The Geek Beat: Let's be Friends
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Fandom, Geek Report, Comic/Superhero/Geek
Hi. It looks like you and I are going to be seeing a lot of each other, now that this snazzy new weekly column deal
is happening. If that's the case, we've got to lay down some ground rules so we know where we stand. Here's how it is
going to be:Rule 1 - The movie business is driven by opinion, not fact; and the geek business doubly so. I'm going to say some things you disagree with - and at some point I'll probably insult something you like. I'm an opinionated guy, and I tend to think I'm right about everything. But let's be fair, you know you do the same. If it makes you feel better, feel free to hate/make fun of things that I like if you ever feel slighted. I'll even provide a list of possible topics.
Rule 2 - A good relationship is built on open conversation. See that comment option down there? Use it. Use it like Popeye uses spinach. I want to know what you are interested in, and I want to know when you disagree with me. Sure I'm a writer - but I'm only one geek among millions - and you've all got opinions as legitimate as my own.
Rule 3 - I'm allowed to make new rules at any time, and break them at will. It IS my column, after all.
Okay, now that we know the ground rules, I need to get something off my chest. If we're going to do this whole
honesty thing, I think it is important for me to get this out up front; it'd be wrong of me to start our relationship
with secrets and lies. So...here it is: I liked V for Vendetta. I know this isn't a big deal for most geeks -
but if you've read anything I've written lately, you know that I've been skeptical at best about the film's prospects.
I'm not a big Wachowski fan; and despite Alan Moore's penchant for
being pretentious, I generally side with the guy when he says his work has been poorly translated to film. And if I'm
being perfectly honest, I never really thought Vendetta was his best work. It's
fun, but it never really blew me away.
So I come to you hat in hand to admit that I enjoyed the flick. You
were right. How do you like that? I start my first column by telling you that I messed up when writing about a geek
movie - which is supposed to be my area of expertise. But I have a defense! Read on...
My defense begins
with the fact that I also saw Ultraviolet this weekend, and on some level I enjoyed it as well. I realize that it was a terrible
movie - but I liked it. And it was amusing to see gun-kata in action again. I also enjoyed Fantastic Four, The League of Extraordinary
Gentlemen and The Brothers
Grimm. The list goes on, but I'm afraid I'll humiliate myself if I go any further.
Here's the
crux of the matter: I am both a cynical and demanding critic and an eager fanboy combined within the same journalist.
Because of this, I process films on two different levels, which somehow manage to function entirely separate from one
another. Let's take the Fantastic Four as a case study, because the World's
Greatest Comic Magazine has been my biggest comic book love since I was a very small child. Ergo, you'd presume that if
anyone was going to be offended by the inaccuracies of the film, it'd be me. And you know what? I was. I was angry that
my Four didn't get a better shake for their silver screen debut. And yet if you examine my DVD collection, you'll
find Fantastic Four sitting right there. Why? I'll tell you why - because holy
cow, the ever-lovin' blue-eyed Thing was stomping around Yancy Street. And the Human Torch was flying. He was on fire,
and he was flying. Tell me that isn't cool.
Ultraviolet? I'm not
sure that the plot of the movie (if such a thing existed) even made sense. But she was riding her freaking motorcycle
up the side of a building! And she was using gun-kata. How can you not love that? I can provide you a point-by-point
list of the what made that movie stupid - and I'll mean it - but I still loved watching it. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? It raped the plot of a graphic novel series that I absolutely adore.
But the Nautilus was freaking beautiful, and Sean Connery was Alan Quartermain.
How do I justify these two
separate reactions? I don't, really. I just call 'em like I see 'em. Maybe it helps as a writer, because it allows me
to react to movies from two different perspectives. Maybe it just makes me wishy-washy. Ultimately, though, let's keep
in mind rule number one: the final determination of a movie's value to you boils down to your own opinions. Watch the
sucker and react. Sure, maybe it'll result in your DVD shelf having the Fantastic
Four on it when your elitist geek buddies tell you you're selling out your loyalty - but who cares? Movies are
made for you to enjoy, not for you to use to impress your friends.
So there you have a brief understanding
of where I'm coming from as a geek beat journalist. Keep that in mind when you read what I have to say, and maybe it'll
help you boil down my thoughts into a usable form. Stay tuned every Tuesday for The Geek Beat - starting next week I'll
bring you a round-up of the current geek news, complete with plenty of personal opinion. Until then, keep your eyes
open for any geek news to share with the class; we always love to hear from you.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-22-2006 @ 10:44AM
Al said...
I thoroughly agree with you. There are a lot of bad movies that I've found really entertaining. I can't say I agree with you on all the ones you've listed, but this is why a lot of times I don't listen to the critics. Movies are definitely subjective and a lot of times I think critics try to delve too deep into them and draw out conclusions. I just want to see an entertaining film, sometimes if it's got a good message that's nice, but if not, we all love some nonsensical violence sometimes.
Reply
3-22-2006 @ 10:55AM
Christopher Campbell said...
Great points in your column, Mark. I couldn't agree with you more regarding the split personality on geek love movies, or guilty pleasures. The subjective and objective oppositions of being a fan and a critic can be very difficult. I first noticed it, not with a comic book film (there were actually none being made when I was reading them), but Oliver Stone's The Doors. Most fans of the band, it seems, are not supposed to like the film, but ever since seeing it, I've made an effort to differentiate between a biographic or literal account and a filmmaker's message and vision.
Reply
3-22-2006 @ 11:00AM
Todd said...
Finially! A critic/columnist after my own heart. I look forward to your columns to either agree with or spar with you over in the future.
Reply
3-22-2006 @ 7:33PM
James Rocchi said...
Mark --
It's interesting, because I grew up with all this stuff, too. I mention reading the original V for Vendetta in my review and you're right -- it can feel like a battle betwen the parts of you that want to like and the parts of you that need to think. I think all the geek-pop-culture stuff coming up right now is an important color in the palate of the culture -- and green in Hollywood's wallet -- which make it all the more vital that it's done well.
Oh, and to provoke a more immediate nerdfight, Fantastic Four did just stink, stink, stink.
Reply
3-23-2006 @ 10:10AM
Stephen Prescott said...
i totally agree with you. i actually enjoyed fantastic four for what is was and for basically the same reasons as you (they nailed johnny and ben). my biggest problem with all of these comic book movies though is the lack of respect for the source material. they say that as long as they get the major themes correct they are showing respect, but i totally disagree. who do guys like dougherty and harris think they are to come in and completely re-write the histories of characters that were created before they were even born? god forbid anyone should re-write shakespear or dickens, but lee, miller, perez, wein, romita? sure we can do that. (yes i just compared stan lee to william shakespear, my point is about creative works that are revered not about the skills of the authors.) and don't say it's because the general public doesn't know the backstories so we they can be ignored because that just shows disrespect for us, the fans. if you want to create something to let the general public into our world then they should see it like we see it. they should be given the proper origins and the proper backstories. i understand that they are trying to fit everythign into a 2 hour movie, but dammit i know it can be done. in fact i'm workign on one myself.
my .02
Reply
3-23-2006 @ 11:48AM
Stephen Prescott said...
i can't believe i left out larry hama in that list of comic writers whose text is sacred. minus 2 geeks points for me.
Reply
2-16-2008 @ 10:06PM
Garth Gibson said...
V is a futureistorical film based on a key moment in British history.
This film is a McDonald's version of violence prepared by attention span challenged film makers that can only deal on the surface of what the big picture is.
The film makes violence look brilliant which would make any Taliban refugee proud.
Reply