resemble a panel show are Hollywood Squares and Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. While these are the closest to the concept, both are quite far from the mark. Politically Incorrect was too serious. Also, there weren't many guests on the show that worked well in the format. Either the guests were intelligent with a good grasp of politics or they were completely out of their element. So while there were good discussions on the show, there were also many awkward moments of comedians forcing jokes in an attempt to be funny. Hollywood Squares is too scripted and the comedians are restrained. Picture Hollywood Squares without the players. Now, let Whoopi Goldberg , Gilbert Gottfried, and Penn Jillette have free reign. Let's add either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert as the host. Oh, sure, there will be chaos, but can imagine how funny it would be?
The sad part of it all is that panel shows are one of the few types of shows that won't be "imported." Oh, we've "imported" many shows. American Idol, X Factor, America's Got Talent, Top Gear, Dancing with the Stars, and Big Brother are just a few. The problem is that there are far too many egos that would end up competing. They would each be trying to use the program as a vehicle for themselves. There are also too many egos that bruise easily. This is not conducive to a panel show. Think about it. We live in a day and age where stars go on talk shows where hosts are told what they can and cannot talk about. We have shows built on hosts like Donald Trump or Judge Judy who are supposed to be curt and rude, but should a comedian jokingly slag someone off, there will be apologies. We have to be careful around certain stars and treat them with kid gloves because otherwise they might get butt hurt and then we won't get them back on the show and then we'll lose ratings and money. F' that.
A word of warning, however. Should you start watching these shows, there are going to be people you've never heard of and jokes that you won't understand. This falls under the topical humor that I discussed in a previous topic. The jokes are funnier if you know who/what is involved, but many of them are still funny because you get the gist of them. A good bit of the humor is funny no matter what. Also, after watching a number of them, you will begin to learn who the different comedians are. There are a bunch of them that go from show to show.
Just to get you started, check out:
Never Mind the Buzzcocks
Would I Lie to You
Q.I.
8 Out of 10 Cats
Big Fat Quiz of the Year
Hope these bring smiles to your faces.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Holding Movies to My Standards
There are those out there that would say I am over-critical of movies. It would be foolish to try to deny these claims. I do pick up on little details and let them bother me more than they should. One the same token though, I don't usually let these details ruin a movie for me. Correction, I don't let them if the movie is good.
I do not consider myself a "film snob." If you've ever run into a stereotypical film student, that is what I consider a film snob. If you were to go through my collection, not only would you find that some classic films that any proper film snob would include are missing, you would also find many movies that no snob would touch. Seriously, I don't think any film snob would have a copy of Puss in Boots starring Christopher Walken in their collection even if they were trying to be ironic and hipster. Now, don't think that it is in my collection for any good reason beyond it being just too bizarre to get rid of. Well, that and having it around to inflict on people.
Ignoring for a moment those previous couple of sentences, I consider my critical opinions and general pickiness to come from my having standards. That sounds rather snobbish, I know. My standards come from the variety and number of movies I've seen and have collected. The problem comes from seeing so many really good films. Sadly, at least for Hollywood, the majority of these really good films seem to be foreign or independent. We you watch and collect these quality films, other films, especially modern Hollywood made ones, fall flat. I'll save my tirades and opinions on modern Hollywood for another blog.
Since I can't seem to do anything simply, this is a good place to mention that my "standards" vary depending on the film. I am not going to hold a '70s Blacksploitation to the same standards as a Period Epic. That would just be silly. In order to be able to justify this varying scale of standards when it comes to film, I must address an X factor. A movie should simply be what it is. This gets a bit philosophical. We're seeing lately in American Cinema a push (not just the remakes and being generally uncreative) to try to capture an essence or style from other movies in an attempt to be one of those movies. It seems like they want to recreate "exploitation films" and the whole "grindhouse experience." Or, there is this idea of trying to make independent films have this "independent film" feel. These "feels" they are trying to create pretty consistently hurt the quality of the movies. If the movie has a good script, good director, and some good actors, generally speaking the end result will be an good movie. If you are trying to give the movie a certain "feel" that is unnecessary to the development of the film, it will show. You'll be able to tell that they were "trying too hard." Just let the movie be what the movie is.
Let me give you some examples. Hobo with a Shotgun had many elements that would make it fall into the exploitation genre. The problem is that the elements were taken from the '70s but none of their essences were. They tried to make it an "exploitation film." They failed. They simply made a bad movie. Had they simply tried to make Hobo with a Shotgun instead of Hobo with a Shotgun the grindhouse-style exploitation movie, it may have worked. In not trying to become something, there was a fair chance that they would have actually become that very thing. Let's look next at all those so called parody films that got mass produced straight to DVD based of the success of the first Scary Movie. I don't think I really need to go into any kind of detail as far as the "trying too hard" argument goes. A joke is funny simply because it is funny. A forced joke loses its humor. I think I could easily make the comparison of these types of movies to the deterioration of something as you continue to make copies of copies. ("She touched my pepe, Steve.") The problem can be traced to the very first copy. Scary Movie based its parody off of Scream. This is problematic. Why? Most people, I'm assuming the makers of Scary Movie are included here, missed the fact that Scream was a satire of horror movies. So they made a parody of a satire. Of course they threw in a bunch of topical jokes and toilet and drug humor too. Given that those are three areas of humor that require a subtle touch and are rarely understood by the people who use them, they probably weren't the best choices to add to their "parody." Granted, topical humor generally doesn't translate well years later. Although, a properly done topical bit is still funny, just not as funny as it would be if you knew where it was coming from. The other problem was that there people were trying to make a "Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker film." I would be remiss if I didn't say that I know at least one of the Zuckers was involved in some of the Scary Movies. Regardless, we are still looking at copies of copies.
I think I should reel this back in. Simply put, stop trying to hard to make these movies something that they aren't. You can imitate a director's style, but you'll never make one of those director's films. So yeah, anyway, standards. I hold the movies to the standards of their fellow films. It's just a shame when so many foreign, independent, or older American films set the bar so high. So, I for one, am not going to sit back and eat, drink, or buy into what the machine is saying is good. That is a different rant though.
Highly critical though I am and holding the high standards that I do, I can say one thing for sure. I don't recommend movies lightly. If I don't think you'll like it, I won't recommend it to you. If I think it is one of those movies that is simply fantastic, I will probably recommend it to everyone. I hate to put it in this pompous way, but if the general populace finds many of the modern mediocre movies to be really good, imagine how blown away they would be if they saw a film that was actually really good.
Regardless of your level of love for film, music, literature, or whatever is your thing, at the very least, I hope that you love them for what they are. I hope that you love them because you love them. Don't like anything simply because others say you should. If we can't love our entertainments for simply being what they are, how can we ever learn to love others simply for being who they are?
I do not consider myself a "film snob." If you've ever run into a stereotypical film student, that is what I consider a film snob. If you were to go through my collection, not only would you find that some classic films that any proper film snob would include are missing, you would also find many movies that no snob would touch. Seriously, I don't think any film snob would have a copy of Puss in Boots starring Christopher Walken in their collection even if they were trying to be ironic and hipster. Now, don't think that it is in my collection for any good reason beyond it being just too bizarre to get rid of. Well, that and having it around to inflict on people.
Ignoring for a moment those previous couple of sentences, I consider my critical opinions and general pickiness to come from my having standards. That sounds rather snobbish, I know. My standards come from the variety and number of movies I've seen and have collected. The problem comes from seeing so many really good films. Sadly, at least for Hollywood, the majority of these really good films seem to be foreign or independent. We you watch and collect these quality films, other films, especially modern Hollywood made ones, fall flat. I'll save my tirades and opinions on modern Hollywood for another blog.
Since I can't seem to do anything simply, this is a good place to mention that my "standards" vary depending on the film. I am not going to hold a '70s Blacksploitation to the same standards as a Period Epic. That would just be silly. In order to be able to justify this varying scale of standards when it comes to film, I must address an X factor. A movie should simply be what it is. This gets a bit philosophical. We're seeing lately in American Cinema a push (not just the remakes and being generally uncreative) to try to capture an essence or style from other movies in an attempt to be one of those movies. It seems like they want to recreate "exploitation films" and the whole "grindhouse experience." Or, there is this idea of trying to make independent films have this "independent film" feel. These "feels" they are trying to create pretty consistently hurt the quality of the movies. If the movie has a good script, good director, and some good actors, generally speaking the end result will be an good movie. If you are trying to give the movie a certain "feel" that is unnecessary to the development of the film, it will show. You'll be able to tell that they were "trying too hard." Just let the movie be what the movie is.
Let me give you some examples. Hobo with a Shotgun had many elements that would make it fall into the exploitation genre. The problem is that the elements were taken from the '70s but none of their essences were. They tried to make it an "exploitation film." They failed. They simply made a bad movie. Had they simply tried to make Hobo with a Shotgun instead of Hobo with a Shotgun the grindhouse-style exploitation movie, it may have worked. In not trying to become something, there was a fair chance that they would have actually become that very thing. Let's look next at all those so called parody films that got mass produced straight to DVD based of the success of the first Scary Movie. I don't think I really need to go into any kind of detail as far as the "trying too hard" argument goes. A joke is funny simply because it is funny. A forced joke loses its humor. I think I could easily make the comparison of these types of movies to the deterioration of something as you continue to make copies of copies. ("She touched my pepe, Steve.") The problem can be traced to the very first copy. Scary Movie based its parody off of Scream. This is problematic. Why? Most people, I'm assuming the makers of Scary Movie are included here, missed the fact that Scream was a satire of horror movies. So they made a parody of a satire. Of course they threw in a bunch of topical jokes and toilet and drug humor too. Given that those are three areas of humor that require a subtle touch and are rarely understood by the people who use them, they probably weren't the best choices to add to their "parody." Granted, topical humor generally doesn't translate well years later. Although, a properly done topical bit is still funny, just not as funny as it would be if you knew where it was coming from. The other problem was that there people were trying to make a "Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker film." I would be remiss if I didn't say that I know at least one of the Zuckers was involved in some of the Scary Movies. Regardless, we are still looking at copies of copies.
I think I should reel this back in. Simply put, stop trying to hard to make these movies something that they aren't. You can imitate a director's style, but you'll never make one of those director's films. So yeah, anyway, standards. I hold the movies to the standards of their fellow films. It's just a shame when so many foreign, independent, or older American films set the bar so high. So, I for one, am not going to sit back and eat, drink, or buy into what the machine is saying is good. That is a different rant though.
Highly critical though I am and holding the high standards that I do, I can say one thing for sure. I don't recommend movies lightly. If I don't think you'll like it, I won't recommend it to you. If I think it is one of those movies that is simply fantastic, I will probably recommend it to everyone. I hate to put it in this pompous way, but if the general populace finds many of the modern mediocre movies to be really good, imagine how blown away they would be if they saw a film that was actually really good.
Regardless of your level of love for film, music, literature, or whatever is your thing, at the very least, I hope that you love them for what they are. I hope that you love them because you love them. Don't like anything simply because others say you should. If we can't love our entertainments for simply being what they are, how can we ever learn to love others simply for being who they are?
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The Script Calls for Crazy
So, I just finished watching The Perfect Host starring David Hyde Pierce. I was thinking about reviewing it on here, but I decided against that. The movie is great. There where several good OMG moments. The acting was fantastic. David Hyde Pierce's performance blew me away. This is one of those movies, however, that are better left discussed after viewing. So, go see it so we can talk about it. Tee hee. Seriously though, due to the twists and turns as well as character motivations and psyches, it would be hard to review this film without giving too much away.
What am doing on here typing about it anyway if I'm not going to review it? The answer is pretty simple actually. I want to address crazy in movies. Mental illness of all sorts can be included in this monologue, but I'm going to be leaning more to portrayals of characters that are seriously crazy. It is an actor's profession to be able to express the emotions, thoughts, motivations, and such of a character. Some obviously are better at this than others. A good director, crew, and supporting cast can help raise an actor's apparent skill. However, I feel that it takes a very special kind of actor to do crazy properly. Most either go too far or fall short.
When actors go too far with the crazy, it doesn't play right. It is either hokey and laughable or annoying and unbelievable. In either case, it usually comes across as "hey look at me. I'm crazy. Can't you see that I'm crazy?" A lot of what I like to call "Hillbilly Horror" contains this kind of madness. It's over the top. It starts out with you figuring something just isn't quite right, and it ends with them laughing hysterically whilst they and the corpses of their relatives dine on a character's friend. Usually, my reaction is, "oh yeah, figured they were nuts." Rarely in these cases am I surprised, shocked, or can even find a reason to care. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Hillbilly Horror. It seems in many of the cases where they go too far with the crazy that the reason they are crazy is simply because they are crazy. "Ok, Steve, you're character is crazy, like I'm talking nuts. I like what you did in that scene, but I want you to go even crazier." The fact that they are "crazy" is enough for the script writers, cast, and director.
When actors fall short with the crazy, it is usually because they don't go deep enough. Their characters come across as either a bland generic example of a mental illness or as someone who may have a couple of issues but nothing too extreme. Unlike when they go too far, falling short comes across as, "oh I guess he's crazy. Ok, whatever." In the really bad cases, it just leaves the audience wondering why the character is doing what they are doing.
There are exceptions in both cases of course. If a movie is itself completely over the top and nuts, the crazy characters have to be that much more crazy. If they don't stand out as crazy, they are just another aspect of the craziness of the movie in general. If the character is some minor character like a henchman in an action flick, they are allowed to fall short and be typical. They don't really matter to the plot and will most likely be killed off pretty quickly.
Finally, we arrive at those that do crazy right. Here we have two classes. The first are those that do crazy right, but don't necessarily shine. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys is a good example of this. He did his research, embraced his role, and quite frankly did a great job... but it doesn't grab you inside. Jack Nicholson in the Shining is another good example. His descent into madness is pretty good, and he goes really nuts well. It still though doesn't hit that nerve.
The other class is really a class all to itself. This is the class where not only do they do crazy right, they nail it. They do is so perfectly that you feel...words fail me here. It is some internal feeling of not quite shock, not quite stirring, not exactly creeped out. You are captivated and yet a little unsettled. If you have felt it, you'll know what I mean. It is kind of inexpressible. Two prime examples of this are Heath Ledger and Anthony Perkins. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was above and beyond. His Joker was so complete that I wasn't watching an actor's portrayal of a character. I was watching the real guy. There was no "character." Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was another fantastically complete character. All the credit cannot go to Hitchcock because even in the sequels, Norman Bates doesn't change. Perkins took the character and made him real. He had such a subtlety and depth with his portrayal of Bates that just made it all so complete and real. UGH! I really wish I could express that feeling!
I can now add David Hyde Pierce to that list. I wish I could give you my reasons for adding him to the list, but doing so would ruin so much of The Perfect Host for those who haven't seen it. So, yeah, I guess I'll wrap this up with: if you're going to play crazy, do it right or go beyond to near perfection. Your audience will thank you for it.
What am doing on here typing about it anyway if I'm not going to review it? The answer is pretty simple actually. I want to address crazy in movies. Mental illness of all sorts can be included in this monologue, but I'm going to be leaning more to portrayals of characters that are seriously crazy. It is an actor's profession to be able to express the emotions, thoughts, motivations, and such of a character. Some obviously are better at this than others. A good director, crew, and supporting cast can help raise an actor's apparent skill. However, I feel that it takes a very special kind of actor to do crazy properly. Most either go too far or fall short.
When actors go too far with the crazy, it doesn't play right. It is either hokey and laughable or annoying and unbelievable. In either case, it usually comes across as "hey look at me. I'm crazy. Can't you see that I'm crazy?" A lot of what I like to call "Hillbilly Horror" contains this kind of madness. It's over the top. It starts out with you figuring something just isn't quite right, and it ends with them laughing hysterically whilst they and the corpses of their relatives dine on a character's friend. Usually, my reaction is, "oh yeah, figured they were nuts." Rarely in these cases am I surprised, shocked, or can even find a reason to care. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Hillbilly Horror. It seems in many of the cases where they go too far with the crazy that the reason they are crazy is simply because they are crazy. "Ok, Steve, you're character is crazy, like I'm talking nuts. I like what you did in that scene, but I want you to go even crazier." The fact that they are "crazy" is enough for the script writers, cast, and director.
When actors fall short with the crazy, it is usually because they don't go deep enough. Their characters come across as either a bland generic example of a mental illness or as someone who may have a couple of issues but nothing too extreme. Unlike when they go too far, falling short comes across as, "oh I guess he's crazy. Ok, whatever." In the really bad cases, it just leaves the audience wondering why the character is doing what they are doing.
There are exceptions in both cases of course. If a movie is itself completely over the top and nuts, the crazy characters have to be that much more crazy. If they don't stand out as crazy, they are just another aspect of the craziness of the movie in general. If the character is some minor character like a henchman in an action flick, they are allowed to fall short and be typical. They don't really matter to the plot and will most likely be killed off pretty quickly.
Finally, we arrive at those that do crazy right. Here we have two classes. The first are those that do crazy right, but don't necessarily shine. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys is a good example of this. He did his research, embraced his role, and quite frankly did a great job... but it doesn't grab you inside. Jack Nicholson in the Shining is another good example. His descent into madness is pretty good, and he goes really nuts well. It still though doesn't hit that nerve.
The other class is really a class all to itself. This is the class where not only do they do crazy right, they nail it. They do is so perfectly that you feel...words fail me here. It is some internal feeling of not quite shock, not quite stirring, not exactly creeped out. You are captivated and yet a little unsettled. If you have felt it, you'll know what I mean. It is kind of inexpressible. Two prime examples of this are Heath Ledger and Anthony Perkins. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was above and beyond. His Joker was so complete that I wasn't watching an actor's portrayal of a character. I was watching the real guy. There was no "character." Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was another fantastically complete character. All the credit cannot go to Hitchcock because even in the sequels, Norman Bates doesn't change. Perkins took the character and made him real. He had such a subtlety and depth with his portrayal of Bates that just made it all so complete and real. UGH! I really wish I could express that feeling!
I can now add David Hyde Pierce to that list. I wish I could give you my reasons for adding him to the list, but doing so would ruin so much of The Perfect Host for those who haven't seen it. So, yeah, I guess I'll wrap this up with: if you're going to play crazy, do it right or go beyond to near perfection. Your audience will thank you for it.
Monday, July 16, 2012
The Great Sub vs Dub Debate
This one might be a bit hard to keep on track, but I shall do my best. Where do I stand in the great Subtitles versus Dubbing debate? Irrevocably I am loyal to subtitles. Why? Because I want to experience the movie the way it was intended. The actors were chosen for a reason. When an actor is doing an emotional scene, it shows through regardless of language. Having someone else try to equal the original emotion as well as doing it in a way that will sync up, it just falls flat. I'll get deeper into this point a little later.
"I don't want to read my movie," I here people say. Granted there are times where the writing on the screen goes by too quickly. Granted, although closer to the original context than dubbing, subtitles sometimes just don't translate well. This is usually only in cases of cultural significance or colloquialisms. Unless you have difficulty with reading, in which case your argument is completely valid, the "reading the movie" argument is pretty weak. Sure, it's personal preference, and I have no real right to say that a person's opinions and preferences are wrong. But, personal preferences aside, watch enough subtitled films and shows and it becomes second nature. So, if you'll grant me a brief moment of pomposity, if you use the "reading a movie" argument, just get over it.
"But what about those Spaghetti Westerns and Giallo that you like? They're dubbed, so HA!" No one has actually brought this argument up with me before, but that won't stop me from arguing myself. If any of these movies have the original Italian soundtrack on the DVD I will usually watch that. The thing though, is that this argument is a misguided one. Most Italian films, especially those in the eras I like, did ALL of their dialogue in post production. This was done for various reasons, but one of those is so that the movies could be distributed to other countries easily. So right from the get go the studios are prepared to "dub" these movies. I have therefore found that there is very little difference between the subtitled and "dubbed" versions of these films. I'm using the quotes around dubbed because technically it is not a dub.You still need to find these films in their unedited versions regardless of your choice of English or Italian dialogue. Also sometimes you have to be careful because edited versions of particularly the horror films are distributed under weird new titles.
"Ok, it's one thing to be pro-subtitles, but you seem pretty adamantly anti-dub." Again, this is not an argument that has been brought up to me, but if I'm going to be honest with myself, it easily could be brought up. I can answer this very simply. I am anti-dub because the majority of dubbing is absolutely horrid. I once saw Ichi the Killer dubbed. They were dubbed with British accents. Japanese Yakuza speaking in British accents. This is just wrong on so so many levels. I might be able to barely convince myself that it would be ok if it had been a Hong Kong movie, given Hong Kong's history. But, no, it was Japanese, and this was not acceptable. Well, at least it wasn't to me. It's bad enough watching a subpar actors, but to hear subpar actors trying to convey emotion purely through their voices is irritating to say the least.
This debate mainly appears and applies among anime watchers. Here is were the bad is horrid and the good is fair. There are a few series that have a pretty good dub. Cowboy Bebop would be one of them. Studio Ghibli, I will tip my hat to. Disney is collaborating with them to distribute their films. Disney decided to do this the right way. They get famous Hollywood actors to do the roles. This is nice because it brings attention that these movies otherwise would never have gotten here in the U.S. It goes beyond that, not only are they using famous actors, they have at least two translators on hand to help when they need to alter the wording of dialogue. I still watch these films in their original language, but I am ok with the dubs.
However, far too many studios don't care. There are many great voice actors out there, and in most cases of bad dubbing, they are just doing as they are told. Voice actors have admitted to the fact that they were told to not watch the anime that they were going to be working on. This...I just don't even....WTF!!! Who thinks this is actually a good idea? Add to this the fact the many of the bean counters and directors seem to think that cartoons are for children. These same people are probably the type that think they understand children despite having limited association with them. Voice actors have admitted that they disagreed with kiddying up their characters, but they had to do what the director said. Why add catch phrases and obnoxiousness where it is not needed? Also, I will grant you that people don't always sound the way you would think they would sound. Tay Zonday is a prime example of this. If, however, you are given a finished product where actors were specifically chosen for the roles, why would you not bother to at the very least find a voice actor that sounds similar? I am left to listen to voices that not only sound different from the ones I'm used to, but also voices that generally don't fit the characters.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate voice actors and am glad they have work. I know they do their best, or at the very least, do their best to give the directors what they want. So, they following statements don't really apply to the voice actors. If you are going to dub a movie, television show, film, or anime, for the love of everything that is holy, please bother to actually put some effort into producing a product as good as the original. All you have to do is translate and try to sync up the English. So many things went into making these things. Countless hours were spent. Numerous people put their sweat and tears into making them. The vast amounts of work and creativity spent. Is it too much to ask that you respect all of that work, and try to do it justice with good dubbing? I don't think it is too much to ask.
Anyway, there's not much more to say on the matter without leading myself off into tangents. I will, therefore, end this with one more argument for subtitles but from a different perspective. Picture, if you will, one of your favorite bands or one of the classic greats. Can any cover band equal them? Some will do better than others. Some will fall flat or even butcher your favorite songs. Most are just so so. No cover band, however good, will nail it perfectly. You'll always prefer the original sound. When the dubbers that I'll call cover bands reach the passion, skill, and respect to be rightfully called a tribute band, that is when I'll re-evaluate my stance. I'll always prefer the original, but I might be less harsh of my assessments of the dubs.
"I don't want to read my movie," I here people say. Granted there are times where the writing on the screen goes by too quickly. Granted, although closer to the original context than dubbing, subtitles sometimes just don't translate well. This is usually only in cases of cultural significance or colloquialisms. Unless you have difficulty with reading, in which case your argument is completely valid, the "reading the movie" argument is pretty weak. Sure, it's personal preference, and I have no real right to say that a person's opinions and preferences are wrong. But, personal preferences aside, watch enough subtitled films and shows and it becomes second nature. So, if you'll grant me a brief moment of pomposity, if you use the "reading a movie" argument, just get over it.
"But what about those Spaghetti Westerns and Giallo that you like? They're dubbed, so HA!" No one has actually brought this argument up with me before, but that won't stop me from arguing myself. If any of these movies have the original Italian soundtrack on the DVD I will usually watch that. The thing though, is that this argument is a misguided one. Most Italian films, especially those in the eras I like, did ALL of their dialogue in post production. This was done for various reasons, but one of those is so that the movies could be distributed to other countries easily. So right from the get go the studios are prepared to "dub" these movies. I have therefore found that there is very little difference between the subtitled and "dubbed" versions of these films. I'm using the quotes around dubbed because technically it is not a dub.You still need to find these films in their unedited versions regardless of your choice of English or Italian dialogue. Also sometimes you have to be careful because edited versions of particularly the horror films are distributed under weird new titles.
"Ok, it's one thing to be pro-subtitles, but you seem pretty adamantly anti-dub." Again, this is not an argument that has been brought up to me, but if I'm going to be honest with myself, it easily could be brought up. I can answer this very simply. I am anti-dub because the majority of dubbing is absolutely horrid. I once saw Ichi the Killer dubbed. They were dubbed with British accents. Japanese Yakuza speaking in British accents. This is just wrong on so so many levels. I might be able to barely convince myself that it would be ok if it had been a Hong Kong movie, given Hong Kong's history. But, no, it was Japanese, and this was not acceptable. Well, at least it wasn't to me. It's bad enough watching a subpar actors, but to hear subpar actors trying to convey emotion purely through their voices is irritating to say the least.
This debate mainly appears and applies among anime watchers. Here is were the bad is horrid and the good is fair. There are a few series that have a pretty good dub. Cowboy Bebop would be one of them. Studio Ghibli, I will tip my hat to. Disney is collaborating with them to distribute their films. Disney decided to do this the right way. They get famous Hollywood actors to do the roles. This is nice because it brings attention that these movies otherwise would never have gotten here in the U.S. It goes beyond that, not only are they using famous actors, they have at least two translators on hand to help when they need to alter the wording of dialogue. I still watch these films in their original language, but I am ok with the dubs.
However, far too many studios don't care. There are many great voice actors out there, and in most cases of bad dubbing, they are just doing as they are told. Voice actors have admitted to the fact that they were told to not watch the anime that they were going to be working on. This...I just don't even....WTF!!! Who thinks this is actually a good idea? Add to this the fact the many of the bean counters and directors seem to think that cartoons are for children. These same people are probably the type that think they understand children despite having limited association with them. Voice actors have admitted that they disagreed with kiddying up their characters, but they had to do what the director said. Why add catch phrases and obnoxiousness where it is not needed? Also, I will grant you that people don't always sound the way you would think they would sound. Tay Zonday is a prime example of this. If, however, you are given a finished product where actors were specifically chosen for the roles, why would you not bother to at the very least find a voice actor that sounds similar? I am left to listen to voices that not only sound different from the ones I'm used to, but also voices that generally don't fit the characters.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate voice actors and am glad they have work. I know they do their best, or at the very least, do their best to give the directors what they want. So, they following statements don't really apply to the voice actors. If you are going to dub a movie, television show, film, or anime, for the love of everything that is holy, please bother to actually put some effort into producing a product as good as the original. All you have to do is translate and try to sync up the English. So many things went into making these things. Countless hours were spent. Numerous people put their sweat and tears into making them. The vast amounts of work and creativity spent. Is it too much to ask that you respect all of that work, and try to do it justice with good dubbing? I don't think it is too much to ask.
Anyway, there's not much more to say on the matter without leading myself off into tangents. I will, therefore, end this with one more argument for subtitles but from a different perspective. Picture, if you will, one of your favorite bands or one of the classic greats. Can any cover band equal them? Some will do better than others. Some will fall flat or even butcher your favorite songs. Most are just so so. No cover band, however good, will nail it perfectly. You'll always prefer the original sound. When the dubbers that I'll call cover bands reach the passion, skill, and respect to be rightfully called a tribute band, that is when I'll re-evaluate my stance. I'll always prefer the original, but I might be less harsh of my assessments of the dubs.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Smorgasbord of Song
Across most of my interests, I've found that I like things buffet-style. I like to have numerous "dishes" to sample and enjoy. In fact, I don't have a problem saying my tastes would feel right at home at The Multicultural Super Duper Buffet of Awesomeness. Of course, as with anything, there are some things that I like more than others. There are some things that I cannot stand. There are times when I'm in the mood for one thing more than another. Here I think I'll focus mainly on my music tastes. Eclectic is probably the best way to describe my musical tastes only because I don't know of a word that would be the hyperbole version of eclectic. I could make up a word. How about Epiclectic? (not sure if I like this new word, perhaps it's too similar to epileptic)
Pandora Internet Radio has been a godsend. Granted, it is not without it's faults. Let's say for example, you like a Japanese band. Unless they are instrumental, you aren't going to find them here. This is frustrating because my playlist includes Japanese shamisen players, a Korean guitar player, and Croatian cellists, but it doesn't include any of a couple of bands that I really like.
Well, I guess if I am going to officially call my tastes Epiclectic, (the word is growing on me) I should probably share with you my Pandora playlist as Exhibit A. This way, not only will I be sharing some great music with other people, they might be able to suggest some great music back. Without further ado, here is my current playlist although it is subject to grow:
Weird Al
2 Cellos
Allan Sherman
Bad Religion
Barenaked Ladies
Beastie Boys
Blue Man Group
Da Vinci's Notebook
Dexy's Midnight Runners
Dispatch
Dragonforce
Emerson, Lake, and Palmer
Erasure
Five Iron Frenzy
Flight of the Conchords
Flogging Molly
Florence + The Machine
Garfunkel and Oates
Goldfinger
Hammerfall
Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince
John Lennon
Jonathan Coulton
Journey
KISS
Less Than Jake
LL Cool J
LMFAO
Madness
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Michael Jackson
Monty Python
Mustard Plug
NOFX
Paul and Storm
Pete Townshend
Queen
Reel Big Fish
Regina Spektor
Richard Cheese
Rob Paravonian
Run DMC
Rush
Rusted Root
Sarah Donner
Skankin' Pickle
Styx
Sugarhill Gang
Sungha Jung
Tenacious D
The Aquabats
The Axis of Awesome
The Beatles
The Dresden Dolls
The Dropkick Murphys
The Lonely Island
The Misfits
The Who
They Might Be Giants
Tom Lehrer
Tripod
Weezer
Yoshida Brothers
Pandora Internet Radio has been a godsend. Granted, it is not without it's faults. Let's say for example, you like a Japanese band. Unless they are instrumental, you aren't going to find them here. This is frustrating because my playlist includes Japanese shamisen players, a Korean guitar player, and Croatian cellists, but it doesn't include any of a couple of bands that I really like.
Well, I guess if I am going to officially call my tastes Epiclectic, (the word is growing on me) I should probably share with you my Pandora playlist as Exhibit A. This way, not only will I be sharing some great music with other people, they might be able to suggest some great music back. Without further ado, here is my current playlist although it is subject to grow:
Weird Al
2 Cellos
Allan Sherman
Bad Religion
Barenaked Ladies
Beastie Boys
Blue Man Group
Da Vinci's Notebook
Dexy's Midnight Runners
Dispatch
Dragonforce
Emerson, Lake, and Palmer
Erasure
Five Iron Frenzy
Flight of the Conchords
Flogging Molly
Florence + The Machine
Garfunkel and Oates
Goldfinger
Hammerfall
Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince
John Lennon
Jonathan Coulton
Journey
KISS
Less Than Jake
LL Cool J
LMFAO
Madness
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Michael Jackson
Monty Python
Mustard Plug
NOFX
Paul and Storm
Pete Townshend
Queen
Reel Big Fish
Regina Spektor
Richard Cheese
Rob Paravonian
Run DMC
Rush
Rusted Root
Sarah Donner
Skankin' Pickle
Styx
Sugarhill Gang
Sungha Jung
Tenacious D
The Aquabats
The Axis of Awesome
The Beatles
The Dresden Dolls
The Dropkick Murphys
The Lonely Island
The Misfits
The Who
They Might Be Giants
Tom Lehrer
Tripod
Weezer
Yoshida Brothers
Sunday, July 8, 2012
What's with All These Editions?
Let me just say at the start that this is not a post bashing Wizards of the Coast. Well, at least not directly, it isn't. I think I'll save direct attacks on WotC for a later date. For those of you who don't know where I stand concerning WotC, let me put it to you this way: The Wizards are Hydromancers, and the Coast is the coast of Greed Ocean.
Like I said, this is not about WotC. This is about Dungeons and Dragons. Specifically it is about the titles of the DnD games. On the surface, one might think that it is all pretty straight forward. In fact, once you look just beneath the surface, you will find a mass of confusion. I will try my best to guide you through. Hopefully, we'll make it through without hurting your brains too much.
In the beginning, there was Dungeons and Dragons. (Ok, so historically and technically first there was Chainmail....nevermind.) Dungeons and Dragons was new and exciting. It came complete in a box. It took your hero through his first couple of experience levels. Later boxes came out with new rules and abilities. Each box took your hero through more and more experience levels. Game and Players grew together. It was lovely. At least, I assume it was. I mean it spawned a whole culture of role playing games.
Dungeons and Dragons continued to grow. Soon the rules needed to be condensed down into a set of books. The players had grown too. They were hungry for more. New rules were added. Details got deeper. Optional rules moved in. This was a more complicated...nay, more evolved version of the game. Would one go so far as to say it was a more advanced version? Yes. Yes one would. In fact, that was the title: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. This would later have "1st edition" added to the title, but we aren't there yet. More books and rules would be developed as time went on. It was all Dungeons and Dragons as far as the feel, worlds, rules, creatures, races, classes, etc. It just happened to be a more advanced version. For those of you who think about the "demonic" stuff that surrounded Dungeon and Dragons, this is the era of that. No one stopped to realize that although devils and demons were put into the game, they were the BAD GUYS! Granted a couple of people may have lost it, and there was that Tom Hanks movie. The truth is, it was probably the same type of people that accused rock and roll music and would later accuse Harry Potter. But I digress.
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons had come to a point where rules were spread out over all sorts of books, so they decided to once again condense. The result was Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition. This is all well and good because it is the 2nd edition of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. ADnD now came to be known as 1st edition because it had a 2nd edition to be the 1st of. Keep this in mind. Seems obvious, but just wait. Also, a lot of players, myself included, view ADnD 2nd Edition to be the quintessential Dungeons and Dragons. I will admit that I have been known to just call it DnD when I in fact mean ADnD 2nd Ed. At those times, I'm just being lazy. Well, not just that, I mean to me ADnD 2nd Ed. IS Dungeons and Dragons. All other versions are held up and judged by my feelings for ADnD 2nd Ed. Trust me, it really is the best edition.
Let's move on. Many years later, WotC (grumble grumble) bought the rights to everything Dungeons and Dragons. Remember how up to now it all evolved in a sensible way? DnD > ADnD > ADnD 2nd Ed. Yeah, well, sensibility ends here. WotC wanted to create a new version of Dungeons and Dragons. Fair enough. They created the D20 system. They applied it to Dungeons and Dragons and released it as....Dungeons and Dragons. They went on to make it known that this is NOT 3rd Edition. It is Dungeons and Dragons. More specifically it is D20 Dungeons and Dragons. Regardless, they were well aware that since this was not Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, it could not be a 3rd edition. It could not be called Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition (which although as far as sequential titles are concerned would be accurate) because it was a completely new system. It was simply Dungeons and Dragons again.
Not so many years later, having realized that they had totally screwed the pooch as far as such simple things as game balance and play testing were concerned, they had to fix all the problems found in D20 Dungeons and Dragons. Of course they probably could have just sent out some form of errata, but no, not only would that be a bit outrageous given the number of fixes, it wouldn't make them nearly as much money as simply remaking all the books. Yes, that's right, in classic WotC fashion, all your old stuff was obsolete and useless. Keeping in mind that WotC fought to get people to realize that this WAS NOT 3rd edition because technically it couldn't be, guess what they titled the new fixed version of their D20 game? Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition? NOPE! They went and called it Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. It makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Not only are they going against themselves, they practically remake every book to fit the fixes and call it "point five" as if it was just a minor update. WoTC more like WoTF. I'm not even going to go into all the problems with Not 3rd Edition and 3.5 Edition Dungeons and Dragons. That's pages of rant all to itself.
So what should have been DnD > ADnD > ADnD 2nd Ed. > D20 DnD > D20 DnD 2nd Ed. was now DnD > ADnD > ADnD 2nd Ed. > DnD 3rd > DnD 3.5. Well, then, this wasn't enough. Oh no. For whatever reason (I have my guesses) they decided they need to make yet another version of Dungeons and Dragons. They decided to make another completely different set of rules and mechanics. Being the "brilliant" people that they are, WotC went and named it....you guessed it 4th Edition. So, think about it. Even if we consider a completely new mechanic as being a "new edition" (which is stretching things a heck of a lot) this would truly only be 3rd Edition. DnD and ADnD have relatively the same mechanics so they would be grouped as 1st Edition? 3rd and 3.5 are the D20 system, so that would make them 2nd Edition? Leaving the next new system that they call 4th Edition to really be 3rd Edition? That, however, isn't even an argument, although there is logic to it. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that to add to all the confusion, they brought back the boxes from the very original Dungeons and Dragons to sell 4th Edition. Oh oh, AND I also forgot to mention that ADnD 2nd Edition had a reprint at one point. Did TSR call it ADnD 3rd edition? Did they call it ADnD 2.5? NO! NO THEY DIDN'T!
So, to summarize, first there was the original Dungeons and Dragons. This received some changes and gained some advanced rules and mechanics. It was rightly called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1st Edition.) This got condensed and tweaked to create Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition. Next came a whole new system (the D20 System) and called it Dungeons and Dragons (but not 3rd Edition.) They had to fix all the mistakes in this version so they re-released it as Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. This now made the not 3rd Edition 3.0. They then went and made yet another whole new system and called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.
Confusing isn't it? A pointless thing to complain about I'm sure, but it just adds ammo to my stance on WotC and how Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition is the very best edition. So what should you take away with you from reading this blog? Perhaps nothing, but then again perhaps something. Yes, something indeed should be taken. If you ever want to play a Dungeons and Dragons role playing game, find a group that plays ADnD 2nd Edition. You can thank me later.
Like I said, this is not about WotC. This is about Dungeons and Dragons. Specifically it is about the titles of the DnD games. On the surface, one might think that it is all pretty straight forward. In fact, once you look just beneath the surface, you will find a mass of confusion. I will try my best to guide you through. Hopefully, we'll make it through without hurting your brains too much.
In the beginning, there was Dungeons and Dragons. (Ok, so historically and technically first there was Chainmail....nevermind.) Dungeons and Dragons was new and exciting. It came complete in a box. It took your hero through his first couple of experience levels. Later boxes came out with new rules and abilities. Each box took your hero through more and more experience levels. Game and Players grew together. It was lovely. At least, I assume it was. I mean it spawned a whole culture of role playing games.
Dungeons and Dragons continued to grow. Soon the rules needed to be condensed down into a set of books. The players had grown too. They were hungry for more. New rules were added. Details got deeper. Optional rules moved in. This was a more complicated...nay, more evolved version of the game. Would one go so far as to say it was a more advanced version? Yes. Yes one would. In fact, that was the title: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. This would later have "1st edition" added to the title, but we aren't there yet. More books and rules would be developed as time went on. It was all Dungeons and Dragons as far as the feel, worlds, rules, creatures, races, classes, etc. It just happened to be a more advanced version. For those of you who think about the "demonic" stuff that surrounded Dungeon and Dragons, this is the era of that. No one stopped to realize that although devils and demons were put into the game, they were the BAD GUYS! Granted a couple of people may have lost it, and there was that Tom Hanks movie. The truth is, it was probably the same type of people that accused rock and roll music and would later accuse Harry Potter. But I digress.
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons had come to a point where rules were spread out over all sorts of books, so they decided to once again condense. The result was Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition. This is all well and good because it is the 2nd edition of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. ADnD now came to be known as 1st edition because it had a 2nd edition to be the 1st of. Keep this in mind. Seems obvious, but just wait. Also, a lot of players, myself included, view ADnD 2nd Edition to be the quintessential Dungeons and Dragons. I will admit that I have been known to just call it DnD when I in fact mean ADnD 2nd Ed. At those times, I'm just being lazy. Well, not just that, I mean to me ADnD 2nd Ed. IS Dungeons and Dragons. All other versions are held up and judged by my feelings for ADnD 2nd Ed. Trust me, it really is the best edition.
Let's move on. Many years later, WotC (grumble grumble) bought the rights to everything Dungeons and Dragons. Remember how up to now it all evolved in a sensible way? DnD > ADnD > ADnD 2nd Ed. Yeah, well, sensibility ends here. WotC wanted to create a new version of Dungeons and Dragons. Fair enough. They created the D20 system. They applied it to Dungeons and Dragons and released it as....Dungeons and Dragons. They went on to make it known that this is NOT 3rd Edition. It is Dungeons and Dragons. More specifically it is D20 Dungeons and Dragons. Regardless, they were well aware that since this was not Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, it could not be a 3rd edition. It could not be called Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition (which although as far as sequential titles are concerned would be accurate) because it was a completely new system. It was simply Dungeons and Dragons again.
Not so many years later, having realized that they had totally screwed the pooch as far as such simple things as game balance and play testing were concerned, they had to fix all the problems found in D20 Dungeons and Dragons. Of course they probably could have just sent out some form of errata, but no, not only would that be a bit outrageous given the number of fixes, it wouldn't make them nearly as much money as simply remaking all the books. Yes, that's right, in classic WotC fashion, all your old stuff was obsolete and useless. Keeping in mind that WotC fought to get people to realize that this WAS NOT 3rd edition because technically it couldn't be, guess what they titled the new fixed version of their D20 game? Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition? NOPE! They went and called it Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. It makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Not only are they going against themselves, they practically remake every book to fit the fixes and call it "point five" as if it was just a minor update. WoTC more like WoTF. I'm not even going to go into all the problems with Not 3rd Edition and 3.5 Edition Dungeons and Dragons. That's pages of rant all to itself.
So what should have been DnD > ADnD > ADnD 2nd Ed. > D20 DnD > D20 DnD 2nd Ed. was now DnD > ADnD > ADnD 2nd Ed. > DnD 3rd > DnD 3.5. Well, then, this wasn't enough. Oh no. For whatever reason (I have my guesses) they decided they need to make yet another version of Dungeons and Dragons. They decided to make another completely different set of rules and mechanics. Being the "brilliant" people that they are, WotC went and named it....you guessed it 4th Edition. So, think about it. Even if we consider a completely new mechanic as being a "new edition" (which is stretching things a heck of a lot) this would truly only be 3rd Edition. DnD and ADnD have relatively the same mechanics so they would be grouped as 1st Edition? 3rd and 3.5 are the D20 system, so that would make them 2nd Edition? Leaving the next new system that they call 4th Edition to really be 3rd Edition? That, however, isn't even an argument, although there is logic to it. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that to add to all the confusion, they brought back the boxes from the very original Dungeons and Dragons to sell 4th Edition. Oh oh, AND I also forgot to mention that ADnD 2nd Edition had a reprint at one point. Did TSR call it ADnD 3rd edition? Did they call it ADnD 2.5? NO! NO THEY DIDN'T!
So, to summarize, first there was the original Dungeons and Dragons. This received some changes and gained some advanced rules and mechanics. It was rightly called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1st Edition.) This got condensed and tweaked to create Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition. Next came a whole new system (the D20 System) and called it Dungeons and Dragons (but not 3rd Edition.) They had to fix all the mistakes in this version so they re-released it as Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. This now made the not 3rd Edition 3.0. They then went and made yet another whole new system and called it Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.
Confusing isn't it? A pointless thing to complain about I'm sure, but it just adds ammo to my stance on WotC and how Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition is the very best edition. So what should you take away with you from reading this blog? Perhaps nothing, but then again perhaps something. Yes, something indeed should be taken. If you ever want to play a Dungeons and Dragons role playing game, find a group that plays ADnD 2nd Edition. You can thank me later.
Check it out. I have opinions too!
So, I figured since I do have some pretty strong opinions on some things, I might as well spit them out into the cosmos of the interwebs. Given my generally odd approach to many things, the things I will most likely opine upon will seem rather unimportant. At least in the grand scheme of things they will. Ah ha, but there, my friends, is where you fall into the trap. For you see, once these seemingly insignificant topics are expanded out into the grander scheme....who am I kidding? When I vetch about movies, I'm not going to be doing so with the grand scheme of Art and Entertainments in mind. I could though. I'm sure, whether through playing the devil's advocate or just the use of twisted logic, I could make it all interconnect. Those who know me personally can attest to this.
I will attempt to keep the rambling to a minimum. This may be more difficult than I am ready to admit. Anyway...onwards!
I chose to title this blog "Disregarding the Box with Gnomie Svenson." Gnomie Svenson is an avatar and persona I use for some things. As for the rest of the title, it reflects how I like to view the world. There is the common expression about "thinking outside of the box." I find it more freeing to simply disregard the box's existence. Even when you think "outside the box," your thoughts are still in a way connected or viewed in reference to the "box."
As a word of warning, I'm not really as cynical and angry as I'm sure I'm going to appear in these blogs. I seldom view anything in this world of ours as black or white. I live in a world of philosophical greys, so naturally I find much enjoyment in bitching and opining on things that ultimately don't matter. I'm not out to change your world. I'm just here to let you take a glimpse into mine.
I will attempt to keep the rambling to a minimum. This may be more difficult than I am ready to admit. Anyway...onwards!
I chose to title this blog "Disregarding the Box with Gnomie Svenson." Gnomie Svenson is an avatar and persona I use for some things. As for the rest of the title, it reflects how I like to view the world. There is the common expression about "thinking outside of the box." I find it more freeing to simply disregard the box's existence. Even when you think "outside the box," your thoughts are still in a way connected or viewed in reference to the "box."
As a word of warning, I'm not really as cynical and angry as I'm sure I'm going to appear in these blogs. I seldom view anything in this world of ours as black or white. I live in a world of philosophical greys, so naturally I find much enjoyment in bitching and opining on things that ultimately don't matter. I'm not out to change your world. I'm just here to let you take a glimpse into mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)