I.T. Erudio

Tag: movies

  • geeks, nerds, and reboots

    memes

    Merriam-Webster tells me that the word “meme” dates all the way back to 1976 (coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene) with the meaning of “unit of cultural transmission.”

    Apparently the “-eme” suffix “indicates a distinctive unit of language structure.” Dr Dawkins combined the Greek root “mim-” (meaning “mime” or “mimic”) with “-eme” to create “meme.”

    Then this interweb thing hit full stride and minimally edited images with captions with (maybe) humorous intent became a “meme.”

    Humor is always subjective, and with brevity (still) being the soul of wit – most “memes” work on a form of “revelatory” humor. The humor comes in “discovering” the connection between the original image, and then the edited/altered image.

    We aren’t dealing in high level moral reasoning or intense logic – just “Picture A”, “Picture B”, brain makes connection – grin/groan and then move on. By definition “memes” are short/trivial.

    Which makes commenting on “memes” even more trivial. Recently on “social media platform” I made an off the cuff comment about a meme that amounted to (in my head) “A=B”, “B=C”, “A+B+C<D.”

    Now, I readily admit that my comment was not logical – but from a certain perspective “true” – if not directly provable from the supplied evidence. It was a trivial response meant to be humorous – not a “grand unifying theory of everything.”

    … and of course I (apparently) offended someone to the point that they commented on my comment – accusing me of “not understanding the meme.”

    Notice the “apparently” qualifier – it is POSSIBLE that they were trying to be funny. My first reaction was to explain by comment (because obviously no one would intentionally be mean or rude on the interweb – i.e. the commenter on my comment must have simply misunderstood my comment 😉 ) – BUT that would have been a fourth-level of trivialness …

    HOWEVER the incident got me thinking …

    geeks and nerds

    Another doctor gets credit for creating the term “nerd” (Dr Suess – If I Ran the Zoo, 1950). It didn’t take on the modern meaning implying “enthusiasm or expertise” about a subject until later years. The term “dork” came about in the 1960’s (… probably as a variation on “dick” – and quickly moving on …) – meaning “odd, socially awkward, unstylish person.”

    “Geek” as a carnival performer biting the heads of chickens/snakes, eating weird things, and generally “grossing out” the audience goes back to 1912. Combined with another term it becomes synonymous with “nerd” – e.g. “computer geek” and “computer nerd.”

    random thought: if you remember Harry Anderson – or have seen re-runs of Night Court – his standup act consisted of “magic” and some “carnival geek” bits, he didn’t bite the heads of any live animals though (which would have gotten him in trouble – even in the 1980’s). Of course youtube has some video that I won’t link to – search for “Harry Anderson geek” if curious …


    I think a nerd is a person who uses the telephone to talk to other people about telephones. And a computer nerd therefore is somebody who uses a computer in order to use a computer.

    Douglas Adams

    ANYWAY – to extend the Douglas Adams quote – a “nerd” might think that arguing about a meme is a good use of their time …

    Which brings up the difference between “geeks” and “nerds” – I have (occasionally) used Sheldon and Leonard from the Big Bang Theory to illustrate the difference – with Sheldon being the “geek” and Leonard the “nerd”. Both of their lives revolve around technology/intellectual pursuits but they “feel” differently about that fact – i.e. Sheldon embraces the concept and is happily eccentric (“geek”) while Leonard feels self-conscious and awkward (“nerd”).

    SO when I call myself a “computer geek” it is meant as a positive descriptive statement 😉 – yes, I am aware that the terms aren’t AS negative as they once were, I’m just pointing out that my life has ended up revolving around “computers” (using them/repairing them) and it doesn’t bother me …

    Though I suppose “not being able to use a computer” in 2022 is in the same category that “not able to ride a horse” or “can’t shoot a rifle” would have been a couple hundred years ago … in a time when being “adorkable” is an accepted concept – calling yourself a “geek” or “nerd” isn’t as bad as it used to be — umm, in any case when I say “geek” I’ve never bitten the head off anything (alive or dead), I did perfect biting into and tearing off a part of an aluminum can back in high school – but that is another story …

    reboots

    While I did NOT comment on the comment about my comment – I did use the criticism of my comment as an opportunity for self-examination.

    Background material: The meme in question revolved around “movie franchise reboots.” (again, trivial trivialness)

    In 2022 when we talk about “movie franchise reboots” the first thing that is required is a “movie franchise.”

    e.g. very obviously “Star Trek” got a JJ Abrams reboot. Those “Star Wars” movies were “sequels” not “reboots” but the less said about JJ Abrams and that franchise the better

    the big “super hero” franchises have also obviously been rebooted –

    • Batman in the 1990’s played itself out – then we got the “Batman reboot” trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan,
    • Superman in the 1970’s/80’s didn’t get a movie franchise reboot until after Christopher Reeves died
    • Spider-Man BECAME a movie franchise in the 2000’s, then got a reboot in 2012, and another in 2016/2017

    SO the issue becomes counting the reboots – i.e. Batman in the 1990’s (well, “Batman” was released in 1989) had a four movie run with three different actors as Batman. I’m not a fan of those movies – so I admit my negative bias – but they did get progressively worse …

    Oh, and if we are counting “reboots” do you count Batman (1966) with Adam West? Probably not – it exists as a completely separate entity – but if you want to count it I won’t argue – the relevant point is that just “changing actors” doesn’t equal a “reboot” – restarting/retelling the story from a set point makes a “reboot.”

    However, counting Superman “reboots” is just a matter of counting actor changes – e.g. Christopher Reed made 4 Superman movies (which also got progressively worse) – “Superman Returns” (2006) isn’t a terrible movie – but it exists in its own little space because it stomped all over the Lois Lane/Superman relationship – then we have the Henry Cavill movies that were central to DC comics attempt at a “cinematic universe.”

    We can also determine “reboots” by counting actors with Spider-Man. Of course the Spider-Man franchise very much illustrates that the purpose of the “movie industry” is to make money – not tell inspiring stories, raise awareness, or educate the masses – make money. If an actor becomes a liability – they can be replaced – it doesn’t matter if you setup another movie or not 😉

    There are other not so recent franchises – “Tarzan” was a franchise, maybe we are stretching to call Wyatt Earp a franchise, how about Sherlock Holmes?

    The Wyatt Earp/OK corral story is an example of a “recurring story/theme” that isn’t a franchise. Consider that “McDonald’s” is a franchise but “hamburger joint” is not …

    Then we have the James Bond franchise.

    The problem with the “Bond franchise” is that we have multiple “actor changes” and multiple “reboots.” i.e. Assuming we don’t count Peter Seller’s 1967 “Casino Royale” there have been 6 “James Bond” actors. Each actor change wasn’t a “reboot” but just because they kept making sequels doesn’t mean they had continuity.

    The “Sean Connery” movies tell a longform story of sorts – with Blofeld as the leader of Spectre. The “James Bond” novels were very much products of the post WWII/Cold War environment – but the USSR was never directly the villain in any of the movies, the role of villain was usually Spectre in some form.

    The easy part: The “Daniel Craig” Bond movies were very obviously a reboot of the Blofeld/Spectre storyline.

    The problem is all of those movies between “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” (1969) and “Casino Royale” (2006).

    “Diamonds are Forever” (1971) was intended to finish the story started in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” – i.e. Bond gets married (and retires?), then Blofeld kills Bond’s wife as they leave the wedding – then bad guys drive away – Bond holds his dead wife while saying “We have all the time in the world.” – roll credits.

    (fwiw: Except for the obviously depressing ending “On her Majesty’s Secret Service” is actually one of the better Bond movies)

    Then George Lazenby (who had replaced Sean Connery as Bond) asked for more money than the studio was willing to pay – and they brought back Sean Connery for a much more light hearted/cartoonish Bond in “Diamonds are Forever.” (did I mention the profit making motive?)

    Of course “Diamonds are Forever” starts out with Bond hunting down and killing Blofeld – but that is really the only reference we get to the previous movie – SO reboot? this particular movie maybe, maybe not – but it did signify a “formula change” if nothing else.

    Any attempt at “long form storytelling” was abandoned in preference for a much more “cartoony” James Bond. MOST of the “Roger Moore” Bond movies have a tongue-in cheek feeling to them.

    The “70’s Bond movies” became progressively more cartoonish – relying more on gadgets, girls, violence than storytelling (e.g. two of the movies “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “Moonraker” are basically the same plot). There are a few references to Bond having been married but nothing that would be recognized as “character development” or continuity – it could be argued that each movie did a “soft reboot” to the time after “Diamonds are Forever”, but simply saying that the “continuity” was that there was no “continuity” is more accurate.

    Then we got the “80’s Bond” – “For Your Eyes Only” intentionally backed off the gadgets and promiscuity – Bond visits his wife’s grave and Blofeld makes a (comic) appearance in the “Bond intro action sequence” – so I would call this one a “soft reboot” but not a complete relaunch.

    The same goes for Timothy Dalton’s Bond movies – not a full blown restart, but a continuation of the “upgrading” process – still no memorable continuity between movies – (he only did two Bond movies).

    Pierce Brosnan as Bond in “GoldenEye” (1995) qualifies as another actor change and “soft reboot” – Bond is promiscuous and self-destructive but it is supposed to be as a reaction to his job, not because being promiscuous and self-destructive is cool – but we were back to the tongue in cheek – gadget fueled Bond (two words: “invisible car”).

    The Daniel Craig Bond movies certainly fit ANY definition of a reboot. “No Time to Die” (2021) was the last Bond movie for Mr Craig – but what direction the “franchise” is going is all just speculation at the moment …

    ANYWAY – comparing 27 Bond movies over 58ish years to the modern “Super hero” reboots – was the gist of my trivial answer to a trivial meme (which only took 1,700+ words to explain 😉 )

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 1

    All the cool kids are doing it…
    I imagine that most people exist on a sort of “sliding scale” of “fashionableness.” At one extreme end is “hip/cool/fashionable/in style/trendy” near the middle is “not as young – but capable of understanding ‘what the kids are saying’” then the other extreme end is “What is everyone talking about? Get off my lawn!”

    Obviously “chronological age” is NOT directly tied to your position on the imaginary “trendiness” scale (just called TS from here on)- but in general “young folks” as a group will be clustered near one end, the parents of those “younger folks” will cluster near the middle, and then the parents of the parents will tend to be near the other extreme.

    There is still “nothing new under the sun” so we see “fashions” repeating. Of course the “fashion” industry is built on the idea that styles will come and go – so I’m not talking about “physical clothes” so much as “styles” — and the difference between “clothes” and “style” probably deserves its own post —

    Now, a handful of things NEVER go out of style – e.g. “good manners” come immediately to mind, but what you think will never go out of style is probably determined by your current location on the TS.

    Wannabes/Posers/Pretenders
    The tricky concept becomes the fact that having “style” and “BEING in style” at not dependent variables – i.e. you can have one, without the other …

    I will quickly say that I am NOT passing judgement on anyone – I am being very “theoretical” – talking about “forms” as it were.

    With that said – we all know (or have been) the person that “tries too hard” and “just doesn’t get it.” I suppose this is where the concept of “coolness” come into play – i.e. if you are TRYING to be “cool” then by definition you aren’t.

    … and of course being worried about how “cool” you are is another sure sign that you aren’t cool – but then being certain that you “cool” also probably means you aren’t. AND we are moving on …

    Vocabulary/Jargon
    ANYWAY – not to sound like a “self-help book” but a person’s vocabulary advertises who they are. In and of itself this isn’t good or bad – i.e. most professions have some “profession specific vocabulary” and if you can “talk the talk” (in general) people will give you the benefit of the doubt that you can “walk the walk.”

    Examples abound – there is even a word for it -however this diatribe (intended in the archaic “prolonged discourse” sense – as I feel myself sliding further to one side of the TS scale) was motivated by the word “movies.”

    Movie
    The word “movie” in English dates back to 1909 as a shortened/slang version of “motion picture.” In 2021 common usage “movie” has almost completely replaced “motion picture.”

    e.g. no one says “I watched a motion picture last night”

    The same can be said for the word “cinema” which is a shortened version of cinematograph – which came to us through the French “cinématographe” which was from the Greek for “motion” and “writing” (though “cinema” is still more popular than “motion picture”)

    Cinema
    then “cinematography” probably falls into the “movie industry jargon” category – the person in charge of a movies “cinematography” may or may not be operating a camera.

    As any amateur photographer will tell you, getting consistently good “pictures” doesn’t happen by accident – there are multiple factors involved. Being able to manipulate those factors to achieve a desired “look” is (probably) what distinguishes the “professional” from the “amateur” photographer/cinematographer.

    btw: The additional problem for cinematography is that people are moving around (both in front of and behind the camera).

    for what it is worth: I’m not going to do a blanket recommendation for ANY directors “body of work” – but in general Stanley Kubrick, John Ford, David Lean, Steven Spielberg, and Ridley Scott always tend to have great “cinematography” in their movies (which didn’t happen by accident).

    Of course George Lucas always had a “good eye” – but not always the biggest budget. Comments by Mr Lucas led me to watch a lot of Akira Kurosawa movies – most of which hold up very well (if you don’t mind subtitles). I’ll just mention that the movie that Kurosawa-san is most known for in the U.S. (Seven Samurai – known as the inspiration for “The Magnificent Seven”) – is my least favorite (it bogs down in the middle)

    … I’m still in full “ramblin’ mode” but also well into TL;DR space – more tomorrow on “records”