“Water’s wet. The sky’s blue. Women have secrets. Who gives a fuck?”
-Shane Black
Whenever I write I like to have something on in the background. Movie. Music. Whatever. I don’t know why. Some people might find it distracting. Personally, I like to think that it helps me concentrate. In reality, I could probably get a lot more done if I didn’t have to look up every few seconds to see which part of the movie I was at or take a pause to sing along with whatever song was playing. But I don’t usually concern myself with reality.
Anyway, today I decided to watch The Last Boy Scout. So I put it into my computer and I’m waiting for it to load when I decide to take a gander at the back of the dvd case. At first I didn’t notice anything atypical about it. There’s a couple of screen shots and a blurb from a positive review. But then I made the mistake of reading the little mini-synopsis (or what have you). I don’t know what I was hoping to find, but here’s what it says:
Written by Shane Black (Lethal Weapon) and directed by Tony Scott (Top Gun), The Last Boy Scout is the Super Bowl of action movies, a flat-out blitz of excitement, blow-you-away special effects and hilarious gimme-five humor set against the world of pro football.
Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans star as a seedy detective and a disgraced quarterback, teaming to dodge ambushes, fire off one-lines and bust chops. When the going gets tough, they get tougher. And funnier. They came to play. And to settle a score in this raging fireball where bigger is better, hits are harder and bad guys end up deader.
Okay...so where should I begin? First of all, the entire first section is one sentence and I’m not entirely sure its grammatically correct. (Not that everything I write is grammatically correct. In fact I’m terrible with grammar. But the things I write aren’t read by more than half a dozen people...if that.) I’m almost positive you need another verb in that sentence somewhere, right? To say nothing of getting bogged down in the laundry list of descriptions in the latter half of the sentence. It’s like you get to the end and you have to go back to the beginning in order to make it coherent.
And don’t even get me started on the second paragraph. I’m actually almost okay with that first sentence there, although I have to admit that I’ve seen the movie no less than a dozen times and there’s nary an ambush to be found. I’m even okay with the “going gets tough” thing. Sure it’s a cliché, but originality is the least of our concerns here. My problem begins with the sentence “And funnier.” Does this have to be its own sentence? And could we not begin two out of three sentences with the word “and.” Just a thought. Plus, who in the history of cinema has ever described a movie as a “raging fireball?” It’s a movie for Christ’s sake.
Then, finally we come to my favorite part, wherein whoever wrote this claims that the bad guys in this film end up “deader.” Deader than what, I can’t say. Deader than bad guys in other movies? Deader than if people other than our heroes had killed them? Now I know what you’re thinking, and yes, “deader” is actually a word. I checked. But I don’t really see what use we have for it. Death, as I understand it, is a binary state. You’re either dead or your alive. It’s impossible to be more dead than something else that’s also dead.
So...why did I bring this up? I don’t know. I’m just amazed that not only did somebody write this (and undoubtedly get paid for it) but someone else thought that it would be a good idea to stick it on the back of a dvd case for the whole world to see. I’m not saying that I was expecting Shakespeare when I flipped the dvd case over. I didn’t even really have any expectations. I just can’t believe that someone got paid for writing that. In my humble opinion they shouldn’t be allowed to use writing utensils anymore.
LORD OF THE RINGS LUCAS STYLE
It recently occurred to me that Willow is nothing more than a mediocre reworking of Lord of the Rings. I don’t know why it took me so long to realize this, and I’m sure that Rings fans have been incensed by this for nearly twenty years, but it usually takes me longer to catch onto things than it does most people. Personally, I’m not upset that Ron Howard and George Lucas bastardized The Lord of the Rings. I haven’t read the books and I only genuinely liked one of the movies, so I’m not upset that the integrity of some supposed literary classic was compromised. I’m just disturbed, and mildly at that, at their lack of originality.
For those of you who need convincing...here are just a few parallels between the two stories (and no, I‘m not going to make any effort to spell any of these made up words properly). Most noticeably we have a race of little people (Dikinis/Hobbits) who suddenly find themselves responsible for the safety of the world as they know it. Willow is clearly Frodo and if you say the names aloud you’ll notice that they rhyme…for the most part. In Rings, the little people get...well...a ring, while in Willow the ring is a baby girl. Aragorn becomes Madmartigan. Gandalf becomes Fin Raziel. Merry and Pippin essentially become the brownies. Sam is Meegosh. Sauron is Bavmorda. And so on and so forth...
I don’t know how I never heard about this before. It’s so obvious. Painfully, painfully obvious. How did they get away with this? It’s not like its an homage or anything. We’re not talking Casablanca/Out Cold here...actually nobody ever talks about Out Cold, in fact I think most people like to think that it never happened.
But I should try this. I should find some classic and just take out all the parts I like, change the names around, turn an inanimate object into a baby girl and I’d be good to go.
This is better than that time I wanted to change my name to “Steven King.”
I THOUGHT I KNEW, BUT I IN FACT HAD NO IDEA
If you believe Bill and Ted, which I personally do, then Socrates said that “True wisdom consists of knowing that you know nothing.” In truth he probably said something much more elaborate, but this version will do for our purposes.
I’ve always thought that this was kind of a cool idea. Knowing that you, in fact, know nothing makes you wise. It’s an interesting notion. And ever since I heard it, I’ve had a pretty good idea what it means. Admittedly I don’t know that much, so imagining that I know nothing isn’t too much of a stretch.
Anyway, long story short, I realized tonight that it’s not that I don’t know all that much. I actually know nothing. I thought I knew some stuff, I really did. But as it turns out I was wrong.
I’m sure you have no idea what I’m talking about, and that’s fine. So, suffice it to say that something happened and I’m not entirely sure what it was or how it happened and I guess it goes without saying that I don’t know why. So I’m in this head space right now where I’m going to assume that everything I know is wrong. Therefore, I know nothing and, according to Socrates (who’s a pretty smart guy from what I understand) this makes me wise.
So now, armed with the knowledge that I am wise, I'm making a command decision...
...I just don't know what it is yet.
-Shane Black
Whenever I write I like to have something on in the background. Movie. Music. Whatever. I don’t know why. Some people might find it distracting. Personally, I like to think that it helps me concentrate. In reality, I could probably get a lot more done if I didn’t have to look up every few seconds to see which part of the movie I was at or take a pause to sing along with whatever song was playing. But I don’t usually concern myself with reality.
Anyway, today I decided to watch The Last Boy Scout. So I put it into my computer and I’m waiting for it to load when I decide to take a gander at the back of the dvd case. At first I didn’t notice anything atypical about it. There’s a couple of screen shots and a blurb from a positive review. But then I made the mistake of reading the little mini-synopsis (or what have you). I don’t know what I was hoping to find, but here’s what it says:
Written by Shane Black (Lethal Weapon) and directed by Tony Scott (Top Gun), The Last Boy Scout is the Super Bowl of action movies, a flat-out blitz of excitement, blow-you-away special effects and hilarious gimme-five humor set against the world of pro football.
Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans star as a seedy detective and a disgraced quarterback, teaming to dodge ambushes, fire off one-lines and bust chops. When the going gets tough, they get tougher. And funnier. They came to play. And to settle a score in this raging fireball where bigger is better, hits are harder and bad guys end up deader.
Okay...so where should I begin? First of all, the entire first section is one sentence and I’m not entirely sure its grammatically correct. (Not that everything I write is grammatically correct. In fact I’m terrible with grammar. But the things I write aren’t read by more than half a dozen people...if that.) I’m almost positive you need another verb in that sentence somewhere, right? To say nothing of getting bogged down in the laundry list of descriptions in the latter half of the sentence. It’s like you get to the end and you have to go back to the beginning in order to make it coherent.
And don’t even get me started on the second paragraph. I’m actually almost okay with that first sentence there, although I have to admit that I’ve seen the movie no less than a dozen times and there’s nary an ambush to be found. I’m even okay with the “going gets tough” thing. Sure it’s a cliché, but originality is the least of our concerns here. My problem begins with the sentence “And funnier.” Does this have to be its own sentence? And could we not begin two out of three sentences with the word “and.” Just a thought. Plus, who in the history of cinema has ever described a movie as a “raging fireball?” It’s a movie for Christ’s sake.
Then, finally we come to my favorite part, wherein whoever wrote this claims that the bad guys in this film end up “deader.” Deader than what, I can’t say. Deader than bad guys in other movies? Deader than if people other than our heroes had killed them? Now I know what you’re thinking, and yes, “deader” is actually a word. I checked. But I don’t really see what use we have for it. Death, as I understand it, is a binary state. You’re either dead or your alive. It’s impossible to be more dead than something else that’s also dead.
So...why did I bring this up? I don’t know. I’m just amazed that not only did somebody write this (and undoubtedly get paid for it) but someone else thought that it would be a good idea to stick it on the back of a dvd case for the whole world to see. I’m not saying that I was expecting Shakespeare when I flipped the dvd case over. I didn’t even really have any expectations. I just can’t believe that someone got paid for writing that. In my humble opinion they shouldn’t be allowed to use writing utensils anymore.
LORD OF THE RINGS LUCAS STYLE
It recently occurred to me that Willow is nothing more than a mediocre reworking of Lord of the Rings. I don’t know why it took me so long to realize this, and I’m sure that Rings fans have been incensed by this for nearly twenty years, but it usually takes me longer to catch onto things than it does most people. Personally, I’m not upset that Ron Howard and George Lucas bastardized The Lord of the Rings. I haven’t read the books and I only genuinely liked one of the movies, so I’m not upset that the integrity of some supposed literary classic was compromised. I’m just disturbed, and mildly at that, at their lack of originality.
For those of you who need convincing...here are just a few parallels between the two stories (and no, I‘m not going to make any effort to spell any of these made up words properly). Most noticeably we have a race of little people (Dikinis/Hobbits) who suddenly find themselves responsible for the safety of the world as they know it. Willow is clearly Frodo and if you say the names aloud you’ll notice that they rhyme…for the most part. In Rings, the little people get...well...a ring, while in Willow the ring is a baby girl. Aragorn becomes Madmartigan. Gandalf becomes Fin Raziel. Merry and Pippin essentially become the brownies. Sam is Meegosh. Sauron is Bavmorda. And so on and so forth...
I don’t know how I never heard about this before. It’s so obvious. Painfully, painfully obvious. How did they get away with this? It’s not like its an homage or anything. We’re not talking Casablanca/Out Cold here...actually nobody ever talks about Out Cold, in fact I think most people like to think that it never happened.
But I should try this. I should find some classic and just take out all the parts I like, change the names around, turn an inanimate object into a baby girl and I’d be good to go.
This is better than that time I wanted to change my name to “Steven King.”
I THOUGHT I KNEW, BUT I IN FACT HAD NO IDEA
If you believe Bill and Ted, which I personally do, then Socrates said that “True wisdom consists of knowing that you know nothing.” In truth he probably said something much more elaborate, but this version will do for our purposes.
I’ve always thought that this was kind of a cool idea. Knowing that you, in fact, know nothing makes you wise. It’s an interesting notion. And ever since I heard it, I’ve had a pretty good idea what it means. Admittedly I don’t know that much, so imagining that I know nothing isn’t too much of a stretch.
Anyway, long story short, I realized tonight that it’s not that I don’t know all that much. I actually know nothing. I thought I knew some stuff, I really did. But as it turns out I was wrong.
I’m sure you have no idea what I’m talking about, and that’s fine. So, suffice it to say that something happened and I’m not entirely sure what it was or how it happened and I guess it goes without saying that I don’t know why. So I’m in this head space right now where I’m going to assume that everything I know is wrong. Therefore, I know nothing and, according to Socrates (who’s a pretty smart guy from what I understand) this makes me wise.
So now, armed with the knowledge that I am wise, I'm making a command decision...
...I just don't know what it is yet.
