A Slightly More Serious Post

I made a solemn vow when I first started this blog a few years ago that I would never, ever talk about politics. Well, maybe I didn't make a solemn vow. But I generally try to avoid the subject, both in this blog and in my everyday Facebook posts. The reason(s)?

1. I am not going to change anybody's views. 
2. Similarly, I know myself well enough to know that people who argue with me will probably just irritate me instead of convince me of anything, unless their argument is wonderfully backed up with sources and impeccable logic-- I have not come across many people who argue like that. 
3. There are millions of people out there far more informed than I am. That in itself is not a reason for me to remain quiet, but I would rather participate as a listener than a contributor. I vote, read articles, and make choices, but I don't think I have anything to say that hasn't already been said (and more eloquently, at that). 

So, I want to preface this post by saying that I don't see this as being about politics. You may disagree with me. I will try and abstain from posting a single political opinion on here. What I DID want to post about is a trend I've been seeing on Facebook and some other social media sites. It's not actually a trend so much as a regular pattern that been a trending annoyance for me. 

It seems as though some people's anger towards Obama has presented itself as a form of irrelevant attack. This is not new, I understand that. I am writing this post because I have gotten to the point where I am finally taking people out of my newsfeed for it simply because I don't want to look at their posts, and I want to address it here. It's not a political issue, because it has nothing to do with politics. A political issue would be gun control. If I were to write a political post on the subject, it would involve discussing why or why not I believe American citizens should have access to certain types of guns. But I am not talking about gun control here; I'm talking about personal comments that have nothing to do with how Obama runs the country. 

What do I mean by irrelevant attacks? 

• Racism. Or, 1. comments that refer to Obama as being African or Muslim. There is nothing wrong with being either, but they are not accurate when describing Obama. Moreover, they are almost always used in a derogatory context. It is one thing to make an honest mistake (I make them all the time); it is entirely different to refer to him as an "African" as a lazy and inaccurate racial slur while actually criticizing him for something entirely different. That is insulting to Obama, to Africans, and to your own intelligence level. You can do better than that. 
• a. 2. Comments that refer to Obama as being "black" when talking about him in contexts that have nothing to do with race (so, when arguing gun control, I don't see why the color of his skin is relevant). 
• 3. Comments that use other derogatory words which should be obvious, and which I won't include here. 
• Comments that compare Obama to Hitler. Comparing anybody to Hitler has a multitude of issues for me. Primarily, unless they murdered fourteen million people, they are not Hitler. Secondly, pointing out that someone does something that Hitler did-- and therefore they are bad-- is also a frustrating argument. Mostly because Hitler liked Wagner, he sang in a church choir, he was interested in becoming a customs bureau officer, considered himself patriotic and nationalistic, was a painter for a short while, enjoyed drawing cartoons, and so on. 
• Instead of saying, "So-and-so is like Hitler because...", look at whatever action the person is taking, and explain why you disagree with that action. If you have a basic grasp of the English language, this should be possible without bringing in Hitler.
• Lastly, the argument that people who are slinging these personal attacks should not be blamed, because "the other side" said similar things about Bush while he was in office. First off, many people have been commenting on the extreme polarization of this country. Polarization comes from attitudes like this, on BOTH sides. Just because people criticize Bush for "being an idiot," or a "redneck" doesn't make the parallel criticisms of Obama acceptable. If they are wrong, then take a stand by refusing to play the same game. If you think these kinds of criticisms are acceptable, then go ahead,  but you can't get angry when the same comments are made about political figures you support. 
• Secondly, I want to make it clear that I have not, and will not, comment on anybody's performance in the office based on anything other than specific political decisions or actions. I don't care which party they are from, or the ratings they get while in office. This is not to say that my political views allow me to agree with every decision of every president in office, but I will not criticize the president simply because he's not someone I'd be personal friends with, given the opportunity. So, there is at least ONE person who has managed to abstain from this, and I'm quite certain there are probably others. 

I do hope that this means something to someone. As I said before, I know I won't change people's minds on political issues, but I really don't believe this is a political issue at all, but instead a step towards slightly more civilized discourse and debate with a bit less hatred. 

Wrath of the Titans is not Greek Mythology

(warning: long post ahead, but I tried to saturate this post with pictures to reward anybody with the determination and focus to read through it all)

I watched the movie Wrath of the Titans last night, sequel to Clash of the Titans, and was, as usual with these types of films, amused by the mythology used in the movie. I wrote a little Facebook status about it, and then while falling asleep last night, decided to expand on my thoughts and put them into a post, if only for my own benefit.

(To see my response to Percy Jackson, see here).

The first post I ever wrote!

Let me get something straight first: I absolutely enjoyed watching the movie. Had I been wanting to watch it for a while? Yes. Did I think it was a good movie? No. Was I expecting it to be a good movie? No. Would I watch it again? No. Am I glad I saw it? Of course! As someone who enjoys romantic comedies is really just looking for a cute, happy ending between a couple in their films, when I watch an action movie, I'm really just looking for a good fight, not an epicurean masterpiece. It was nothing original, nothing I haven't seen before. Plus, I enjoy seeing adaptions of books, mythologies, whatever. It is incredibly uncommon that I actually regret spending my time watching a certain movie-- M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender is a rare example, and I still refuse to see the movie A Wrinkle in Time.

I'm with you, Sokka. I'm with you. 

As a movie on it's own, Wrath of the Titans was your average B-/C+ action flick. Perseus's wife Io has just  died after ten years (for those familiar with Io's story in Greek mythos, just don't ask; for those familiar with the first movie, I'm just assuming they couldn't get the actress back for some reason), and he is raising a son (named...Helius?) when Zeus-- his father-- comes to him and asks for help because something bad and really really vague is about to happen. Perseus refuses because he doesn't want to leave his son, and Zeus reminds him that as a human, he is stronger than a god, and a few actions scenes later, Perseus has rounded up the old gang (with a new comedic sidekick) and they're off to save Zeus, armed with a mediocre screenplay bathed in CGI, surviving only on the ambrosia that is the relationships between Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Perseus, and sort of Ares. Note: this ambrosia actually makes it an improvement from Clash of the Titans (although the box office earnings would suggest otherwise).

Greek mythology does not get any more badass than this. 

This is not a movie review, so I'm not going to spend my time with the plot and quality. What I am interested in is the mythology. I mean for this post to be a reflection. As I said before, I enjoy seeing adaptions of myths, and this was no exception. I had a conversation with someone over the holidays about a movie's right to advertise itself as being based in something true. Zero Dark Thirty was the main subject of our conversation, which is only very loosely based on the discovery and death of Osama bin Laden, but has not advertised itself as being false in any way, which I find disturbing.


As it is, the director of Wrath -- not the same director of Clash-- seems to have, once again, taken a sixth grade mythology class and waited to direct it until he was forty. The Disney movie Hercules had fewer inaccuracies than Wrath, and I can excuse some of those because, well, I wouldn't want my child watching a movie where Zeus cheats on Hera and names the son Heracles after her to try and appease her but she's still so pissed off that she throws his child off of Mt. Olympus, either, where Heracles grows up and kills Meg and then ultimately chooses to live on Olympus instead of Earth.

Hell, I don't even mind Hera being pink. 

It doesn't bother me, exactly. I suppose I do cringe when I hear people referring to the movie as a source of mythology-- I love mythology, and Wrath of the Titans is not that. Maybe what gets to me is that there is some hidden implication there that the actual mythology is not interesting enough. I understand some modernizations.  I have grown accustomed to the fact that pretty much any movie that does not take pace in modern-day (or futuristic) America will host a cast of English accents, regardless of whether we're in Greece, Persia, or Alagaesia, because British is the only foreign/exotic accent there is. I have also grown accustomed to the fact that the rise of CGI fight scenes mean the rise of more and more outlandish monsters and battles and Michael Bay explosions, and that directorial moves like making Andromeda a warrior-queen is meant to appease the feminists of today.


(I would have inserted a picture here, but you would not believe how much Andromeda fan art there is on Google image, and I refuse to wade through it all just to put one picture here when you can find it yourself)


Fine. Here are some things I don't get:

1. The Chimera at the beginning of the movie look nothing like Chimera. First off, in the film, there were multiple. Secondly, they had wings. Third, it looked very little like a lion/snake/goat hybrid-- I certainly wouldn't have guessed that. The snake, maybe-- the cinematography didn't help me to get a good view of the animal. But what is wrong with the chimera as it was? I'll ignore the fact that Perseus never had anything to do with the Chimera. But, if filmed right, I could easily see a lion/goat/snake hybrid that breathes fire as being scary enough. This is a small detail, but something that I see as being a failure on the part of the filmmakers, because instead of actually exploring the possibilities of having a single fire-breathing Chimera (as described in Hyginus or Pindar), they just change the creature to make it look uglier, more alien, and unclear, and then add more of them because they can't create enough drama with just one.

Guys. Guys, this is not a Chimera.

2. The whole backstory with Kronos. This confuses me for two reasons. One, the actual story with Kronos is way more awesome and crazy than what we saw in the movie. Basically, Ouranos and Gaia (Sky and Earth) have several children-- titans-- including Kronos and Rhea, who have several children (including Hera, Zeus, Demeter, Hestia, Poseidon, and Hades). Kronos then overthrows his father by castrating him (the, um, aftermath of the castration falls into the sea, fertilizes it, and that is how Aphrodite is born), and then, fearing that his own children will overthrow him just as he did his father, he eats them. When Zeus is finally born after everybody else, Rhea wants to protect him, so she gives Kronos a rock to eat instead of the baby, tricking him, and raises Zeus on her own. He then gets his brothers and sisters back when Kronos throws them all back up, and together, they fight a war against Kronos and the other titans, and win, banishing them all into Tartarus. Tartarus is NOT a labyrinth with a Minotaur, but instead a pit, and actually himself a god-brother of Ouranos and Gaia-- so he's actually a being, too.

And this is actually a simplified PG version!

3. The other reason this confuses me is that the reason for all this castration, baby-eating, and banishment is that all of these characters are immortal. Unlike Norse gods, they can't be killed, hence these elaborate and gruesome punishments. They do get weaker when they aren't worshipped, as evidenced by the fact that gods are stronger in their patron cities and their natural element (for example, the conflict between Athena and Poseidon in the Odyssey), and they can get hurt (as Ares was in the Trojan War), but they can't die. Demi-gods can die, Io and Perseus can die, but not the gods. This creates a major plothole-- why was Kronos in Tartarus in the first place? When Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon joined forces to to defeat him in the first place, why would they trap him instead of kill him? Why didn't Kronos kill them in the first place, either?

Because the planets were not yet aligned?

4. The last thing I'll point out is the relationships between the gods. This first got to me when Hephaestus discussed creating the labyrinth. Well, he never did that in the first place (not to mention that, again, Tartarus is actually technically the uncle of Kronos, was around before he was, and is a god as much as he is a place), but Hephaestus also would not have been around then, because Kronos is not his father, Zeus is. In a way, he is also a brother to Ares and Perseus. Since the father/son/brother relationship in this movie was so important, this seems like it could have been an incredibly convenient thing to bring up. Also, he compares the warrior queen Andromeda to his wife, Aphrodite, and this is supposed to be a compliment (Aphrodite, the goddess of love, is married to Hephaestus because Zeus forced her to, and she cheats on him regularly with Ares, to the point where Hephaestus designs a net that catches both of them naked in bed, and invites all the gods to look so they can laugh at her).

Lol Hephaestus

With all this material, why go through all the effort to change it all up to create an entirely new plot? I might go along with it if the newly produced plot had some magnificent twists, wit, meaning, substance, or anything else, but it didn't. Maybe it was simply changed to appeal to a modern-day American audience, but that clearly didn't work, either, given that it's earned, in its entirety (box-office and dvd/blu-ray release combined) less than ninety million dollars. And, obviously, it wasn't supposed to appeal to myth buffs. If it's just supposed to be an action flick with some cool fantasy stuff, I can enjoy it at that level, but then I don't see why they would have changed the original story so elaborately. It's not a great movie. The confusion (and mild disappointment) for me does not come from the fact that the mythology is distorted in the film-- that is to be expected-- but instead, the wild and desperate attempts to make the mythology somehow cooler, crazier, more action-packed and simultaneously more meaningful than it already is, discrediting the original in the process as being dated and unworthy of an honest retelling.

Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica (and The Hobbit)

Enough time has passed since my last post that I can write a new post without appearing to be actually dedicated to this blog, which I suppose must be the goal of my subconscious. Here are some things that have happened since I last wrote:

1. 2013 started (sans apocalypse)

2. I got halfway through season six of Buffy the Vampire Slayer

3. I learned how to crochet, and then forgot
4. Pokemon profile picture month

5. I didn't get a cat

6. The Hobbit was released in theaters

That pretty much sums it up. I have one more semester of undergrad, which is a little strange. To cope with the emotional stress, I've been replaying Final Fantasy VII and discovering Battlestar Galactica on Netflix. I haven't seen that show before, but I have the soundtrack (for those of you who don't know me, I have the soundtrack to EVERYTHING, regardless of whether or not I've seen it). (EVERYTHING) (seriously, you name it) I've become intrigued by this show; it's not yet riveting, but I am still curious to watch the next few episodes tonight to see where it goes, and I think this could easily become a show that I really enjoy. It probably won't help with my awkwardness/weirdness/nerdiness, but you know. I have my priorities.

In light of Tolkien's birthday yesterday, I will write a quick review of The Hobbit (film) here. Overall, I loved it. It stayed true to the book while keeping in sync with the LOTR movies, a feat which I was fearing would be impossible. I loved the inclusion of Radagast the Brown and the Necromancer- I am glad we are getting a lot out of that, as well as the scenes with Azog and Bolg (for those of you unclear, yes, Azog is in the appendices of LOTR, although he dies outside of Moria). I am not concerned about this movie being stretched out into a trilogy. If you go back and read through the book, you can easily see how much action takes place in a few pages-- Peter Jackson pointed out in an interview with Rolling Stone that the scene with the stone giants is only one sentence in the book, and the riddles game with Gollum is only a couple of pages, despite the fact that it is the most crucial point of the book, in terms of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I love moments like that being extended. 

By the way, anybody who says that it's not staying true to The Hobbit should keep in mind that Tolkien wrote TH several years before LOTR, and even he changes many things between the two stories; most notably (to me), the elves in Rivendell hang from trees and sing songs as the dwarves and Bilbo walk through the Hidden Valley. These are the first-ever elves we see in Tolkien's writing, and they are certainly not the elves of LOTR. I distinctly remember reading the line "Isn't it delicious!" from one elf to another regarding Bilbo, as they both watch him walk in. 

I have deliberately been avoiding reading spoilers for the future films, so I have no idea where the next one will cut off, and I want to keep it that way-- I will say that as curious as I am on that subject, I have no doubt that it will feel well-made. 

I'm ending this post with a track from the soundtrack of Django, which was absolutely fantastic (both the soundtrack and the film). This is a random track that occurred about halfway through the movie that just stuck out to me, although the whole thing is great. The score part was written by Jerry Goldsmith and Ennio Morricone. 

Cheers, everybody, and Happy New Year's!