Obsidian Wings

"Pacific Rim" was marketed as the wrong kind of movie

by Doctor Science

Pacific Rim hasn't done as well in the US as had been hoped (for a nearly-$200-million movie), though it's racking up enough bucks internationally that there will be a sequel. I think its comparative failure here was because the marketing was wrong.

The marketing, and the reviews, said that Pacific Rim is "by fanboys, for fanboys". But let me tell you, I know a LOT of fangirls, and we have fallen for this movie hook, line and sinker.

At least in the US, the marketing tagline for Pacific Rim was "To Fight Monsters, We Created Monsters". And this is what the trailers showed: giant invading alien monsters, battled by equally giant robots, controlled by square-jawed men. I was *deeply* unimpressed with the first trailer I saw, and wrote the movie off as "another take on Transformers, probably based on a comic or video game I've never heard of. Boring, loud, sausagefest, skipable."

But this isn't what the movie is about. It's not about how "we created monsters" or "we made giant scary robots, powered by men." The *point* of Pacific Rim, at least as far as the fangirls (and similar) are concerned, is we fight giant aliens with giant robots powered by our soulbonds. What's driving the robots ("Jaegers") isn't "a man" or even "a human being", it's a relationship.

It's about compatibility. I don't know who made this .gif, but it's all over tumblr.

The trailers made the movie seem more like this. Image created by mcavoiding, using Pacific Rim's Jaeger Designer app.

Cut for massive, total spoilers for the film.

Eminent Domain done right

by liberal japonicus

The New York Times had the following

The power of eminent domain has traditionally worked against homeowners, who can be forced to sell their property to make way for a new highway or shopping mall. But now the working class city of Richmond, Calif. hopes to use the same legal tool to help people stay right where they are.

An abandoned home in Richmond, where roughly half of all homeowners with mortgages are underwater, meaning they owe more than their home is currently worth.

Scarcely touched by the nation’s housing recovery and tired of waiting for federal help, Richmond is about to become the first city in the nation to try eminent domain as a novel way to stop foreclosures.

This sounds like a good idea. What took them so long? Since we seem to all have different ideas about what constitutes appropriate governance, this might be interesting.

Metaphors for Asia: My three sons*

by liberal japonicus

In a recent thread, the subject of East Asian relations in general and Japanese-Korean relations in particular came up and I suggested that the relationship problems have much deeper roots than is often imagined by Westerners. I may have suggested that I would write a post detailing the evidence for my assertions. As you can tell from the title, this post is probably not that one, but it will probably be as close as you get. I'm also ready to post this now that dr ngo is on the field, backing me up so as to stop those ground balls that go thru between my legs because I didn't get my glove down.

More below the fold if you want to ignore this and treat it like an open thread.

The Season Three Problem

by Doctor Science

So far I have concealed my shame from Obsidian Wings, but since this my No Shame Week I shall confess: one of the things I am fannish about right now is Teen Wolf.

I know, OK? However, the first two seasons turned out to be a lot better than I expected, only partly because my expectations were low. My theory is that with a limited FX budget, shooting in Georgia, and only 12 episodes per season, showrunner Jeff Davis actually had time to spend on character development.

Now it's Season 3, Teen Wolf is successful (by MTV standards), the season is a full 24 episodes divided into two 12-episode arcs, we're up to episode 3.08, and none of us fans can agree on WTF is going on. Seriously, we're really hoping for "it was all a dream/hallucination/mind-control whammy" to explain at least half of the events, and this is *never* a good sign.

"Implosion 6", by Christopher Lowry Johnson (2008). From a group exhibition, Things Fall Apart.

 

Many of us have noticed that a lot of shows start out promising, but then seem to fall apart in their third season. Years ago, someone in The Industry told me why (in their opinion) this happens.

My informant said that, basically, a writer/showrunner can only do about 2.5 to 3 seasons in a row of an hour-long drama before they burn out. Exactly when they burn out depends on the person, but it will happen to *anybody* sooner or later, it's as inevitable as gravity.

At that point, there are a few possibilities:

1. The show falls apart, ratings drop, they get cancelled. Examples: too numerous to list. Heroes will come to many fan's minds, but really, there are SO MANY others.
2. They keep writing/showrunning at the same level of involvement, but they no longer *care*. Chris Carter of the X-Files is the poster boy. He might have been luckier if the show had been cancelled, because he's basically done nothing since. Fans sit in bars and curse his name, I've seen it.
3. They’re a genius so they can keep it up for longer, and they use drugs to buy a little more time. The crash is *epic* when it comes. Aaron Sorkin is the type specimen.
4. If they’re competent, skilled, *and* lucky, they develop a solid group of *other writers* during seasons 1, 2, and early 3. They share a vision of the show, the characters, and the world, and the showrunner/creator *trusts* the team to do creative work without him having to pee on everything. I don’t know how critical it is to have a show "Bible", but it’s hard for me to imagine having true unity of vision without it. Joss Whedon is a good example: he didn’t write or direct all that many episodes of the Buffyverse, but it actually holds together in way many of these other shows don’t.
5. ETA: In the comments, Elf Sternberg points out that there's another possibility. A showrunner can avoid burnout and collapse if "they have a complete vision before shooting even began, a vision that has a definitive ending. They organize this into a meaningful main story and corresponding smaller story arcs that add up to an ending. Examples of this include Babylon 5 and Ghost In The Shell: Standalone Complex." This approach deflects showrunner burnout because crucial parts of the work are done *ahead of time*, instead of in the pressure-cooker of a shooting schedule. The well-defined structure also makes it easier for other writers to do more of the work, because the show "Bible" has already been written. Game of Thrones is another example.

I will add that this pattern is particularly obvious in sf/fantasy shows, where there's a lot of world-building and thus things to keep straight. Does it still apply for shows without a strong serial component, where the episodes stand on their own? What about British (or other) shows, which don't have the long seasons and brutal schedules of American TV?

I don't know if "Teen Wolf" will pull out of its Season 3 problems, if Davis is doing a Perry Mason in which he "proposes to connect all this up, your honor." The fact that he's talked about how much of a strain he finds writing the longer season is *not* encouraging, but I cling to hope. And "Pacific Rim", but that's another post.

Direct YouTube link.

This, the current season's version of "Shit Teen Wolf Fans Say", is a *lot* less cheerful and funny than last year's, but still brutally accurate.

Le Tour

by dr ngo

What's the sound of a powerful cycle crossing the mountains?

Froome, Froome.

Today the 100th Tour de France ended, and once again I was pleased to have watched most of it, despite all its heritage of drug scandals (So Long, Lance, it's been weird to know ya) and lack of real suspense about the “winner” over the last week or so. Chris Froome was a deserving winner: he was strong when he needed to be, he appears to be clean AND a nice guy (So Long, Lance), and many of us thought he might even have won last year had he not subordinated himself to his teammate (and eventual champion) Bradley Wiggins. Moreover, Alberto Contador fell off the “podium” on the last climb, good news for those of us who dislike arrogant drug cheats (So Long, Lance).

But the Tour is more than that, and its singularity (as a TV event) deserves distinct consideration, beyond the general “Why I Watch Sports” post that I keep thinking about writing but haven't yet.

For a start, it's Scenery Porn. Not just the natural splendors of seacoast and Alps – which the Tour of California can nearly match – but all the chateaux and picturesque rural villages along the way: you'd never know France had experienced an Industrial Revolution. And then, just when you think you've seen it all, you look up from an otherwise fairly undistinguished “sprint stage” and there's Mont San Michel!! (My junior year of college I had a tourist poster of MSM on the wall of my dorm room: I love that sight.) Not to mention a finish up and down the Champs-Élysées, which is far lovelier than the streets of Los Angeles, my home town, where the ToCal goes. Plus excited fans in costume running recklessly onto the course near every mountain summit, adding considerably to the peril of the riders and the color, both literal and figurative, of the spectacle.

Yet even as sport the Tour stands alone, in my estimation. (Some of what I have to say is also applicable to the Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a Espana, but we don't get those on our TV – although I've seen them in the past – and most of what they do the Tour does better.) When I referred to the “winner” in the second paragraph, I put the term in quotation marks not because there's any question mark over Froome's victory, but because there are so many winners. Of nearly 200 riders who start the race, only about ten are serious contenders for the top prize, with perhaps another score having dreams of a podium finish, but everyone there has (1) a chance to “win” something coupled with (2) the necessity to get up every day and put in mile upon mile upon mile at high speed – you are eliminated if you finish too far back – just to keep competing. 3400 kilometers, a minimum of 83 hours of hard cycling, never a respite except for two designated “rest days.” These guys are tough.

Some are there hoping to win single stages – a new champion every day! - or even to lead the entire race to that point and thus don the maillot jaune. Some are there to compete for the green jersey, given (in effect) to the most aggressive and consistent sprinter. Some are trying to be the King of the Mountains, in the polka dot jersey; it's an honor to look like a clown, apparently. It's as if there were many contestants in Miss America whose only ambition was to win Miss Congeniality or the talent competition. And most of the cyclists are just domestiques – literally “servants” - whose victory is likely to consist entirely in the assistance they give to their team leader; think left tackles who achieve near-invisible greatness by protecting their quarterback's blind side. A case could be made that the “most valuable player” of this year's tour was the Tasmanian Richie Porte, who led Froome to the final stretch of almost every stage, yet never finished better than second in any stage himself. Perhaps next year he will supplant Froome at the top, as Froome supplanted the absent Wiggins, whom he had “served” in 2012?

Ah yes, the Tasmanian competing for a British team, just as the indomitable German Jens Voigt (“Shut up, legs!”) and Luxemburgian (Luxemburgher?) Andy Schleck do for an American team, and the top Spaniards for Russian (Katusha) and Danish (Saxo-Tinkoff) teams and the great young Colombian climber Nairo Quintana for a Spanish team and the sprinting Manxman Mark Cavendish for a Belgian team . . . If you favor internationalism, here it is in action; if you have nationalist tendencies, there's always someone to root for, or against. (And I haven't even mentioned team standings.)

All of this complexity unfolds at the height of summer, showing up in the USA every morning for three weeks in glorious technicolor. Get up, turn on the Tour, have breakfast, read the paper, and watch fierce competition in front of a ridiculously scenic backdrop. Neatly finished for the day before lunch. What's not to like?

When Evangelism is really Tribalism

by Doctor Science

It's the last day of San Diego ComicCon, the yearly extravaganza of pop and geek culture. Cory Doctorow posted a picture of some of the Christian (or "Christian") protesters outside the venue, who show up every year. Wil Wheaton wondered why they do it and why they make their children do it, when as evangelism ("spreading the good news") it appears to be totally unsuccessful. I think the unsuccess is a feature, not a bug: the point is to solidify their tribalism.

This isn't Doctorow's picture, but it's a clearer one showing some of the variety of protesters at ComicCon. source.

Wheaton wrote:

But here’s the thing that I noticed for the first time just yesterday: many of the sign holders are children between the ages of (I’d guess) 8 and 16. Some of the older kids read the script into their megaphone, while the younger ones try to shove tracts and leaflets into the hands of people who — if they take them at all — immediately throw them on the ground.

These children looked miserable. They looked sad. They looked like they’d rather be anywhere else than shouting at thousands of joyful people who are celebrating things they love.

...

I feel like these kids are in a cult, and their parents are robbing them of their childhood. I feel like these people show up where large groups of us are being happy, so they can tell us that we should feel bad. I’m not entirely sure what they hope to accomplish — I’ve never once seen a person engage them in a thoughtful way, much less convert to their particular flavour of religion, and they don’t seem to be interested in soliciting money — but whatever it is, it isn’t happening.

Unless their goal is to make people mock them, ignore them, or in my case, feel sad for their children.

Slacktivist has written a lot about this, and his overall conclusion is that the purpose (conscious or not) of this kind of pointless or mockable evangelism is in fact to have outsiders reject them, because that makes the tribal or insider bonds much stronger.

The kids in these groups are extremely sheltered, and have been taught that outsiders don't know Jesus and will reject his followers. So their parents take them into the outside world in way that pretty much guarantees they'll get rejection, hatred, and mockery. Mom and Dad are right! Only the church (cult) is safe and loving, better stay close.

I don't know if there's any way for outsiders to address the young people in these groups in a way that will, eventually, make it easier for them to leave and to deal with the world outside their tribe. And of course, anything that *does* work will be perceived by the parents as the most dangerous sort of attack -- because it is.

Slacktivist doesn't just talk about this kind of tribal-reinforcement-through-failure happening with the Westboro Baptist Church, but about the widespread evangelical practice of witnessing. The obligation imposed on many evangelical Christians to always be "selling" Christianity has the inevitable effect of making all interactions with outsiders exhausting and contentious. So, it makes being an insider, a member of the evangelical tribe, relaxing and welcoming by contrast.

I wonder if the same thing is true of Mormon missionary service. I gather that the number of converts the average Mormon missionary gets is extremely low -- 0 is the mode, 1 or 2 is the median. The actual social purpose of the mission, it seems to me as an outsider, is to solidify the feeling that the gentile world is difficult and unwelcoming, that you can only trust and relate to your fellow insiders. Missions *do* give many Mormons skills with languages other than English, which is really useful and important (and too uncommon in the US); most short-term Evangelical witnessing doesn't even have that to recommend it.

I've heard of these kind of protests at ComicCon for the last several years; do they occur at other large conventions, geek or otherwise?

The selfishness of suicide: What part of "mental illness" don't you understand?

by Doctor Science

Andrew Sullivan has been having a discussion about suicide. He quotes Clancy Martin:

"[E]very suicide’s an asshole,” wrote Mary Karr, in a poem about [David Foster] Wallace’s death. “There is a good reason I am not/ God, for I would cruelly smite the self-smitten.” Suicide, seen as among the most selfish of acts, pushes a button in us that even murder doesn’t.

I have repeatedly heard grieving people rage at the selfishness of a suicidal love one, how the person would never do that if they actually cared about their family and friends.

Speaking as someone who's been depressed to the point of suicide (though fortunately never consciously attempted), this is bunk. When you're that depressed, it feels as though everything you do or touch is horrible, and that your continued existence will be a burden to your family. You really, truly believe that they will be better off without you.

Now you may say, "but how could they believe that?!? They'd
have
to
be
crazy ...
oh."

Well, DUH. Depression doesn't involve just a disorder of emotion, it involves disordered thoughts, as well. The most prominent of these thoughts is hopelessness, that there is no way out.

Winston Churchill wrote of his depression as the Black Dog.[PDF link] This picture is by Katrina Miller of Tasmania, from Painting and naming the black dog.

Discussion of suicide and suicidal ideation under the cut

Excerpts from an Index Friday open thread

by dr ngo

dr ngo passed this what he's been working on and suggested it as a potential open thread at the beginning of the week. I started looking up things and got lost. Something in this list for everyone!

============

annexation 26, 31, 44, 202;  of Burma 27-8, 30, 37, 43, 67; of Indochina 27-8; of Indonesia 29; of North Borneo 41; of the Philippines 6, 166; by Thailand 67; of Timor-Leste 105, 114; by Vietnam 270; see also colonial acquisition; imperialism

Aung San Suu Kyi 233, 264, 286

baba Chinese 49, 169, 289, 295, 298

Buddha Master of Western Peace 59, 232

civilization 5, 22, 44, 141, 301, 311, 318; Cham 314; Dong Son 270, 300; Dvaravati 269; Indian/Hindu  21, 213, 310-1; Islamic 219; Javanese 271; Malay 271; Philippine 310; Western 29, 239, 272, 274

communism: in Burma 77, 80, 83, 87, 99-100, 109-10, 111, 189-91, 281, 285; in Cambodia 92-3, 94-5, 102-3, 116-7, 120-1, 189-91, 195, 225, 312; in China 73, 86-95, 99, 179, 192, 279, 282, 296-8, see also China, Communist; in India 189; in Indonesia 73, 77-8, 87-8, 92-3, 100-1, 109-10, 111-2, 126, 189-91, 192, 203, 205, 242, 262, 317; in Laos 89-90, 100-1, 102-3, 119-21, 189, 191, 194-5, 242; in Malaya 73, 79, 86-7, 98-101, 109-10; in Philippines 59, 88, 94, 99, 109-11, 124-5, 203, 242, 306; uprisings 9, 73, 77-9, 87-8, 98-9, 108, 191, 284; in Vietnam 9, 55, 63, 81, 86-95, 98-103, 109-10, 119-21, 189-97, 229, 242, 305, 314-5, 316-7; see also Cold War

"Death Railway" 68

diversity: biological 144; educational 49; ethnic 21, 275, 278-9, 281-2, 286, 288, 293; linguistic 238, 279; religious 215, 221, 235; sexual 253; Unity in 1

elephants 145, 147, 150, 152-3, 260 

Emergency (Malaya) 79, 86,  99, 109-10, 280, 283

Facebook 200, 206

female: activists 122, 150, 262, 263-5; authors 262, 266, 304; autonomy 137, 139, 246, 249-50, 304; beauty 247-8, 255-6, 305; chastity 247-8, 251 see also women, unmarried; complementarity (with males) 244, 246-7, 249; domesticity 250, 258, 260-1, 264; education 46-7, 51-2, 140, 259-60, 263-4; exploitation 249, 262, 265; fertility 135-7, 139-40, 248, 250-2, 264, 300; labor 137, 140, 150, 168, 172-3, 175, 249-50, 258, 260-1, 265, 305; marriage, age at 9, 135-6, 139-41, 262; migration 48, 167, 172, 175, 260, 295; performers 307; ritual specialists 250, 252; rulers 84, 247, 257-9; sexual desire 247-8, 250-1, 253-4, 258; slaves 43, 150-1, 254, 258-9, 265; spirituality 249-50; voice 8, 246, 257, 259, 262, 266, 304; warriors 205; see also women

trade:  in amulets 228; in coffee 157; in cotton 151; in forest products 145-7, 152-3, 159-60, 275; in horses 151; in opium 110; in pepper 148, 290; in rice 69, 89, 155, 157, 273, 290; in rubber 161, 273; in spices 236; in sugar 157; in tea 157; in tobacco 157; see also commerce; exports; imports 

Young Men's Buddhist Association (Burma) 58, 80, 232

 

Sir Isaac Newton Take the Wheel

by Doctor Science

Over the weekend, many fanpeople went to see Pacific Rim. Consensus review: AWESOME -- I'll try to write about it at some other time.

One of the trailers frequently played before "Pacific Rim" was for Gravity, an Alfonso Cuarón movie about a space shuttle accident, starring Sandra Bullock.

Here's the trailer, but be warned: I have heard of at least two people who had panic attacks from it, in the theater.
 
Direct YouTube link

This trailer was *much* more frightening and anxiety-provoking than any of the giant monsters in "Pacific Rim" itself. Partly, of course, it's that the scenario in “Gravity" is closer to reality, especially in scale.

But also, you know how a lot of people say Jesus take the wheel about being in a vehicle out of control? Before I ever heard that expression, I called things like hitting black ice "Sir Isaac Newton took the wheel". It's that feeling of being in the inexorable grip of Newton’s Laws of Motion, when you're sliding toward a collision and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

"Gravity" is bound to be a lot about Newton Takes the Wheel, about humans confronting absolutely impersonal physical forces. Not to mention the ultimate combination of claustrophobia (you're in a very little box! and there's not enough air!) and agoraphobia (you're in the biggest possible open place, the one that makes you very very small). One of the people who had a panic attack from the trailer is claustrophobic, and boy howdy I can see how that would happen.

The other person has some PTSD from a car accident, and I believe the "Gravity" trailer was triggering because it really evokes that Newton Takes the Wheel feeling. In that sense, the movie may be too realistic for some people to take: most of us aren't ever going to be on the Space Station, but Sir Isaac is everywhere, and being in his grip is seriously frightening.

I'll be interested to see if "Gravity" has anything of the feel of the classic science fiction story The Cold Equations, which is also about Newton Takes the Wheel. Though it's a calmer and colder (heh) mood, more of Newton Just Sits There and Judges You Silently Until Someone Dies.

But I do predict that, when "Gravity" is released, there will be incidents where unprepared audience members have panic attacks in the theater. I don't get the impression Cuarón thought he was making a horror movie, but he seems to have effectively tapped into a primal fear. And horror movies can make a *lot* of money.

Newton, by William Blake. Blake couldn't stand Newton, and said "Art is the Tree of Life. Science is the Tree of Death". Newton would have doubtless found Blake very silly. Me, I like them both, I contain multitudes.

farm bill no food stamps

by russell

ok, so the house passed the farm bill, and finessed the food stamp funding issue by leaving it out.  which is to say, the food stamp program ceases to exist in the house bill.

here is why that is, imo, asinine.

1. no food stamps means that it will be glaringly obvious that there are a sh*tload of poor people in this country.  the way it will become glaringly obvious is that they'll be really hungry, and therefore really pissed off.  much hilarity will no doubt ensue.
2. the way that farm bills, aka 'welfare for farmers', traditionally get passed is by bundling them with aid for other folks.  e.g., the vast majority of folks in this country who don't live on farms.  

if the house (R)'s want to pick a fight, they've chosen a nice big juicy one.  i wish them luck.