Michael Offutt's Blog, page 68

Are people who act helpless flaunting their privilege?

There are both men and women who I know that put on a daily act of helplessness so that they can be rescued by others around them and/or their direct partners. The most recent example of this happened on Tuesday of this week. I invited a man over (and his husband) who I haven't seen in about ten years. I remembered this person being quite capable in the past, but when he was over on Tuesday night, he was essentially helpless.

Case in point, he left the refrigerator door ajar, and I asked him to close it. The man stared at the fridge and then shoved it with a somewhat limp wrist and it didn't close. "It's broken," he said. I replied, "No it just has a bar that unfolds when you shove it closed. Use some force." He tried again and failed. Then he opened the door and looked at it closer. "There's something blocking it," he said. Again, I told him to use some force. He finally managed to get it closed. The refrigerator (to his credit) requires about five pounds of force to be exerted to get it to latch. But it was like pulling teeth to get him to do it, and he seemed very put out by it.
When we played cards, we asked him to take his cards in one chunk directly from the top of the deck. The goal is to get exactly 22. If you don't, it's no big deal because you just put extra cards back. If you end up with fewer cards, you just draw up to 22 (again no big deal). But if you nail it, and get exactly 22 to start Hand and Foot with, you are awarded with 100 points. So it comes to his turn to grab cards off the deck, and he daintily puts his hand on the deck and starts to thumb through them, taking an excruciatingly long time to get his cards. "Are you counting them?" someone asks. He replies, "No, but this is the only way I can get cards. I can't grab like you do. I just can't do it." He looked at his partner for help. His partner just grinned and said, "Just take a chunk of cards." "I can't," the man replied. "This is so weird. I don't get it." He obviously wanted help, but we didn't enable him. Finally he got his cards and we started play. Again he looked "put out." He wanted to be rescued.

Another example of this occurred with my brother's roommate. I guess he pressed the garage door opener and the garage door started to descend and then detected something and went back up again. He freaked out, waving his hands on either side of his head, and went into the house saying, "I-I don't
know what's happening...the garage is broken. Help." My brother (baffled) stepped out into the garage, and hit the button again and this time the garage closed. My brother told this man, "Sometimes some dirt or something or a leaf, debris of some kind, gets into the track and can cause it to go back up again. Just hit the button again." The man replied, "I'm so sorry. I'm glad you were here. I'd never figure it out."

Before I get onto my actual point in this piece, I want it clear that I'm not complaining about people who practice what seems to me to be obvious "learned helplessness." Rather, I'm wondering why it happens in people with no disabilities? I want to ask, "How are you so helpless? What's going on here?" It would be easy to dismiss it as sexuality, as in "he's an effeminate man and a homosexual so this was taught to him by the community." My comeback against this is a simple and abrupt rebuttal: "But was it really? I think something else is going on that has nothing to do with sexuality or appealing to male egos (as in the case of women who might act "helpless" in order to "create a circumstance worthy of rescue."

My idea? Privilege.

I live alone. I have no one to help me that lives in my house if something catastrophic happens. If there is something that breaks, I cannot shout into the empty room, "Oh no...it's terrible...I don't get it someone please help" and sob and break down with my hands fluttering in the air and batting my eyelashes and actually expect a voice from that empty room to come to the rescue. If I don't fix it myself, if I don't address the problem, then whatever is broken STAYS broken and non-functional. I don't have a choice, and I don't have the privilege to act helpless.

So I started to look at people who do act helpless trying to identify enablers in their life that coddle them and allow them to get away with acting like this. And in every circumstance, I found one (usually a partner). It was a ridiculous epiphany as I realized in my own head, "In this relationship, one person is creating work for the other and the other person is oblivious to it. They are absolutely capable and have the intelligence to fix this issue. But they are lowering themselves to the baseline of child-like helplessness--as in acting AS HELPLESS as a child. I've seen years and years of this compound until the person actually is helpless because they've not used or relied upon areas of their brain for so long that these skills have atrophied. It's a fascinating thing. Why would anyone do it? Is it because they are flaunting their privilege to an audience of people who may not have privilege? A "look at me. I have someone that takes care of me and you don't!" type of attitude. Could it be that petty?

Knowing how people are and how the rich flaunt their wealth and how the beautiful flaunt their bodies, it makes sense to me that flaunting privilege of this kind is yet another example of how people shore up a waning self-esteem (by trying to get validation that someone cares by repeatedly asking for rescue).

Anyway, these are just thoughts, but I wanted to ask you (dear readers) what you thought. Are people who act helpless flaunting their privilege? And if not, then why are there so many people out there who embrace helplessness and shamelessly cry out to be rescued when they really could rescue themselves quite easily from whatever problem is causing them distress.

Talent allows you to increase your chance of success by exploiting the possiblities offered by pure luck.

Monday was my birthday (I turned 47), and I had one of the loveliest and most memorable birthdays in my life. My friend Geneva has a son named David (also a friend) that is only 14 years old (by a few months). He's fantastically gifted, and he played "Happy Birthday" for me on his viola. As beautiful as that was, he followed it up with the "Game of Thrones" theme and then some Bach. When I say he's good, I mean it...like symphony level good. It's amazing how much talent this kid has in him.

So all of this got me to thinking about talent and the nature of talent itself, and it made me think that (in many unfortunate ways) just being talented in our world is no longer enough to guarantee fame and fortune. But as a caveat, I don't really know if it ever was. For example, even if only .01 percent of the population could do what you do, then that still means (in a world of 7 billion) that there are millions and millions of people who are similarly talented. That's just how the math works out. Not everyone can be a star, and there are some who will fail simply because they weren't lucky (they weren't in the right place and the right time, etc.). I know there's at least one study out there with an astounding conclusion that supports what I'm saying, and it says that luck plays an overwhelming part in the real-word realization of success.

Consider these facts "pulled from the Scientific American blog" linked in the above paragraph:

1) Half of the differences in income across people worldwide is explained by their country of residence and by the income distribution within that country.

2) The chance of becoming a CEO is influenced by your name or month of birth.

3) Those with last names earlier in the alphabet are more likely to receive tenure at top departments.

4) People with easy to pronounce names are judged more positively than those with difficult-to-pronounce names.

5) Females with masculine sounding names are more successful in legal careers.

So does talent give a person an edge? Well that's a different question. Scientific American says that "in general, those with greater talent had a higher probability of increasing their success by exploiting the possibilities offered by luck." But if you have no luck at all? Well that sucks for you.

I know how all of this sounds, and those who have narcissistic personality disorder are (in particular) going to be furious and push back at the notion that their success (if they have any) has a lot to do with luck. But I'm convinced that the hidden value of luck (especially in capitalism) plays a heavy hand in the actual way events come to pass within a person's life (from beginning to end).

Forrest Gump anyone?

Let's all agree to rebrand shark movies from "Horror" to "Shark Fiction."

You know how genre's in fiction kind of just appear? Maybe it's the book industry that declares a new genre (kind of like the Academy Awards suddenly makes up a new category) and everyone just has to deal? For example, the broad category of fantasy has been divided (since the eighties) into "young adult" and "dark fantasy" and "urban fantasy" and "supernatural" and what all else I'm forgetting. I think the same thing needs to happen with shark stories. So here's my proposal:

When Jaws came out last century in the late 1970's, it was branded a horror movie. But over time, I think the argument can be made (and I'm going to make it) that it was, in fact, the first movie in a new genre. We currently have a genre called, "Dark Fiction." So along these lines I'm wanting to create one called, "Shark Fiction." Catchy, right?! No need to compliment me on my acumen and creative abilities...YOU'RE SO WELCOME. And now I'm going to list all of the movies and media I can think of that are "Shark Fiction" starting with the latest one which opens tomorrow called "The Meg." I have no doubt that you will be convinced that (after seeing this list) there are enough individual properties to warrant its own category in today's "category obsessed" world.

1) The Meg
2) Jaws
3) Sharknado (and all sequels)
4) 47 Meters Down
5) The Shallows
6) Shark Tale
7) Deep Blue Sea
8) Mega Shark versus Giant Octopus
9) The Reef
10) Bait
11) Open Water
12) Shark Night
13) Ghost Shark
14) 2-Headed Shark Attack
15) 3-Headed Shark Attack
16) Dark Tide
17) Jurassic Shark
18) Sand Sharks
19) Sharktopus
20) Jaws 2
21) Jaws 3-D
22) Jaws: The Revenge
23) Red Water
24) Megashark versus Crocosaurus
25) Avalanche Sharks
26) Malibu Shark Attack
27) Swamp Shark
28) Dinoshark
29) Cruel Jaws
30) Shark Attack
31) Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy
32) Snow Shark
33) Super Shark
34) Shark in Venice
35) Spring Break Shark Attack
36) 12 Days of Terror
37) Shark Swarm
38) Raging Sharks
39) Shark Zone
40) Monster Shark
41) Blue Demon
42) Great White
43) Tintoera
44) Mako: The Jaws of Death

As you can see, there are at least 44 titles I could think of (and probably many more). This is its own category folks. I don't think "horror" cuts the mustard anymore.

Long live "Shark Fiction!"

The internet has taught me an immense amount of things that I use for daily living.

I'm feeling rather handy today, because I got a small natural gas grill for my birthday present (from my brother and his partner) and I was able to connect it to the natural gas line on the exterior of my house all by myself. Here's a picture of the work I did:
What you are looking at is a 1/2 inch brass nipple connected to a brass reducer which is connected to a 3/8 inch brass nipple which is then connected to a quick connect valve and hose. All of it is wound with yellow natural gas Teflon tape and tightened using two wrenches. I wet the outside with water and dish soap to look for leaks (bubbles) and didn't see any. I was able to light the grill and feel heat, so at this point, I'm thinking I did the whole thing correctly. So how did I know to do this?

The internet.

I started to look back on how much I use the internet to train myself how to do things, and I realized it's probably the most useful tool I have access to, and I'm thankful for that. I've taught myself how to do the following (and these are only things that I can remember):

1) Install a gas grill to an outside (capped) gas line and what pieces to buy from the hardware store.
2) Replace a damaged refrigerator door gasket with a brand new one that I bought direct from Kitchenaid online.
3) Figured out what components were required to begin wiring a system capable of supporting a 4K signal.
4) Figured out how to make IKEA "box" furniture look "built-in."
5) Taught myself to remove and fix siding on my house.
6) Figured out how to sharpen a lawnmower blade.
7) Figured out how to remove windows from the inside so that I could clean them.
8) Figured out how to hang cabinets on drywall.
9) Learned how to kill wasp nests effectively.
10) Learned how to change out a sprinkler head on a lawn sprinkling system.
11) Learned how to fix a backflow preventer.
12) Learned how to reseed grass.
13) Learned how to use a thatch rake and where to buy it from.
14) Learned how to fill my own wiper fluid in my car (and how to mix it properly buying concentrate online).
15) I taught myself how to paint cabinets so that the paint was smooth.
16) I learned how to repair holes in drywall.

Anyway, this is a short list of things that the internet has taught me. I'm thankful for its existence, because I honestly feel like life would be much more expensive and harder without it being around. And I freely admit that I would know none of the things above were it not so easy for me to just click and watch an instructional video of an expert doing the job. It has saved me so much time and money.

At this point in my life I'll watch Jason Statham versus anything.

This is my reaction to Jason Statham being in The Meg, which "opens wide" this weekend.

I'd appreciate it if Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham continued to spend downtime between F&F movies trying to one-up each other making SyFy movies with huge budgets. It's a billion dollar idea...at least admit this. And even though it would cost the studios a ton of dough, we (the public) would be the real winners of such a competition.

I'm so excited to see "The Meg" this Friday. I have a love/hate relationship with sharks not to mention an ongoing debate with my friend Brad as to whether the latest shark movie has a shark that's bigger than a school bus--the "school bus" standard being where the bar is set. Is it bigger than a school bus? Mmm...maybe? There's no doubt a lot of kids would fit inside that shark. That's how the conversation usually goes.

Random musings:

1) The Meg was a book published in 1997. So it's been a 21 year journey to realize as a movie. Those of you with stars in your eyes that want your stories to be realized in film, just think about this. Two decades. Yeah.

2)  This movie strikes me as having the same nods to the audience as Snakes on a Plane. It's ridiculous, but will be super fun anyway. It seems like a good movie to send summer out on a bang, kinda like Guardians of the Galaxy was a few years ago.

3) I wonder if the movie has multiple sharks in it. The book did. The premise is that megalodons were able to survive in the deep near volcanic vents where the water was warmer.

4) I hope Jason Statham punches the shark at some point.

5) I appreciate that the Chinese/International market is allowing movies to stray from the same five locations that they previously were restricted to.

6) I want a fishing boat collecting shark fins for "shark fin soup" to be eaten by megalodon. That'd be dramatic irony, and kind of funny.

7) I'm kind of excited to see the giant squid too (that's in the trailer).

8) I think there's a prologue in the book where a megalodon eats a T-Rex. This got me thinking that if they kept that, there should be a crossover with Jurassic World at some point. I'd be on board.

9) Take a look at this poster. I like it a lot. "There's always a bigger fish." Qui-Gonn Jinn from The Phantom Menace

I started an intellectual discussion about the effectiveness of teaching boundaries in a capitalist society.

This week I was the cause of a discussion on Facebook that quickly turned rather intellectual. The message in the meme is prescient with our present era/times, and I had a lot of fun discussing the topic (and my ideas about it) and then have people with PhD's weigh in on it as they too seemed to find (in particular what I had to say) comment-worthy. So here is what was originally posted and what follows (sometimes with my inner thought on that comment) with names removed:

"My teenage nephew told me he asked a girl out and she turned him down. I said, "You know what to do now, right?" He said, "I know I know keep trying" and I said "NO. LEAVE HER ALONE. She gave you an answer." He was shocked. NO ONE had told him that before. TEACH. YOUR. BOYS."

My comment: Framed in this manner, I wonder if ignoring the word "no" is a systemic problem built into capitalism, and it has just leached into everything else. Capitalism and the whole "if you fail you must not have wanted it enough" mantra that gets repeated by readers of Tony Robbins and through the written works made by various "people influencers" spanning decades. If it is related to systemic capitalism, then I wonder how effective education might be. One voice says, "Take 'NO' for an answer," and 200 million voices shout back, "Keep Trying. Never Give Up!" Anyway, interesting thoughts.

1st Guest: Capitalism is NOT the same as sexual relationships, just in case you weren't aware of that fact.
My thought that never got posted: This person is just posting emotionally and doesn't understand my comment at all....

2nd Guest: No, but Michael Offutt has a point that in a capitalistic society young men are raised not to take "no" for an answer, and that that message can bleed over into sexual relationships. We need to teach young men (and everyone) the difference. And that difference is that women are PEOPLE and not OBJECTS. But there aren't enough people out there who don't realize that.

3rd Guest: (To 1st Guest), I don't think Michael Offutt intended to say that they were. I think he means to say that "don't take no for an answer" bleeds into all parts of our culture, including relationships if you've never been taught not to view them as transactions.
My thought that never got posted: This is exactly what I was trying to express.

My comment: (To 1st Guest), Right, and I understand the difference. But for someone with cognitive processing issues (there are more out there than people realize) the message in this meme (which is a good one) might be difficult to get across. For example, built into the message itself are interesting contradictions. On one hand, it is a message to parents to "try harder" to make sure that a message of "let go" or "give up" is received. And to someone with cognitive processing issues (example might be someone who eats Tide Pods for a challenge) then I think the message could be confusing.

"I'm supposed to try harder at giving up?"
Answer: "Yes, try harder at getting a boy to give up."
"But what if I internalize that message and give up too?"
Answer: "No you must try harder! Giving up is the message we want to convey!"

And so on and so forth, ad nauseum. It seems at once over-simplified and then extremely complex. Anyway, I did not mean to offend.

1st Guest: Michael Offutt, I was pointing out the over-generalization that you used. If a person nowadays doesn't know the difference between "work" and "personal" situations/boundaries... THERE is a failure to parent! A parent's job is to teach where limits and infinity apply, NOT try to be a kid's "over-sized buddy."

My comment: (To 1st Guest), You pose an interesting hypothesis. I'm not sure if I can completely agree that if a person becomes an adult and still doesn't understand the difference between "work" and "boundaries" that it is due to terrible parenting. It has been my experience that people learn and process information differently. Trying to figure out the why and the how can take a lifetime. For example, there's a saying in education that if you know one person with autism, you now know "one kind of autism." Anyway, I do appreciate your input. I love thinking about these things.

4th Guest: Capitalist structures and thinking underlie our entire society, (1st Guest), note your use of the phrase "a parent's job" above. We don't have distinct language to describe our personal and familial relationships so we borrow some words from the bank.

This discussion brings to mind some of David Graeber's ideas from his fascinating book, Debt: The first 5000 years:

"Surely one has to pay one's debts."

The reason it's so powerful is that it's not actually an economic statement: it's a moral statement. After all, isn't paying one's debts what morality is supposed to be all about? Giving people what is due them? Accepting one's responsibilities? Fulfilling one's obligations to others, just as one would expect them to fulfill their obligations to you? What could be a more obvious example of shirking one's responsibilities than reneging on a promise, or refusing to pay a debt?
     It was that very apparent self-evidence, I realized, that made the statement so insidious. This was the kind of line that could make terrible things appear utterly bland and unremarkable.
     If history shows anything, it is that there's no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt--above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it's the victim who's doing something wrong. Mafiosi understand this. So do the commanders of conquering armies. For thousands of years, violent men have been able to tell their victims that those victims owe them something. If nothing else, they "owe them their lives" (a telling phrase) because they haven't been killed.

My comment: (To 4th Guest), So, if I'm understanding Graeber's concepts correctly and apply it to my original hypothesis that a capitalist structure continuously pushes, "Don't take no for an answer," then those participants in a capitalist economy really have no choice (and are ultimately unwilling) but to participate, and they "could" be considered victims if they fail in effectively teaching "You need to take no as a final answer and then move on"...is this what you are saying?

5th Guest: And it might behoove us to remember that heterosexual marriage is originally conceived of as economic exchange between two men, long before the birth of capitalism. The language of capitalism, of course, helps to cover up the exploitive nature of that relationship, just as commodity fetishism hides the importance of labor in the production of wealth.

My comment: (To 5th Guest), Excellent point. Another thing that comes to mind in thinking of the original meme above and all of the following comments comes from a book I read by Dr. Martha Stout called, The Sociopath Next Door.
     Dr. Stout posits in that book (based on research) that 4% of the population in the U.S. has no conscience, and she draws a clear connection to capitalism. The rate is like .04% in other developed countries that are much higher in socialism. She states that capitalism as a system rewards sociopathic traits, and that sociopathy itself is not restricted to serial killers. It's valuable to CEO's, business people, nurses, politicians, etc. because "power" and "access to power" are the core values.
     To relate this back to the original meme, the writer wants parents to raise children who respect boundaries. But raising a child who respects boundaries may destroy any chance they have to thrive, because the people who don't respect boundaries are continuously rewarded. In other words, the person who is a sociopath goes on to make all the money and to become the boss and overlord of the person that respects boundaries.
     Just to be clear, I'm not saying that all children who are raised to respect boundaries shall be crippled financially and perhaps be doomed to poverty and struggle. But it might be wise for all of us to take a look at what we are seeing in real life and see if courtesy and playing by the rules is rewarded with money and respect (two things that are considered "of value" in our present society). Also, Dr. Stout says that the occurrence of sociopathy is rising with every new generation. This will have an effect on every aspect of life.

5th Guest: (Michael Offutt) Wow.

And that was pretty much the end of the discussion. I wanted more people to weigh in, but no one has commented in days. It gathered quite a few "likes" along the way, and I think I got people to start contemplating the deeper ramifications that this meme sought to deliver from a unique perspective.
I didn't really like the comments from the 1st Guest all that much. I thought that she was not understanding anything I was saying and might have been a person (for example) with cognitive processing issues. The problem with pointing that out though is that the person would never believe it, which is a kind of cognitive bias that results in straw man arguments and futile communication. Essentially, it's why humans have difficulties being on the same page (as populations swell to massive numbers).
My thoughts on the meme are pretty much that its heart seems to be in the right place, but passing this task of teaching boundaries as something that is easy and obvious (and ultimately a sign of good parenting) is completely wrong. Furthermore, it's my opinion that the problem pointed out in the meme is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. In the end I had no definitive answers, only questions about effectiveness and application.  For one, would this thing (if applied by only those who read it) actually make any difference at all in the world because it's application is such an enormous undertaking (if one's goal is to affect a change in an entire society)? And second, if one's goal is to not affect a change in an entire society, then my next question is: "What then is the point? To push the tide back with a broom?"
Please leave your thoughts in the comments :).

Here are seven pitfalls new writers should avoid on their publication journey.

Today is Wednesday, August 1st, and it's Insecure Writer's Support Group day. If you want more information on this monthly blog festival, go HERE for details. Ages ago it was started by Alex Cavanaugh, and it's grown to be one of the most influential resources for writers online.

Now, onto the August question:

What pitfalls would you warn other writers to avoid on their publication journey?
Oh I have a list of things!
1) Try not to create ultimatums in your head on what is and is not acceptable as far as publishing is concerned.
2) Don't read your online reviews. You'll be much happier if you just skip all that.
3) Keep strict boundaries on your maximum word count and try to hit that target. Keep stories as short as possible. There's more money in shorter stories than there is in longer ones (generally speaking). Plus it's way easier to edit shorter works.
4) Decide who your audience is before you write the story and target that audience. You should know exactly who would want to read your writing.
5) Read lots of books. Reading is a way to be inspired to write.
6) Keep in mind that if it's too good to be true it probably is.
7) Never pay someone to publish your story.
And that's all the advice I have to give today. Have fun in the blogfest fellow insecure writers.

I think it's within the realm of possibility that Tom Cruise has superpowers.

I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise. But when it comes to commitment to being totally crazy, I admire it 100%. After seeing Mission Impossible: Fallout, I think there can be a reasonable argument that maybe Scientology and Xenu have given Mr. Cruise superpowers. It would be easy to dismiss the stuff that this 56-year-old man manages to pull off in the "I don't need a stuntman or a professional" department as just modern camera trickery or computer generated graphics, but the reality says differently. These are not C.G.I. and nearly everything in the film that Tom is seen doing, he actually does.

According to sources I've read online, Tom went on a hundred H.A.L.O. drops including extensive training in wind tunnels and other kinds of skydiving to prepare for the one stunt that you see in the trailer to the movie. It was so dangerous, that Tom Cruise prevented Henry Cavill from participating. He cited something like, "You would get the rest of us killed because there are things I need to do in the air that you are not trained for." Holy crap.

Tom Cruise actually broke his leg leaping what looks like a huge gap between actual buildings. He learned how to fly a helicopter, and he and Cavill (in helicopters) were actually four feet from each other's rotors and at points, less than that from an actual cliff in New Zealand (filming the Kashmir sequence). Cavill said that one mistake, and they would both be dead.

There's another stunt in the film where Cruise climbs a rope that's connected to a payload beneath a helicopter. This was absolutely real, and the helicopter is flying through the air. Cruise falls and catches the netting. It was a planned stunt, but the people on the ground didn't know that was going to happen and actually thought for a few moments that Cruise had just fallen to his death. Of course, Cruise just climbs the rope again and gets into the helicopter.

Look...again I'm no fan of this guy's real life work. I think he belongs to a cult that worships him like a god. But there are parts of my brain that think...hey, maybe he is one. A demigod at least. It's absolutely insane what he does to make these movies. In comparison, I had a piece of siding come loose on my house that needed to be snapped into place, and I was terrified to get up onto my roof so that I could fix it, and I'm ten years younger.

When I suggested to the collective mind of my Dungeons and Dragons group that Tom Cruise is the new "Chuck Norris" as in the whole "Chuck Norris" meme that went wild online about a decade ago, they all shot it down. My friend Matt said, "Tom got his start in movies by just being pretty. Chuck Norris had actual talent."

Eh...that may be completely true. But at 56, it's hard to argue that Tom Cruise is not doing things that put anything Chuck Norris ever did to complete shame.

Debussey's Clair de Lune heightens the awe you feel when watching the trailer for Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

The trailer for Godzilla: King of the Monsters features Claude Debussy's classical suite called Clair de Lune, which is French for moonlight. It's an unusual score, and this version of it from Imagine entertainment seems to be a perfect fit for the majesty of these enormous monsters. In Japan, they are known as kaiju, which is Japanese for "strange beast." But in the movie, the Warner Brothers shared universe for these films is going with "Titans," which evokes inevitable comparisons to godhood. I suppose if such creatures did exist, there would be some that would worship them as gods. This is the whole point of Mothra (my favorite kaiju) who unfurls her wings in a perfect emotional height of the musical score. I can only imagine that when this thing appeared in Hall H at San Diego Comic Con, the crowd must have shook the building with their enthusiasm. It really is one amazing trailer.

So a little history on Clair de lune. First it was originally intended to go into an animation sequence for Fantasia, but it was not included in the final cut of the film due to running time issues. It is the third and most famous movement of Suite bergamesque, and I've heard it mostly played via piano. It really is a fantastic piece of music, and it has me in awe that it fits so well with these gigantic monsters on screen. Is it awe? I think that has to be it, because the sheer size and power of the kaiju is awe-inspiring unto itself so why not evoke awe in the music as well? In my humble opinion, it is a brilliant directorial choice.

There is so much destruction in this trailer, and it definitely has an "end of the world" feel to it (as it should be). I've read online that King Ghidorah creates a hurricane everywhere he goes because of interactions of the energies (that power his breath weapons) with the atmosphere. Personally, Ghidorah is a fantastic villain for this show, and it totally ups the stakes on anything that we've seen in the first Godzilla movie that came out in 2014. Predictions: Mothra and Rodan (after Rodan goes around destroying a few things for fun) will join forces with Godzilla to take down King Ghidorah. In the words of Ken Wattanabe (from the first film), "Let them fight," not that there's much of a choice in this matter. They're essentially immune to everything.

Random thought: Have you noticed that Millie Bobby Brown from Stranger Things is staring at the sky a lot in her career in both Netflix's Stranger Things and now this? I think she was meant to be a sky watcher.

If you haven't seen this trailer yet, I encourage you to click on it below and watch.

Most people seem to hate the Titans trailer that broke at San Diego Comic Con but I seriously love it

DC's Titans is a gritty and dark story. I don't understand why people are upset that the upcoming trailer for the live-action Titans on DC's streaming service is dark. Something tells me that it probably has a lot to do with Teen Titans GO! I think I was able to watch only a single episode of that show before I just shook my head and said, "I've no idea why this is even a thing" and then turned it off.

I used to collect the New Teen Titans comic books in the eighties. They started out with a story about Raven being the daughter of Trigon the Terrible, a malefic entity that had the power to destroy all of creation and make it into a Hell on Earth. He was incredibly powerful, essentially the ruler of Hell. How on earth do you make Raven into what she is on Teen Titans GO!? I've no idea, but apparently they did, and it seemed to work.

Those issues (drawn by George Perez with a story by Marv Wolfman) were some of the best I have ever read. They followed up with fifty issues of incredible storylines, introducing characters that became villains (like Terra) and dealing with real teen angst and some stories that were very similar to what we see in Riverdale (the Archie comics series on the CW). It was some very adult stuff. Furthermore, Perez started to change Raven's appearance in subtle ways after the Titans first encounter with Trigon the Terrible. Her face started to get longer, and she wore her cowl more and more to hide the physical changes that were happening to her. It was a thing that took many issues and went on for years, and it was so slow that you really didn't notice until it was pointed out in issue 50 when Cyborg was talking to Nightwing (I think) and showed Nightwing on the computer just how much Raven had changed in the years they'd known her. All of this (of course) pointed to something BIG that was headed their way.

There was so much character development. Dick Grayson (as Nightwing) had enormous emotional baggage left over from his time with the Batman. I could totally believe it when he said, "F*ck Batman" in the trailer, because this is obviously the way that the show's creators are going. And Princess Koriandr, a.k.a. Starfire, fell in love with him and the romance was great. Anyway, after seeing the trailer, I'm really looking forward to this series, and I've no idea why it's getting panned so much online. I think people somehow forgot that Titans is a DARK storyline. It isn't supposed to be campy. Raven's storyline in particular is the backbone of the whole thing, because it's her storyline that essentially dooms the entire world. No one can beat Trigon. In issue 50, when Trigon came back to Earth, he enslaved legions of superheroes. Superman was nothing to Trigon, nor was the Justice League. He's easily as big a villain as Thanos is to the Marvel universe (or on that same level of power).

Anyway, this post is just a little rant. Overall, I'm happy that the showrunner is taking cues from the Titans source material (the actual comic books) and not Teen Titans Go! I've put the trailer below if you haven't seen it. For what it's worth, I think the casting is really good. I just wish that the forces that decry DC for being "too dark" would just go away.