Michael Offutt's Blog, page 11

My thoughts on Loki Season 2 and The Marvels

I finished Loki, season 2 a few weeks ago. It appears that this is the end of that character. I can't really see Tom Hiddleston reprising Loki in any other way than in the way they sent him off at the end of this season (this version of Loki). Before I go into more detail, here is your obligatory "Spoiler Warning."

So, the finale was pretty good. If you managed to watch it, you know that Loki took his place kind of at the center of the new multiverse and that they made it look similar to Yggdrasil: the World Tree. Loki also repeats what he told Odin in the first Thor movie: "For you, for all of us." If we do get more Loki, it will be through the use of variants. One thought is that a version of kid Loki might show up and hang with the Young Avengers.

Hiddleston did mange to play his version of Loki gloriously well. I don't know who was a more important character at this point: Thor or his brother Loki. Both of them got large amounts of screen time, and Loki by and large due to the series exceeded the amount of time that Thor got in the MCU. So maybe Loki was the most important Asgardian? I wouldn't have said this at the end of the first Thor film, but the dynamic between those two characters is super important for the stories in these comic books movies.

As far as the show goes, I liked the great characters and acting. Owen Wilson once again confirmed that he's one of the most solid supporting actors out there (I don't really see him as a main actor kind of guy). In a supporting role, he really goes a long way to make the drama of anything he's in be that much better. I also liked the truly wonderful retro art direction and the design of Miss Minutes and the TVA and so on, but you can't keep a thing fresh and surprising forever. So, maybe it was a good time to just move on. Loki was probably too cosmic by the end of this series too that it would be difficult to have him interact with mortals. He's kind of on the level of those gods that are above the Celestials in the MCU hierarchy of powers.

I also didn't understand how Loki acquired his time powers or how the whole time-slipping thing happened in the first place. My theory is that He Who Remains held Loki frozen in time when Sylvie pushed him through the portal at the end of season one. We know he can freeze and control individuals. So, Loki got frozen in-between dimensions until Kang died, at which point he was unfrozen and dropped back into the TVA. But because he was not present when the loom went into failsafe mode, it doesn't know where to put him so it tries based on the user input. And that's what causes all of the time slipping. Eh...it's kind of a mess. But so is the entirety of phase five, which saw their biggest box office bomb in "The Marvels" and the dismissal of Jonathan Majors for being an abuser of women. It seems kinda rudderless at the moment.

All of this reminds me of a comment I received on this very blog years ago when I was wondering what could possibly follow-up Avengers: End Game and someone replied, "We're at peak Marvel. It will just be downhill from here." Ouch...years later, that dude was right.

So yeah...switching gears a bit...I did go and see The Marvels in theaters. I think I was just really underwhelmed by the villain. But then someone pointed out to me that I might be too harsh with my criticism, because it was still on the level of Ant Man: Quantumania. Once I started talking about that film, I realized that they were 100% correct. The Quantumania movie and The Marvels are not better than each other at all, yet The Marvels is the worst bomb. I wonder if a lot of that just has to do with Brie Larsen, who (for some reason) people love to hate. I predict that Captain Marvel will be recast soon just to get rid of that baggage and see if the online trolls can be somewhat appeased. Who knows what will happen though with any of that. I want to believe that Marvel movies can rekindle the magic of the Thanos cycle, but I keep getting disappointed.

As far as my feelings toward The Marvels goes...while I was watching it, I thought it was light, fast, and fun. The action flowed nicely and we got really cool dynamics between the three Marvels. I loved Monica confronting Carol about her abandonment, and it was refreshing that they didn't let their issues distract them from the fight. I liked how Monica was the responsible adult and became the voice of reason.

Things I didn't like were small. The villain (obviously) was weak sauce. She just wanted to restore her planet that was ecologically devastated due to a dying sun. However, the entire movie, Carol Danvers had the power to just recharge the sun and she does that at the end. Why didn't she just do it at the beginning? Because then we wouldn't have had a movie. Also, the Kamala Khan powers are neat but the way they look on screen really strike me as "video game" and always jerk me out of the moment for some reason. It's probably just me. Also, I kind of liked seeing Carol demonstrate that she had the power to affect a star, reinvigorating it with her light blasts. The reason? The Dark Phoenix saga in the comic books. I collected these back in the eighties, and one of the things that the Dark Phoenix does in those comic books is absorb entire suns to fuel her power. I was wondering how that was going to look, and now I have an idea of how it will look because of seeing Captain Marvel reinvigorating the alien sun. Honestly, I think that Dark Phoenix would make an incredible cosmic villain for an Avengers type team up, requiring everyone to fight her. That would be awesome, and I think it would be a lot more compelling than what I'm getting from watching them lurch toward Avengers: The Kang Dynasty that's supposed to happen in a few years.

On Monday, I'm going to talk about Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom. On Wednesday, I'm going to talk about the Apple+ show Invasion. I recently finished season 1, and I have thoughts about it I want to share.

The first part of Rebel Moon is content over substance but I still can't wait for part two.

So, I can't really call myself a person who is into science-fiction and not take a time to devote a full blog post to Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon-Part One: A Child of Fire. This is a movie that seemed to throw everything at the screen in some incredible visuals that is rare to see outside of a Star Wars film. But it is also one in which I believe content trumped substance. In fact, substance was left crying in a corner while content was just king of the entire show. It came at you faster than a Harry Potter movie, and it seemed like there was breathless motion all of the time in every single scene. The narrative lurched from one plot point to the next without really any style or bothering to create any connection with the audience watching it. All that really mattered was that it was action-packed, and characters were in danger, and the stakes were high. This is my first impression of Rebel Moon.

Some people like to say that Rebel Moon is just Seven Samurai. However, I'm not going there, because it isn't. Saying that Snyder has made a movie kind of like a Kurosawa movie is a flat critique that comes 63 years after John Sturges remade Seven Samurai but with cowboys, decades after Sergio Leone took the actual beat-for-beat script of Yojimbo set in the same year and just swapped in cowboys, forty some odd years after George Lucas remade Hidden Fortress in Space and later his studio remade Seven Samurai three times in three separate series also in space. Remakes happen all of the time. The successful ones have critical elements in common. They are also able to add their own material, ideas, and style in a way that feels different enough to make the retelling justifiable and interesting. Snyder (I think) has done this with Rebel Moon. However, I think it needed to be much longer in run-time than Snyder was allowed. This first part just crammed in too much. It felt like a ten-episode series given a run time of two hours.

A lot of that is simply because there is so much world-building that needs to happen before you can understand anything. That has always been the problem with big ideas: they generally require some kind of info dump. Snyder would have been better served taking the "Riddick" approach to space opera. The first movie in the Riddick trilogy was Pitch Black, and it was a perfect movie that introduced some very simplistic things into the story. The next movie called Chronicles of Riddick blew up the story to an epic that spanned an entire galaxy, and it wasn't too much because the director didn't have to establish his characters at the same time. I know that some people may not see the Riddick trilogy as a masterwork example of how to do a space opera, but I really like it. And I think the pacing of that trilogy is just about perfect as far as how fast information is presented to the audience before it is expected to be absorbed.

I like what Zack Snyder tries to do in telling his stories. Here's a guy that started directing Dawn of the Dead, which was written by and likely shadow-directed by Romero. Then he got two graphic novels which he filmed essentially comic-frame by comic-frame, also written by some excellent storytellers. He also gets massive credit (from me) for Watchmen (which I still rewatch whenever it is on television because I like it a lot). Because of these successes, studios throw money at him. He's also a visual stylist, and I'd put him in the same category as Hitchcock in this way. But being unleashed from money concerns leads Snyder to become indulgent in the things that he really likes. That's why you get bombarded with sepia tone and slow-mo in most of his stuff. But you also get incredible creature designs that pull from things like Dungeons & Dragons and the worlds of Warhammer 40K. It's honestly stuff that the gaming community has been obsessed with for decades, but we haven't really seen a whole lot of in movies or television. Snyder knows how to make visuals that smack of something that most people haven't ever seen before, and kind of evoke that "what am I looking at exactly?" feeling that can be so enjoyable while you are watching one of his films. Zack Snyder has a guaranteed rabid and somewhat trollish fanbase of which I'm probably becoming a part of. However, I'd really appreciate it if Zack Snyder slowed stuff down and allowed us to care about his characters.

I wonder if Snyder is a great example of someone who is "Internet Famous." He has a massive fanbase of extremely loyal, vocal fans but none of this has translated to mainstream success (at least recently). If that were the case, then Rebel Moon would be a massive theatrical release, and we'd all be getting bombarded by ads constantly. Instead, the only people who seem to know it exists are the fans who follow Snyder's career on social media and watch extensive YouTube videos about his craft. In the future, he may find it difficult to attract new fans or recapture the interest of former fans once they've seen his tricks. No matter what though, Snyder will always be able to make beautiful locations that I want to go to.

On Friday, I want to talk about Loki season 2 and The Marvels

Saltburn is a gross movie that is worth a watch.

Over the holidays I watched the movie Saltburn. There's going to be spoilers in my commentary regarding this movie, so if you intend to watch it, you may want to skip on what I have to say about it. The summary/synopsis of this movie is that a student attending what I think is Oxford University gets drawn into the world of an aristocratic family (who are a bunch of vipers), and they invite him to his eccentric family's sprawling estate for a summer. However, it turns out that this innocent student is a murdering psychopath with all sorts of weird sexual things that he likes to do. In short, there is not a single likeable character in this entire film.

Most people describe the film as shocking because (I think) it leans so heavily into its grossness. I happened to watch it with two polyamory friends who are no stranger to gross and who are remarkably gross in their sexual lives. Thus, they really liked it, which I thought was interesting. I guess that "people just being so real and visceral" is one of the things that is lacking in entertainment these days, and they were surprised that a film would come out that so fully represented them. I'll just say this: the "what the f*ck's?" per minute are very high in this flick, if not "per second" in many of the scenes.

The main character, an "Oliver Quick" by name played by Barry Keoghan is really weird. He reminds me of a character from The Polar Express in some ways...mostly human, but something is clearly missing. However, despite the movie having likeable characters and an overabundance of extremely awkward scenes, I still kind of liked it. A lot of this works because of the visuals and the performance of the characters. And once you realize what's going on, there's an open-eyed appreciation of how every gross, extremely nasty thing is shot in such loving, visceral close-up that underlines everyone's discomfort at what they're watching. As a warning to anyone that is interested in actually watching it, I will let you know there's a lot of body fluids. It often made me ask why we are so uncomfortable with body fluids since we all have bodies and they are filled with fluid. However...just take my word for it.

I think it also says a bit about class divisions that exist in England. This movie shows something called "the owning class," because they own vast swathes of land that have been handed down for generations, and they can just live off the rent and never have to work. What that does to people and their morality is that it can tie it in a knot that seems really foreign to the working class. Indecipherable even. As most of you know, middle class people (like the psychopathic student Oliver) come from comfortable, privileged backgrounds but they are ultimately still expected to work for a living. When you set this at a university where both classes mix, you see a lot of middle class people pretending to be working class and exaggerating about how "poor" they are, because being working class carries some social capital whereas being middle class is just boring.

You might ask then if the movie has a point. I think it does. The point of the movie was to own a great big country estate without being born into an inheritance. The title of the movie, Saltburn, takes its name from an estate that is at the center of the film. It's a beautiful place of old money. Mansions like Saltburn are handed down through the generations, so it's not like you can just buy one. The only way to get one is to be born into the family or marry into the family or (third option) do what Oliver does in the movie and just get it at the end by killing everyone and never getting caught. Basically, the message of the movie is that the upper class in the UK is so extremely far from even the comfortable middle class, that class mobility to their level is basically impossible for a decent person.

All in all, Saltburn was an incredibly strange film. Did anyone else watch it and care to comment? I'd love to hear your thoughts regarding the bathtub scene or the funeral scene (two of the grossest things in the movie).

Leave the World Behind is a portrait of what could happen in America in a not-so-distant future.

In December, like many people, I watched the movie Leave the World Behind. This thriller on Netflix was bankrolled by the Obama's. I thought it was entertaining and relevant to the kinds of feelings I've been having as a quiet observer of our chaotic world. I also enjoyed the ways in which it sought to turn things upside down with regard to what you might normally expect to see in a movie. For example, in Leave the World Behind, the "well-to-do" people are black. It is their Airbnb that gets rented by Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke. This immediately sets up a lot of tension as the Julia Roberts character immediately questions this fact when she meets the owners in person (the Scotts) who are played by Mahershala Ali and Myh'la Herrold. And it takes quite a lot to get her to accept the truth that yeah...black people actually do own this multimillion-dollar house that they rented for a weekend.

There are many surprising and tension-building moments in the movie Leave the World Behind that held my attention. But one of the more profound things that occurred was in a line delivered by Julia Roberts about halfway through the film. In the role of Amanda Sandford, she says this to Ruth Scott:

"Every day, all day, my job...my whole job is to...understand people well enough so that I know how to lie to them, so I can sell them things they don't really want. And when you study people like that when you really see the way they treat each other, well...You're no dummy. You see what they do, and they do it without even thinking about it. Fuck. I did it to you and your dad, and I don't even really know why.  We fuck each other over all the time, without even realizing it. We fuck every living thing on this planet over and think it'll be fine because we use paper straws and order the free-range chicken. And the sick thing is, I think deep down we know we're not fooling anyone. I think we know we're living a lie. An agreed-upon mass delusion to help us ignore and keep ignoring how awful we really are."

There's a lot packed into that one comment. But it nevertheless captures everything that I've been feeling about the way I've noticed people around me living their lives. And the ending was kind of perfect. One of the characters, a little girl named Rose (played by an 18-year-old actress who has an autoimmune disease and thus looks like twelve), leaves the world behind (the title of the movie) by escaping/detaching from reality to find out what happened to Ross and Rachel in the series finale of Friends. Think of it as a digital pacifier as she doesn't really want to care about what's going on in the world or that her family is (probably) dying of radiation poisoning. Maybe she's the only one that truly "got it" about what it takes to live in modern times. That's (at least) the theory I got after the swift turn in health experienced by her brother in the movie.

Also there's a second quote...it's one from Alan Moore (I believe) that appears in the movie, and it says this:

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Illuminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The truth is far more frightening: nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

This was a quote that gave me pause to think. In my opinion, the writers of the movie hit the nail on the head and that this is also totally true. In some ways, it could explain why there are so many people in America today embracing authoritarianism as opposed to democracy. I think (on many levels) a lot of people want to put someone in control, to give themselves a stronger illusion to cling to in a world that has become increasingly scary and strange to them. This is a world they don't recognize anymore, where people look different than what they remember, where goods cost a ton of money, where people are becoming bolder at price gouging, and where violence has become institutionalized. It's a world where people are always on the verge of being obsolete, and a world where tons of people are just "checking out" and choosing not to engage in work at all because it seems pointless (google "why work if I can't ever afford anything?"). It's a strange place to be, and this quote from the movie seems particularly timely.

In some ways, the movie Leave the World Behind also seems like a good jumping off point to A24's Civil War movie that comes out in a few months (in a big election year). The trailer for that movie starts out by saying "The third term president has declared..." implying in a big way that (at this point) the Constitution has been put through a paper shredder and that might is now right. It echoes a lot of feelings people are having regarding Trump and his strong fascist/ authoritarian views. Of course, I plan on seeing Civil War, which looks like a horrifying docudrama at this point rather than a movie. Staring into the void has become a lifestyle for me. I think that "knowing the truth" is important, even if it is really scary. I don't like being surprised, and being informed is how you avoid surprises.

Anyone else watch Leave the World Behind? If so, what did you think?

The New Year is here and the IWSG has a 2024 question about how you use BookBub.

Happy New Year everyone. With 2023 now in the rearview mirror, I've received quite a few "Happy New Year" messages similar to what I think most of you have experienced in your lives. I think my writing resolution this year will be to do less "Doom Posting." But to just get this one comment out of the way before I get onto what the IWSG actually does (and when we post), I think I want to say this: I'm kind of dreading this year (and that's just being honest). It's an election year in the states and with everything else in the world that's going on, it doesn't look good (at least for people who are liberal and enjoy democracy). However, when I go on to review shows that I've watched over the holidays like the movie Leave the World Behind, I hope that you won't take that as doom posting, because the whole movie is literally about "doom." And as an aside note, I'm definitely going to watch A24's new movie Civil War later this year. Who knows? It might be loaded with good survival tips.
Anyway, let's get onto the January 2024 edition of the Insecure Writer's Support Group. This was a monthly blog post event that was started by Alex Cavanaugh over a decade ago, and it has since grown into an inclusive community for writers to connect using their blogs (blogs used to be a thing lol although I think it's still fun to have a web presence even if a lot of people have moved onto platforms like Tik Tok and Insta). If it sounds like something you'd like to join, click HERE to go to the sign-up page in order to participate next month. And after that, keep reading below.

What is the Purpose of the IWSG?: It is to share information, tips, tricks, etc., and it is to encourage others through doing just that. Writers can express doubts and concerns without fear of appearing foolish or weak. Those who have been through the fire can offer assistance and guidance. It’s a safe haven for insecure writers of all kinds.

When do y'all post?: It happens on the first Wednesday of every month. In our community, this is officially Insecure Writer’s Support Group day. On that first Wednesday, you simply post your thoughts on your own blog. The post can be about your doubts and the fears you have conquered. You could also discuss your struggles and triumphs. Or you could offer a word of encouragement for others who are struggling. One way you can get it to pay off for you is to go and visit others in the group and connect with your fellow writer. The website for the IWSG suggests that you aim for a dozen new people each time and return comments (which is the equivalent of online breadcrumbs). You also should link to this page and display their official badge somewhere in your post.

The X(Twitter) handle is @TheIWSG and the hashtag everyone uses is #IWSG.

The awesome co-hosts for the January 3rd posting of the IWSG are Joylene Nowell Butler, Olga Godim, Diedre Knight, and Natalie Aguirre!

Every month, the IWSG announces a question that members can answer in their IWSG post. These questions may prompt you to share advice, insight, a personal experience or story.

January 3rd question: Do you follow back your readers on BookBub or do you only follow back other authors?
I didn't actually know what BookBub was, but I looked it up (and I'm going to explain it here so that others who don't use it actually know how this service works). BookBub is a free service that helps you to discover books you'll love through unbeatable deals, handpicked recommendations, and updates from your favorite authors. But they don't actually sell books. They simply try to introduce you to titles that they think you'll like that are available at retailers. They also notify you about free and deeply discounted ebook recommendations selected by their editorial team.
That being said I don't really use it at all. However, I did look on Reddit to see how other people choose to use BookBub, and I read that it's pretty effective at promotion as it has huge mailing lists for genres that can go out to lots of people (provided that people still read their email). And regarding their promos, apparently if you can land one of these, it is always worth it. Others have said that BookBub is so selective with their emails, and who gets on them, that a lot of people really trust the recommendations.
Knowing all of the above, I can tell you how I'd use it then if I stopped being lazy (which is kinda where I'm at right now with regard to signing up for new stuff). Right now in my life, I'd just follow authors because I read quite a bit these days and really enjoy it. But I don't actually need BookBub right now, because my reading list is long. Just to give you an idea of what I'm reading next, here's the list:
The Wednesday Wars by Gary D. SchmidtRuination by Anthony ReynoldsThe Warded Man by Peter V. BrettThe Kaiju Preservation Society by John ScalziFourth Wing and Iron Flame by Rebecca YarrosThe Complete Chronicles of Conan by Robert E. HowardA Master of Djinn by P. Djeli Clarkand a re-read of The Shattered World by Michael Reaves so that I can read a sequel I discovered called The Burning Realm
So, once I get through those books, if I need recommendations, I'll know where to sign-up in order to find them. As you can see, my list of books in the queue is full of a lot of fiction. I maintain a subscription to The New York Times, and after reading all the doom in that, I usually need to take a break so non-fiction really isn't my jam. In other words I don't need to read the latest book on how our education system is failing everyone, or how racism has exploded, or how the national debt and climate change are wrecking everything, or on how everyone is a narcissist these days, or how our healthcare system teeters on the brink, or the latest true crime thing, or someone who has a particular insight into some psychopath.
Thanks for visiting my blog. On Friday, I'm going to post about the movie Leave the World Behind and maybe also talk a little about A24's new movie, Civil War. And then on Monday, I want to talk about the movie Saltburn.

The IWSG is all about nanowrimo this month.

It is November 1st, and Wednesday, and that means it is Insecure Writer's Support Group day. It's also my last post of 2023, as I will be taking a blogging break until after the New Year has dropped. But those of you who are continuing to blog and/or work on nanowrimo...I wish you all the best, and I hope that you will succeed in all of your endeavors.
If you haven't signed up for the Insecure Writer's Support Group, you can find a link to it right HERE. 

And if this is the first time you've heard about this thing, well sit down for a moment and let me tell you about it.

First off, what is the purpose of the IWSG?: That's a great question. It's to share and encourage. You see, the IWSG creates a safe space for writers to express doubts and concerns they have regarding their projects without fear of appearing foolish or weak. And those who've been through the fire can offer assistance and guidance if they want. It’s a safe haven for insecure writers of all kinds.

Okay, next question: when do you post?: It's always on the first Wednesday of every month. Alex Cavanaugh started this back when the iPhone was still a new concept, and it's been chugging along ever since. So the first Wednesday of a new month is officially Insecure Writer’s Support Group day.
Do you have any advice on what might be appropriate to post?: As long as it has to do with writing, you can post just about anything. You do so on your own blog. You can talk about your doubts and the fears you've conquered. You could discuss your struggles and triumphs. You could offer a word of encouragement for others who are struggling. But that's not all. You should also visit others in the group and connect with your fellow writers. A good rule of thumb is to aim for a dozen new people each time and return the comments. This group is all about connecting. Be sure to link to this page and display the badge in your post. And please be sure your avatar links back to your blog. If it doesn't, it's difficult for people to follow the virtual breadcrumbs through the internet to discover your online presence.

The Twitter (X) handle is @TheIWSG and the hashtag everyone uses is #IWSG.

The awesome co-hosts for the November 1st posting of the IWSG are PJ Colando, Jean Davis, Lisa Buie Collard, and Diedre Knight!

Every month, the IWSG announces a question that members can answer in their blog post (this is usually the option that I take). These questions may prompt you to share advice, insight, a personal experience or story. If you go this route with your IWSG post, you should include your answer to the question or let it inspire your post if you are struggling with something to say.

Remember, the question is optional!

November 1st question: November is National Novel Writing Month. Have you ever participated? If not, why not?
I have never participated in the nanowrimo. When I was writing heavily a few years ago, I didn't really need it to spurn me to write my stories down. And now, I've kind of accepted that the readership is so low for my stories that I'd rather just read what other people write and focus on using my creativity in D&D campaigns and things like that. A lot of what I write (anyway) I think is better when I use other people's intellectual property. You might call this "fanfiction." And that's simply because I like playing in other people's sandbox a lot more than I like playing in the ones that I create. Anyway, that's the reason (mostly) of why I haven't given the IWSG a whirl.
Anyway, Happy Halloween, and I will see all of you again in January. Alex (if you read this) please don't remove me from the IWSG for not posting in December :).

Rather than ask people to sacrifice in the name of social security we should let the whole thing implode and see what that looks like.

The New York Times ran an opinion piece yesterday entitled, For the Good of the Country, Older Americans Should Work More and Take Less. When I read this opinion piece, I became infuriated. You can find it HERE if you want, but I plan to talk about it below. The gist of the piece is that older Americans are retiring too early and straining the support system of social security. It seems to be written by a man who is an economist and lives in his ivory tower somewhere and is tone deaf to what it is like to work for a regular "middle class" salary and to have performance evals where you are reminded by your employer of who has the power, and how you better "toe the line" in order to keep your job. The implied threat in all of this is that brutal capitalism will crush you without the job and thus, you should be grateful. It's a decades-old way of traumatizing workers and reminding "adults" here (these are not children) that the rod can fall across your back as sure as the rod beats those who do not comply.

Oh...and it came with this illustration below...which also served to enrage me.

Here's the thing...I don't want to work any longer than I have to. Right now, I'm doing the carrying. I'm not the freeloader. And to imply that one day when I'm old and would like some support that I should say no...and continue to carry others as well as myself...is infuriating. Like...I should sacrifice for someone who is 1/4 of my age so that they can live a better life? I already know people who are 25 years old, have nothing physically wrong with them, and who draw SSI. They play D&D with me in my game. I try not to judge. But the idea that this person is retired while someone stands next to them, finger pointing at me, and says, "Mike...you need to work a few more years before drawing benefits. It's for the good of the country!" makes me angry. I want to say, "What about that lazy bum sitting in that chair that has NEVER worked? What about him?" But we aren't supposed to talk about things like that. Meanwhile, I've sacrificed my ENTIRE life so far in order to carry the weight of others. It is just...no...this is not going to happen. Not on my watch. There comes a time when people are due what is owed to them, especially if they have paid into the system their entire working lives.

What would be a good start in addressing the system that sounds like it will collapse (not if but when) would be to tax the super rich. Tax the crap out of them. Then vote in Medicare for All. That would be a tremendous start. Go after Elon Musk. Go after every multi-millionaire and billionaire in the U.S. with a vengeance. But don't ask already tired middle class people to "work longer" and "don't draw social security." Screw you, writer (Mr. Eugene Steuerle who lectures at Stanford Business School), for even suggesting this. He probably looks at his $30,000 a month income and goes, "Social Security doesn't pay enough to even warrant my interest. You should give it up too." But I think they know that the rich can afford their own armies to fight for them, so they are not easy targets. So they go after the people who have always been exploited and ask them to "sacrifice a little more." It reminds me of the Utah governor who (during a tremendous drought) asked all of us to take shorter showers to conserve water. All of this while churches had green lawns, the governor owned alfalfa farms (notorious for sucking down water), and golf courses sucked down water by the lake full so that people could play on the greens. It's ridiculous. 

I hope that everyone who reads this opinion piece gets as enraged as I am at it. We should say, "Hell No!" and call the bluff. If the bluff is real, and the entire system collapses, well...that will be a disaster. But it will be a disaster worth watching. Maybe in the aftermath of whatever follows, we'd finally get some empathy back in this country, and people would no longer be so entitled and brutal toward others. Sometimes, you've just got to let things collapse so that they can be rebuilt better than before. I've always been a firm believer that in failure there is much to learn.

I'm going to post one more time for 2023 on the Insecure Writers Support Group for November (next week). Then I'll be taking a blogging break until January. 

It's time to admit that Barbie is a Best Picture prospect for the 2023 Academy Awards.

I was originally expecting myself to be watching Dune 2 about this time in the year. This is the sequel to the 2021 Denis Villeneuve adaptation which I liked. It dropped during the pandemic, so I ended up watching it on HBO Max at the time (like a lot of folks). Despite this setback, it still made a "decent" amount of money to warrant a sequel.

But it continually gets pushed back. At first it was November, and now it is set to come out in the spring (March). A lot of this has to do with striking actors and writers and other such things that complicate the world in which we live. At the end of the day, entertainment is just "fun" but the people who make all that entertainment need to get paid for what they do. So...I get it. But in thinking of how the Dune sequel might actually benefit from being pushed back until next year, I have to realize that this may be a good thing because the Barbie movie is actually a contender for the Best Picture Oscar.

I never thought I'd be saying that. Barbie didn't conjure up the images that I would think of when it comes to the coveted "Best Picture." That it is today may just indicate how badly the sheen has rubbed off the Academy Awards: a slow decline of "keeping it real" that just unraveled year after year with people becoming more and more aware of how white the industry is, how exploitative some directors and producers have been (Weinstein), the ageism within the industry, and the infamous Oscar slap that sent Will Smith into exile. And now our country is so divided that woke messaging within films and television is being called out by MAGA groups as "You go woke! You go broke!" exercising their financial muscle and ability to corral their own to "teach libtards a lesson!"

So yeah...it's weird. I don't much enjoy watching the Academy Awards anymore. The glamour feels like it has vanished, and everyone is just a monkey throwing poo. Just these particular monkeys all look nice and wear nice clothes, but their lives don't actually feel envy worthy because I just know too much of what's going on, whether it's painful plastic surgeries, sexual assault, toxic patriarchy, discrimination, or racism (take your pick). Never meet your heroes, and the 24/7 news cycle along with Twitter and other social media (unfortunately) makes this almost impossible. We practically know how a fart smells that comes from a celebrity...and this isn't a good thing. There's no illusion there, and they are no different than us. And when we start thinking that, then you just realize that (at the end of the day) there's little justification as to why they make so much money and all of us make so little. Ugh...talk about losing "suspension of disbelief."

All that being said, we come to Barbie. This film by Greta Gerwig was remarkable, and that's what I'm having an issue with (in my brain) because maybe...I never thought that Barbie was supposed to be taken this seriously. But it should. The message of the film (which is a critique on patriarchy and toxic masculinity) made it into something that was incredibly deep and meaningful instead of this weird light-hearted comedy that I was expecting Barbie to be. And maybe my expectations were built on patriarchy, because (as a man) how could I think that Barbie was important to anyone until I realized that this strange doll from Mattel was (in fact) important to many people? And therein (I suppose) lies the rub of all this. The movie that I would have thought was a shoe-in for not having critical acclaim (and easily dismissible) is in fact the opposite of that. It's a great movie, and its "woke" messaging may in fact make it the juggernaut at the Academy Awards that all other movies should just avoid if they can by pushing release dates out into the next year. I think that's what I'd do if I were calling the shots around a film, especially if I was counting on some Oscar buzz to lift the overall box office and aftermarket sales of my movie.

Invincible is returning to Amazon much sooner than I thought it would!

Oh! The Invincible season 2 trailer just dropped, and I had no idea that the new season was so close. It's apparently going to start streaming on Amazon Prime on November 3rd.

The last season ended with Omni-Man being exposed as a Viltrumite secret agent, which is apparently a race of beings that are so powerful that there really is nothing out there to compare with. It was also really violent, which (for some reason) worked for me. Maybe it's because I'm into doom posting so much these days. The animation sucked me in the same way that I remembered some cartoon superhero shows from my childhood grabbed me from the getgo. But the story of Invincible was unlike other things I've been watching. The closest thing to it really is The Boys, and that really doesn't encompass what Invincible is as the superheroes (for the most part) are actually trying to be super.

I'm ready for this to be injected straight into my veins. Click on the trailer below if you haven't seen it yet.

Good Omens season 2 felt smaller but it still made me happy.

In an attempt to lighten the mood around my blog (P.T. has called me out for doom posting), I'm going to talk about season 2 of Good Omens, which I'm making my way through. I got heavily distracted by Baldur's Gate 3, so I wasn't really free to binge watch as much as I would just watch an episode here and there whenever a friend was around who was watching it with me. But I do have some thoughts, and here they are.

First, if you don't know anything about Good Omens, it's a show on Amazon that's based on the works of Neil Gaiman and the late Terry Pratchett. At the core of the story is the angel Aziraphale (played by Michael Sheen) and the demon Crowley (played by the very talented David Tennant). Season two picks up where season one left off: the apocalypse didn't happen. And thus it is a "what happens next?" kind of story.

Now, some highlights. Jon Hamm really gets into the role of Gabriel this season. We've seen him go from the all-powerful archangel persona in heaven to an apparent amnesiac that likes to organize books in Aziraphale's bookstore. The way Hamm plays him is very child-like, and I think this served two purposes. The first one is it allowed for all kinds of absurdities that are funny if not charming. The second is that the story immediately felt smaller scale, even if it did eventually spiral into a war between Heaven and Hell, mostly because everyone involved is just so extra. I for one appreciated the more personal and subtle approach. But it also felt (unfortunately) that maybe there wasn't as much budget available as season one. The cast of characters is smaller, the sets don't feel as "lived in," and the special effects are more obvious and intrusive. But it is what it is, and at least David Tennant's son is getting small parts here and there. He's a handsome young man, and I'd like to see him in more roles.

I suppose that the real standout for people who are fans of this show (like me) is the relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale. Spoiler alert: the romance between the two is more than just subtext. If they hadn't done this, I think I would've felt genuinely queer-baited in the same way as I felt watching the BBC version of Sherlock. There's been some outrage regarding this because people think "angels are sexless beings." I would argue that they're made up beings so they can be sexual if we want them to be. However, the romance between the two women was exhausting. The actors had zero chemistry. Despite my misgivings in this, I can't ignore the fact that the entire season was just a rejection of heteronormativity and acceptance of queerness. So on that most basic level, I'm happy.

Anyone else a Good Omens fan?