Michael Offutt's Blog, page 62

The best fight in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon remains the best two person fight I've ever seen recorded on film.

When I read that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was coming to Netflix this month, I reminisced for a moment about the best fight scene I think I've seen in film (and it came from this movie). It takes place between Yu Shu Lien (who is played by Michelle Yeoh) and Jen Yu (who is played by actress Shang Ziyi).

Yu Shu Lien wields a dao (which is a saber that can be split into two smaller blades), a spear, dual hook swords, a metal club, and a broad sword. She does so in that order. Of note, Yu Shu Lien also grabs a monk's spade at one point but it turns out to be too heavy for her to manage correctly.

Jen Yu just uses the Green Destiny, which is a kind of magical blade that can just cut through anything (including stone) and never breaks. So it's a cheat weapon.

In the scene Jen is angry at everyone in her life who's been pressuring her, and she's also super eager to prove herself worthy of wielding the sword. Shu Lien has just told Jen that they have hidden Lo, Jen's bandit ex-boyfriend, in the Wudan Mountains, and Jen is extremely flippant at this news. Shu Lien has no f*cks left to give and is tired of Jen's attitude so a fight breaks out, and it's amazing.

Shu Lien is a way better fighter using inferior tools, and so they're basically equal. As a veteran warrior, it's mesmerizing to watch Michelle Yeoh's character grab weapon after weapon to use against the sword that just slices through them like they are nothing. If she was going to kill Jen, she could have beat her. But that's not what's going on. She says as much too with the line, "Without the Green Destiny, you are nothing." Being a Brat, Jen fails to accept defeat gracefully and ends up hurting Shu Lien in a minor way before fleeing. 

Star Wars Galaxy's Edge sounds incredibly cool and is probably the closest thing we'll ever get to an actual Westworld.

I saw on io9 today ( link HERE ) that some of their staffers got an early look at the huge renovation going on at Disneyland in Anaheim, California. In case you didn't know, Disney is building a Star Wars theme park there with a highly detailed Millennium Falcon that you can walk in and interact with as a group.

It looks and sounds incredibly cool, although I doubt I will ever go and visit it (but one never knows). Most of these things sound like you'd get the best enjoyment from them by having lots of kids around. You get to build lightsabers, go into shops that sell Star Wars themed items made to look like they are from around the galaxy, and pilot the Millennium Falcon with up to five others. It sounds incredible for a family of six (four kids and two adults). Not so much for a single guy like me who would get lumped in with a bunch of people I don't know. But yeah...in another lifetime...this sounds like tons of fun. Take a look at some of this concept art:



In order starting with the first pic you've got the ride "Rise of the Resistance," which will take you inside a First Order "capital class" ship where you see holograms of the major cast characters taking you through a ride where you race across the deck and past actual sized AT-AT's and Tie Fighters to escape. Then you have the Den of Antiquities where I think you'll be able to purchase all sorts of "rare" and "pricey" items from around the galaxy (and it will look like the picture). Then there's the "marketplace" and the "Smuggler's Run," which takes you on board the Millennium Falcon. And you can eat in the Mos Eisley Cantina as well. Those are the things that really stood out from looking at pages of the concept art on google image search.

It honestly sounds like a place you could lose a lot of time in...perhaps an entire week. Maybe at that pace, the grueling lines for it wouldn't be so bad. 

Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind says things about war and making money that are still prescient today.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the David O. Selznick film adaptation of Gone With The Wind starring Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. It's also one of the reasons why I'm finally getting around to reading the book. There are other reasons, of course. For one, it was a big story that obviously impressed a lot of people. So, I felt like I needed to read it, because that's what I do (I try to read things that impress a lot of people). Second, I've always liked the story. I was one of those old souls that was 4 going on 40 and watched Gone with the Wind when it came on television (as a teenager) while other kids listened to Madonna and cruised the strip in their Camaro's.

Before I get to some of the things that Rhett Butler says in this remarkable book by Margaret Mitchell, I want to point out some things about the film that have probably been said before by people much smarter than me.

1) Clark Gable as Rhett Butler and Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara are perfectly cast. Even today, thinking of all the actors and actresses whom my brain has latched onto from every era, I cannot think of two people who could fill the role of Scarlett O'Hara or Rhett Butler any better than those two were you to blow open the casting call and say I could pick from any time period and get who I want in their prime.
Vivien Leigh is perfect in this role, and looking back in history, she's one of the most beautiful women that
has ever lived. Margaret Mitchell makes it a point to start out her book by saying, "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful,
but men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were." That line threw me a curve ball,
because it went against the natural beauty of the actress that was cast to play Scarlett. However, in the text of the book
Rhett Butler and lots of other men say to Scarlett that she's the most beautiful woman they have ever seen. So,
here's what I think is going on in that first line. Margaret Mitchell is telling us that Scarlett is "not beautiful," because
she's describing Scarlett's soul and not the packaging. She's telling us (the reader) that this is going to be a story
about a woman who has many flaws, but no one greater than, "Scarlett is not a good person."2) Olivia de Haviland is still alive. She played Melanie Wilkes in the film production, and she too was perfectly cast. She is 102 years old.

3) Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes is a travesty. He was too old for the part, and (although they nailed at least three of the roles) this one just got away from them. All I can think of for this part (from any era) is a young Heath Ledger (who is now dead). I would have looked for someone like Heath Ledger that would have been kicking around at that time period. The thing with Ashley is he's basically a McGuffin. You wouldn't need a big name to play him because he's there purely for Scarlett to lust after because her character flaw is to love things that she cannot have. His lines are "bleh" in the book, and they could have been said by a stagehand for the few areas in which he really has an impact. There literally is no reason within the context of the pages of this massive book that explain why Scarlett was so smitten by Ashley. He's altogether never present, and he's kind of boring, and he would have just burned up in Scarlett's fire. Rhett (on the other hand) is perfect for Scarlett, and she for him.

4) I used to think (after watching the movie) that Scarlett would get Rhett Butler back. In reading the book, I'm more aware of her character flaw (which is to love things that she can't have). Because of that, I don't think she ever gets Rhett back, because Scarlett could never love him if she did. I know that doesn't make very much sense, but Scarlett is a doomed character to always want what she cannot have. So if you're going to write a story with that kind of character, then the whole point is to make a story that doesn't have any kind of satisfying end to it because that's the character with whom you are dealing. I know there was an unauthorized sequel called Scarlett which was written many years ago that supposedly tries to answer the question, "What comes next?" But I don't think I will ever read it. Even only halfway through the book, I already know that Gone with the Wind is a complete story and Scarlett standing on a small hill under a tree at Tara with earth in her hand vowing to get Rhett Butler back is pretty much how her story ends (which is the whole point of that character). She never gets him back. She would stop being Scarlett if she did, and we'd wonder who this strange character was that suddenly appeared.

Now onto some of the things that Rhett Butler says in the book that really sound visionary today (or at least they sound like a part of the human condition as we know it that are truly timeless):

"Your family and my family and everyone here tonight made their money out of changing a wilderness into a civilization. That's empire building. There's good money in empire building. But, there's more in empire wrecking.... This empire we're living in--the South--the Confederacy--the Cotton Kingdom--it's breaking up right under our feet. Only most fools won't see it and take advantage of the situation created by the collapse. I'm making my fortune out of the wreckage."

This observation couldn't be truer today, when I examine all the things that I observe which come out of the destruction of empires, whether they are actual kingdoms or nations like Iraq or big corporations like Sears.

"All wars are sacred," he said. "To those who have to fight them. If the people who started wars didn't make them sacred, who would be foolish enough to fight? But, no matter what rallying cries the orators give to the idiots who fight, no matter what noble purposes they assign to wars, there is never but one reason for a war. And that is money. All wars are in reality money squabbles. But so few people ever realize it. Their ears are too full of bugles and drums and fine words from stay-at-home orators. Sometimes the rallying cry is 'Save the Tomb of Christ from the Heathen!' Sometimes it's 'Down with Popery!' and sometimes 'Liberty!' and sometimes 'Cotton, Slavery and States' Rights!'"

And yes, Mitchell nailed it again. This does seem to be what wars are about. Look at how much money Dick Cheney and his cronies made from the destruction of Iraq. And I'm sure there are hundreds of more examples from the invasion and annexation of Crimea by Putin to much bigger military conflicts. Someone is always getting rich off it, and they are usually pulling the strings.

Before I finish with this post, I also want to say that I know Margaret Mitchell was born in 1900, so really she was only four decades removed from the horrors of the Civil War. But her knowledge of the subject is impressive. I wonder how much of it was self-educated, and how much she just knew because there were people still alive during her youth who could have told her stories about the war. In either case, Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara are two of the best characters I have ever read in the totality of fiction. So it's a real delight to delve into Mitchell's story, which is basically a hundred years old at this point. Although Scarlett doesn't really have lines that stick out in my mind quite the same as Rhett's do, I will say this: both of these characters are two sides of the same coin.

They are both scoundrels of their times. However, they are both living with different kinds of oppression. If they were alive today, their ideas and free thoughts wouldn't seem out of the ordinary in the least, and they actually might have made a successful power couple in today's dog eat dog world.

YouTube artist drawholic is a Prismacolor pencil savant in this video of drawing Pennywise the Clown.

My medium of choice when I illustrate in color is Prismacolor art pencils. I'm continually getting better over the years. Something about getting your ten thousand hours in comes to mind. However, I don't have the skill of drawholic (a YouTube person) and nor do I have their speed. They drew this picture of Pennywise in an impressive amount of time in what looks like all in one sitting, and they're using Prismacolor art pencils and some Strathmore Bristol 300s.

The reason I use Prismacolor pencils is because you can blend them on illustration paper, and I find that incredibly useful to achieve the kinds of shades that I want. But the thing that makes them blendable also causes a thing called "wax bloom" which can happen several months after the picture is finished. Basically, think of all of the incredibly bright colors being hidden under a haze of white wax that you have to scrape off in order to restore the vibrant colors. If you can finish your picture in fast enough time, you can treat the picture so that the bloom never happens, but you need to be diligent and fast and not set the picture aside for a while, i.e., you can't really take a break from it.

I also use Prismacolor pencils because you can clean up the mess really easy with a vacuum. You simply cannot say the same thing about paint. Anyway, if you have the time, watch the video. This person's process in making the Pennywise drawing is impressive and kind of mesmerizing.

This bee is huge.

I've gotten stung by bees quite a bit in my life. My dad used to keep bees, because he was a farmer, and he liked the insects to be around to pollinate his crops. As a result we always had honey. Sometimes it was blue in color and tasted really exotic. The color of the honey is dependent on what flowers are used to make the honey (a lot of people don't know that).

The Wallace Bee is a rare bee I heard about on the way to work on Thursday. Scientists (at first) didn't know it actually existed, but they'd heard rumors. Well they tracked one specimen down in Indonesia and above is a picture that contrasts it with a regular honeybee.

The thing is huge. It's like the kaiju of bees, having somehow survived the prehistoric era to make it into our polluted, modern world. It's also apparently peaceful, having no stinger, and those jaws are basically like small salad tongs which it uses to carry stuff back to its nest.

It's nice to have some good news now and then, especially having just learned that we are only five generations from the apocalypse.

I'm trying to reach a personal improvement goal by telling people I am glad to help but I am not The Help.

It's been something that I've been trying to do for some time, and so far it is working and my attitude toward life is generally improving. But I've also received a lot of blowback from this idea that I'm going to continue "to help" but I am not going to be "The Help." The reference (of course) is to the movie (and book) of the same name called The Help, which featured black women (in the 1960's) who have spent their lives being the underpaid underappreciated workhorse for prominent white families. You may ask...why is this a thing you've been struggling with? Well, it just is and has been for as long as I remember. I'm not sure why, and it has nothing to do with institutionalized racism. It's just that people would look at me and think, "Boy, I bet he's a hard worker." And not to toot my own horn, I am.

All of my life, people have come to me for help, but when I actually roll up my sleeves and go deeper, I end up having work just piled on me with a sigh of relief coming from the person who cried out for help...and then they just up and disappear. I can't tell you how frustrating this is, as they are essentially leaving me with a pile of their toil. "Can you help me fix my computer?" I show up and then they say, "Here's the computer," and then they walk into another room to watch t.v. and don't bother to learn anything of what I'm doing so that they can do it themselves when I'm not there. There's going to be no more of that. And there are a hundred more examples I could make that go along the same lines.

It's like that humorous commercial on television (Angie's list I think?) where there are two people, and one asks the other if they know of any contractors. The other person says, "Actually I do..." and gets cut off with, "Can you get me three bids from three different contractors, figure out which one is the best, and then have those on my desk by tomorrow so I can review it?" This of course is seen as humorous, BUT it has happened a lot to me in my life. However, not so much anymore. I've gotten good at drawing boundaries and as Tony Stark said in Spider-Man: Homecoming, "Boundaries are good." I agree oh so much...boundaries are very healthy!

So why have I been getting blowback? It seems obvious that boundaries should be respected, right? Well...we live in interesting times. And if you haven't noticed, there are a ton of people who don't want to be "The Help" anymore. So by me excusing myself from being the workhorse from many tasks in my social group and saying, "I would be glad to show you how I would complete this task...once...and only once.... But I will not do it for you...I will not be your mule," it has caused many of those (who relied upon my strong back and elbow grease) to suddenly have two options: the work gets done by them, or the work doesn't get done at all. And it's really none of my concern if the work that is owned by them doesn't get done. That's on them, and not on me.

No one is stepping up to fill the gap I've left, because (again) no one wants to be "The Help." Really, I'm only blogging about this today, because it makes me wonder about the world at large. For example, in my own employment, there have been entire committees that folded (in which people used to find value) because no one wanted to take the minutes for the meeting (no one wanted to be The Help). I know of workplaces that have only nine individuals working there and yet there are three supervisors. "I want to help, but I am not THE HELP" is a pretty pervasive attitude. It's happening with social issues. There are lots of people online that come up with good ideas to combat climate change, to combat homelessness, and to combat rising inequality. But all of those things require someone to do the work, i.e., someone needs to sacrifice. There's no one volunteering for that. "I want to help, but I am not THE HELP." It's a fascinating thing. There was always someone (in the past) that caught all the stuff rolling downhill. But more and more, people are refusing to catch anything that rolls downhill. I wonder (honestly) how long that can continue to happen. For capitalism to work, there are those at the top and those at the bottom, and the people on the bottom have always done the work. Also (just to clarify) I hate capitalism, BUT I live within the system. It was there before I showed up so I'm just living by the rules and not rocking the boat <== a whole other topic I'd be happy to discuss.

Anyway, in my own personal microcosm, this step toward continuing to be helpful but drawing the line at being "The Help" has sparked joy in me. But I think it hasn't sparked joy in any of the people who are desperately trying to make their lives easier. As I said earlier, someone has always got to be on the bottom in our system. I think the shock in my social group is that I'm no longer on the bottom, and they know that, and it pisses them off. To each their own, I guess. 

Why is it okay for Eddie Murphy to wear whiteface in Coming to America but not okay for Jimmy Kimmel to wear blackface as Karl Malone?

If you hadn't read my post on Wednesday, I've been thinking about blackface recently, and questions have popped into my mind about it. To give you a little context, in case you haven't seen the movie Coming to America, this little comedy gem came out in the 1980's, starred Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall, and it featured the both of them playing multiple characters (all for comedic purposes).
Eddie Murphy is unrecognizeable in this
role do to makeup effects (whiteface).One of the characters that Eddie Murphy plays is a white Jew (which kind of has its own implications in today's hyper-sensitive society, but I'm not going to get into that in today's post). Also I would like to note that this movie has been greenlit for a sequel that's supposed to come out next year, and it even has a release date (I think the original cast is all cominb back for it as well).

At the time of the movie's release (I was still a kid), I thought Eddie Murphy's portrayal was a credit to his acting chops. But now that I look back on it in time, and especially through the lens of recent calls for Jimmy Kimmel and Sarah Silverman (another comedian who has done blackface) to up and apologize for performances that took place years ago, I wonder why it's okay for Eddie Murphy not to be asked to apologize for his portrayal of whiteface.

As far as Jimmy Kimmel's portrayal of Karl Malone goes, I've never actually seen the skit. But I've heard from people I know who have, and they said it was really funny. Okay, so that established to me that it was done in the name of comedy, just like Eddie Murphy's portrayal. However, blackface remains incredibly problematic. It's been talked about on Saturday Night Live, it's been talked about on my blog regarding cosplay, it's been talked about on the New York Times in an article called "Why won't blackface go away?" and "Race is not a costume." The national conversation right now could be categorized easily as a firestorm (that also happens to be a circular firing squad for the democratic party--I only say this last part because the rules don't apply to a group that seems okay with offensive things).
Jimmy Kimmel portraying Karl Malone (the makeup
effects are considered blackface)
In trying to answer the question in the title of this article I'm writing, i.e., why is whiteface okay but blackface is not, it all seems to boil down to one thing: reverse racism is not possible (or is not a thing).

Here's how a good friend explained it (and I had pretty much assimilated all this in articles that I had read, but he really frames it well):

"My understanding of the issue is that blackface is seen as highly problematic, because it has very explicit historical ties to slavery and minstrel shows, which were fundamental tools of historic white supremacy. Blackface evokes very specifically an incarnation of structural racism in which white people parody black stereotypes to dehumanize them. For similar reasons (although admittedly a lot less talked about), yellowface also comes up occasionally as highly problematic (think Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's). As to why whiteface is okay but blackface isn't...I think that's a complicated question. The easy and short answer seems to be that blackface entails racism, and since reverse-racism isn't a thing, whiteface isn't inherently problematic because its an inversion of power structure, not a continuation of oppression. That's tricker though if its Jewish people being portrayed, because antisemitism is a major issue."

And on the issue of reverse racism, it seems to be that the "support" ( and yes I've argued about this in another post too ) lies with the fact that white people have privilege in society that stems from hundreds of years of institutionalized power. Here's a quote from a blog called The Root, and it's written by author Michael Harriot ( I'll link it HERE ) that postulates the following:

"If white people built a time machine, went back to 1619 and subjected themselves to slavery, built America into a superpower without compensation or reparation, attended inferior schools, faced double the unemployment of blacks and were killed, lynched and incarcerated disproportionately by black people, I would agree that black people were racist, even if I didn't do anything to them personally.

"But that's a fictional situation that's never going to happen. It's so preposterous there isn't even a term for it.

"Actually, there is:

"Reverse racism."

So basically, unless the above example ever happens then "Reverse Racism" is not a thing and can't be a thing. So it ends up being okay that Eddie Murphy wear whiteface, but not okay for Jimmy Kimmel to wear blackface. What determines this has nothing to do with the individual actions of these people, actors, or comedians, but historical context. In other words, the definition of racism is explicitly tied to history itself, which makes a whole bunch of "other" questions pop into my head. For example, if a person is ignorant of history and has never educated themselves or been given the benefit of education, is it even possible for them to be racist? Or would they just be "biased" in a mean way toward certain groups (as in, "That person is just mean to Korean people" and not "That person is racist toward Korean people). And then of course there's got to be the argument that one cannot use "ignorance" as an excuse to shield oneself from accusations of racism.

In an over-simplified way, the subject of "racism" and "reverse racism" almost seems like an argument about bad karma (which I don't believe in by the way because I'm atheist). However, some people who do believe in bad karma define it as this: "A cosmic law that happens by itself wherein people who inflict harm in the past have that harm revisited upon themselves at present or in the future in another form." In other words, you did this bad thing so this excuses us doing bad behavior to you because it's all payback. Some people might even go so far as to say "an eye for an eye" or "revenge" or "there is a debt owed that has yet to be repaid." Just to clarify, I'm not saying that any of these things could be so boiled down to a sound bite that is expressed so simply. However, on the historical context of how white people treated black people, there doesn't appear to be any notion of forgiveness, hence reverse racism cannot be a thing. It's too big really for me to even wrap my head around, so I'll just say the majority support seems to lie with the notion that some things are unforgivable, and leave it at that (I've no idea whether this idea is right or wrong). It makes me wonder if there's a breaking point somewhere...where the one that owes reparations gets fed up with pouring reparations into a debt that cannot possibly be paid back. What happens at that future hypothetical point? Does anger just burn on forever? Or does our society just become more entrenched and polarized? What happens then?

This is a topic that our society continues to grapple with, and there are rightfully very strong feelings about it. I love observing how different people deal with it, how celebrities and other public persons get held accountable for it, and figuring out why some people will burn in its fire while others remain untouched. Maybe who burns for it and who doesn't is another example of how public support has the final say in everything (embracing the fact that morality, immorality, rightness, and wrongness take a backseat to sheer numbers of people who have the power, and whatever it is that they support is the rule of the day...until it isn't).

For what it's worth, I think that blackface has always been wrong. I also think that whiteface and yellowface and any other "face" just don't have any place in society anymore, and they shouldn't be done (regardless of whether people think whiteface or yellowface is not inherently racist). However, I wonder if anyone else thinks the same thing. I guess only time will tell.

Is cosplaying as a Drow elf considered to be wearing blackface?

The Virginia governor recently had a photograph of him resurface from a college yearbook wherein he was wearing blackface. If you look at my post last Friday regarding support for wrong ideas, you might recognize that there was support for blackface (no matter how wrong it was) from people in the last 100 years. At present, there appears to be quite an erosion of support for blackface of any kind.

Saturday Night Live did a skit on blackface that I found interesting. A group of white people fielded questions at a black man who promised not to get mad for answering questions, but it did try his patience. The message (TL;DR): it never is okay to wear blackface and it never has been okay to wear it despite what era it was or is (going back in time). This statement affirms what I wrote on Friday which (in a nutshell) is this: "Support for something" and "wrongness" are completely unrelated. Ideas can be super wrong and have amazing support, and vice-versa...really amazing ideas can have no public support. What determines whether something has public support really does appear to be an arbitrary and unpredictable thing (in my mind). However, I will leave room to say that someone out there might have a better clue than me as to what people will support in the end.

That being said, I kind of wish I had been in that audience on SNL, because I would have asked if it was okay to cosplay as a Drow elf at a comic book convention. Allow me to explain just a wee bit.

Drow (or dark elves) are a race of beings from the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game (and they are probably based upon something else in actual mythology, but I'm not going to investigate that in this post). With the exception of a character called Drizzt, they are (for the most part) evil, deriving their power from the Queen of the Spiders, who is a goddess called Lolth. She's also a demon that occupies three layers of the Abyss known affectionately as "The Demon Web Pits."

Drow organize themselves into powerful houses and they rule their chaotic evil society through extremely viscious and powerful matrons (Drow have a matriarchy and not a patriarchy). They live in underground cities which (with the aid of darkvision) are true wonders to behold. To keep one house from one-upping another house in their toxic civil government structure, they summon and control demons and set them loose on the city streets. Drow who are unable to deal with the demons (because they aren't strong enough) just perish. So needless to say, Drow society is very cutthroat and unforgiving. Their goddess, Lolth, appears to like it this way a lot.

Drow are also described as being inky black with white hair. And that's like "shoe polish" black. Do you see the problem here? I'll include a picture.

This is called "Drow of the Underdark," and it is a painting by the artist Francis001. It is cover art for a book from Wizards of the Coast (the maker of Dungeons & Dragons), and if you like, you can check out more artwork from this artist located HERE.

So here's the question: If someone wanted to cosplay as a drow elf as above, and it required them to darken their skin with shoe polish or some kind of makeup, would this be considered blackface? Is this now (and always has been) a "No No?"

Because it is a fantasy creature, I'm tempted to say, "This would be okay." After all, you've got the pointed ears, the clear as day need for a white shoulder-length wig, and then the costume which is clearly that of a fantasy race. But what I'm tempted to say might be "okay" others might be screaming mad about, which is probably why I shouldn't be the judge of things like this and would never consider myself "woke" as I have clear questions about "what is and is not crossing a line?"

As a caveat, I don't expect to arrive at a solution based on this post or the comments that follow. A lot of social justice has no central authority, and (because of this) there are varying stages of permission and outrage that seem to flow simultaneously from any given sample size (of a population). The course of action then seems to be more of a "let's just muddle through this without getting killed" kind of thing. Either that, or it becomes a "If there's even a question as to the morality of what is right and what is wrong, then just don't do it." And this is probably one example of the latter...as in...white people should probably (never again) try to cosplay as a Drow elf. It's just too problematic and doesn't look good. Go as Thor or something else (for that matter). There are plenty of things that wouldn't cause protests or threaten your job and still net you lots of compliments and positive attention at a comic book convention.

But it doesn't stop me from being curious about this whole Drow elf thing. :)

Oh boy the 2019 Genie in Aladdin has got some serious uncanny valley going on.

The "uncanny valley" is a common unsettling feeling people experience when androids (humanoid robots) and audio/visual simulations closely resemble humans in many respects but are not quite convincingly realistic.

My "go to" movie for this is The Polar Express, which (in my opinion) is a good movie but I can't watch it. It just bugs me too much. Applying this to Aladdin (the Guy Ritchie live action adaptation) based on only a one minute trailer is probably not all that fair. However, this "early" look that we got of Will Smith as "Genie" gave me that same feeling.

I'm not an animator. I don't know how complex it is to give life to things like "The Genie" in Aladdin. But I wasn't bothered in this way by Doctor Manhattan in the 2009 film adaptation of The Watchmen. Maybe it's the glow? Genie should have a kind of glow around him that maybe could hide the uncanny valley just a bit, don't you think? In the least, they should do something to make Genie look more supernatural. Because...I don't know...this may be similarly unwatchable as The Polar Express turned out to be.

I'm hoping that the effects still aren't done. Otherwise, it may be a whole new world of terror and screaming children. Check out the trailer if you dare.

Getting support from other people is the single most important thing in just about any endeavor.

Pat Dilloway posted a query on his blog the other day , and asked us to weigh in on whether he was crazy or not in pointing out its flaws. For what it's worth, I agreed with what he said. But it started me thinking about the weird way in which some "things" in our society (and world at large) get support and some just don't. It's like trying to figure out why some things go viral and some things don't. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason. And because of this, it seems like a colossal waste of time to even bother giving advice on things that have to do with writing as everyone has a different opinion on how and why it should be done.

My point in the comment I posted on Pat's post was that the query probably is a terrible query unless for some reason it has support. If (for example) it does have a freakish amount of support, then it probably makes it an excellent query because it has support from lots of people who believe in it. Weird, right? The fact is, you can say that about almost anything. For example, a movie can be terrible...it can break all the rules of dialogue and plot and everything else...but if it has support, it can be a smashing success. That's just the way things are. But why?

I've thought about this for a couple of days now, and I think it boils down to the fact that industries in a democratic society lack a centralized authority. That's pretty much it. There's no one person that says "this is right" or "this is wrong." Instead, what you have are industries vying for your economic vote in the form of dollars. But everyone is not on the same page, and they never have been. If one thing ends up getting a lot of economic votes, it might be easy to say "it is because they did this right" or "they're just brilliant," but I don't think that's the case. However, I'm not sure if I can name the answer myself. I've seen many things that I thought were stupid achieve astounding success. It could be as simple as appealing to a person's narcissism. In other words, this thing is about me so therefore I support it, and I don't support that other thing because it isn't about me.

We live in strange, strange times. People get their "facts" from different news sources. People who have no scientific background claim to know more than scientists who've devoted their lives to studying just one thing. There are religious exemptions for everything. There are people who have entire careers destroyed by accusations of crime and people who are bulletproof to the exact same accusations. The difference all seems to be driven by support. Having "support" seems to be the goose that lay the golden egg. You can be wrong infinity x 10, and it doesn't matter if the "wrongness" is supported by a wide number of people.

I can't explain it, and it baffles me so much that I've actually stopped correcting things done by other people when I know them to be wrong. For all I know, the wrongness of something may have support. To clarify, it doesn't have support from me, but I am a drop in the ocean. I have no idea anymore what is wrong to everyone else.

To sum this post up, I think that getting support from other people is the single most important thing in just about any endeavor, and that includes whether or not the endeavor is actually any good. If you can get a bunch of suckers to buy into something, then the endeavor doesn't have to be good at all. It can be extraordinarily bad. I think P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." It may sound absurd, but the endeavor itself doesn't even actually need to be real as long as the support for it is.

Maybe (as far as the human race is concerned) the only thing that ever mattered was having support for ideas, because ideas that don't have support seem to have a special place in Hell where they go to die. If that ends up being true, then our entire lives are spent in finding support from others for all the things in our lives.

How the heck did we get to this point? Was it lack of accountability? Was it lack of a central authority? Did we become spoiled for choice?

I have no answers, other than to point out, this is what I see happening in our world today. So to take this whole thing full circle to all the writers out there that might be reading this, I say go ahead and publish everything you write. Get it out there. Send out your excellent queries and your terrible queries with both fists full. I have no idea what if anything you do will get support, nor if its even repeatable. All I know is this: some people will get it and others won't.