Monday, June 20, 2011

Green Lantern and Super 8 Movie Review

Over the weekend, this blogger saw both much-anticipated films Green Lantern, and Super 8. Here's a quick review, as I head out of the door.

The Green Lantern movie wasn't as bad as a number of critics would have you believe, and the problem with their takes, is they didn't explain how the movie could be fixed. I will here.

I give it a 6.5 out of 10, and because the script took four story lines - Hal Jordan, Jordan / Green Lantern (Ryan Reynolds), Carol Harris (Blake Lively), and Hector (Peter Sarsgaard), and spent about 40 minutes of a two-hour film explaining them, then getting to the point.

By contrast, what marked Jurassic Park and Mission: Impossible Screenwriter David Koepp's success, was that he grew to understand the importance of getting the explanation done quickly, because everyone wanted to see the main event - in the case of Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs.

Having someone like David Koepp do the screenwriting would have made for a much better Green Lantern.

But there was that other problem: the CGI.

The flying bleed lines were evident in the 3D version, as Hal Jordan came in to meet Carol Harris as he was The Green Lantern for the first time. The audience grumbled.

How Warner Bros allowed that obvious error to get by is the question of the day.

For Super 8, such issues never popped up, but then it was a 2D movie!

What I liked about Super 8 was that J.J. Abrams obviously tried for a film that was a kind of homage to Steven Spielberg and he almost nailed it.

I don't know what the deal was with the use of grainy film, but other than that, it was a tight movie that wrapped you in its story and didn't let go. I would be surprised if it didn't get an Oscar best picture nomination.

Stay tuned.

Is “Queers for Avalos” Offensive? - SF Mayor's Race

Over at Able Dart's Bathroom Wall, the premier forum for online discussion of San Francisco political issues, one SF man who goes by "Chrysippus" took issue with the naming of a recent "John Avalos For Mayor" event called "Queers for Avalos," asserting that the term "Queer" was offensive, and that a straight person should not use it.

In the SF Mayor's Race, every meeting counts, including how it's named.

Frankly, the idea that the term "Queer" was offensive never occurred to me, but then I don't use it, and perhaps I don't have the sensitivities that a Gay person would have in this case. Plus, I grew up with such elements of pop-culture like the TV show Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.

Chrysippus states:

Gay supporters of John Avalos, mostly Milk Clubbers, have formed a group called “Queers for Avalos” (link below).

The use of the term “queers” to refer to gay people is offensive. The term implies that there’s something queer about being gay.

In fact, however, homophobia is what’s queer. Being gay is part of the natural spectrum of human experience. Hostility to people’s ability to love other members of their own gender is queer.

The term “queer” in reference to gay people is especially offensive when straights use it in this sense. And even more offensive, when straight politicians do so. And most offensive all, when done in the name of progressive politics.

I’ve been a gay activist since the 1960s, arrested nine times in gay liberation demonstrations, attacked and beaten.

I’m not queer. I’m not LGBT. I’m gay and proud.

Shame on John Avalos for being a party to this internalized homophobia on the part of the Milk Clubbers.

Here’s the link:

The blast from Chrysippus started a healthy debate over at The SF Wall, here's some samples:

westside progressive: Get with the times. The term "queers" has long ago been turned into a positive term by the queer community. I guess you're just grumpy because you weren't invited to the party.

Able Dart: I do believe from the above that the term "Queer" is in fact offensive to LGBT persons who prefer to see their identity as part of a larger society as opposed to those who wish to emphasize identity politics. Unless of course Westie want to venture down Queer Street again and claim that Wikipedia is a global conspiracy...

el Greco SF: What I find offensive are just plain "citizens" for Avalos.

From the looks of things, it appears the people who formed the event are Gay, not straight, and elected to use the term. That's there choice.

I don't think John Avalos should be held responsible for an event he did not form himself, or at least this one. Not to say any person running for office should attend every meeting that's formed for the person, no. I'm just saying that in this case, I don't see the big deal.

But then that's why I presented it, to learn if it was, indeed a big deal. After all, the use of one wrong term can impact the SF Mayor's Race.

I dated a wickedly brilliant woman for several years who, even with our sexual component, if you will, consistently called herself Lesbian, not Gay and certainly not "bi."

I never asked her why that was, perhaps because I was having too good a relationship with her at the time and didn't want to blow it with a philosophical argument. Lord knows we ended because of a much more concrete one!