Mike Scott's Reply to Terence's Response to Mike's rebuttal
When you're done here, please use your browser's "back" button to return to Terence's Response or to Pop Culture Review, wherever you came from.
OK NOLAN, ROUND TWO!
DAMN.. WHERE *IS* THAT CAPS LOCK???
Oh here it is.. Terence? I found it, it's that funny little key next to your "A" key, it's got "Caps Lock" written right on it.

Ok, first off, let me start by REstating that I have nothing against your movies in any way, shape, or form, and actually HAVE enjoyed them. I made the comparison between your idea of horror and the mainstream version of horror due to the idea that you were calling it "horror" and not "weird stuff to make you think." My idea of what horror is is based upon the concept of feeling some form of horror when I partake of it. My assumption was that THAT was why it's called horror.

I found your movies to be entertaining, and well done as far as plots go and stuff. Personally, I've noticed that you've increased your awareness of character development as you went along, and I'm glad that in my opinion, you're headed in the right direction with it. However, I believe that sound is an important aspect to portraying anything artistic that is designed to be heard. In fact, I'd watch a TOTALLY grainy flick with good sound, before I would be interested in perfect visuals with bad audio. The storyline involved with a movie with a speaking script cannot be expressed without having the audio levels at a point where the interactions are audible. I liked "As the Screw Tightens" ¹ especially, but it was quite awhile before I felt like I knew what the actors were doing because most of the set-ups for action were set-up by the audio that I couldn't hear very well. However, I'm fully aware of the fact that if I had accidentally tuned-in to find it, rather than being introduced to it by Nolan, I certainly wouldn't have struggled so hard to make sense of the audio; I'd have changed the channels.

I guess the crux of the matter is that, in any form of storytelling, you don't want to highlight the interface people are using to experience the story. By letting the audio quality take a backseat, it doesn't allow the viewer to truly enter into the story to experience it the way it was intended to be experienced.

Ok, 'nuff said about that, I think. No one's here to catch my two cents on movie production. Now that I've covered the "preschool personal attack" on Terence's filmwork, (which by the way, already had a disclaimer that explained that I liked Terence's stuff, and that it wasn't MEANT to be a personal attack), I can nicely slide into the next point I want to make. I mentioned the sound problems you've wrestled with as only an example of how you're not perfect. I understand you when you say that you're being "cynical", and I even retract most of the stuff I said about how you came across as trying to show that your opinion outweighs the rest of ours.

I didn't intend for that to be a personal attack, yet it was received that way. Does anyone think that perhaps Terence's liberal use of what he calls "sarcasm" may have contributed to the "illusion" that he was attacking the things that we hold an interest in? As an example, I call to attention the matter of the theater section of the tantrum, most of the guys that wrote about how they felt about those places happened to feel strongly about them. Yet to you, it was a trivial matter that you were sick of, and you wasted no time in telling everyone how stupid it was to discuss it. To me, that's nothing but an attempt to dictate what goes into PCR, in order to make sure that it's what Terence wants, regardless of how others felt about it. That's known commonly as domineering arrogance, and no amount of backpeddalling on your part is going to change those rude and stupid comments into "cynical, sacastic humor".

OK, got that one covered, too.
Now, how about the apparent misunderstanding we had about our views of popular vs. underground, and famous vs. non-famous. Ok, as I see it, popular becomes popular due to the fact that the masses (which is merely a statement that says "a lot of people", by the way) have decided that they are satisfied, and happy, with the material that these artists, producers, whoever, are putting out into the market. Now obviously distribution DOES have some control over what the masses get exposed to; if it's not at Target, then a lot of folks haven't heard of it. But the key to the idea is still there: a LOT of people like it that way.
For some folks, going to the movies are a way to step outside of their dreary lives and experience something that's different from their work and home lives, rather than watch something that is designed to make them re-evaluate themselves, or the world around them or whatever. Movies are considered a form of entertainment, and to the masses, the popular movies are entertaining to them. Does that mean they have no significant value? You'd be dead wrong if you think they don't. Without that type of outlet, folks WILL go nuts.

There's also the implication that if the masses like these movies, then they can't think for themselves, they rely upon media to tell them what to like. Have you been exposed to every piece of art available to mankind since it's beginning? I sincerely doubt you have, so therefore, you're missing stuff, LOTS of stuff that is possibly even more fulfilling than any movie or song you've ever been exposed to. Now why HAVEN'T you tracked down all this stuff? It's because you were busy pursuing the underground entertainment.. Based on that reasoning, those underground bastards are stopping you from seeing other stuff, and you yourself aren't promoting these things you've never seen, nor heard of, so THEREFORE you are as guilty as any media source.

I ask you, how is it possible for the media to give equal time to the mainstream AND to the underground, AND still feel like they're giving the MASSES what they want (you know.. the people that actually PAY for the magazines, directly, or indirectly either through subscription, or through purchasing the products that pay to advertise)? Does it make any sense to try and promote outside of the interests of your target audience? It might make sense, depending upon how you look at it, but does it pay your bills?

If my favorite director is George Lucas, and I admired his sense of vision, and his ability to tell a story, then wouldn't it make sense that I'd want to hear about what happens with the guy? Are there like-minded individuals who are ALSO going to be interested? What about your favorite underground artist? If they kept running articles on what he's doing, would there be a very broad audience waiting to hear about it? If movie makers can't get distribution, then it's certainly not the media's fault that they don't focus more on them. You can't do that the other way around, otherwise you'd be advertising movies that some folks can't get access to.

You could name a billion directors or whatever that I know nothing about. That's cool, in fact, you could probably name quite a few mainstream directors I know nothing about, either. Does that mean I don't know how to think for myself? No, it means that I HAVE thought for myself and determined that there are certain types of movies I'll probably like, and some that I probably WONT like. Does that make me close-minded? No, it just means that I can't be bothered to seek out obscure stuff that I feel I wouldn't be interested in, AND shows that I don't place entertainment very high on my list of importance, AND indicates that I know what I want, as far as entertainment goes.

It's entertainment for chrissakes, not a religion.

I personally believe that underground films are underground simply because most people aren't interested in them. That's why they don't get the budgets to work with. Is the non-interest based on complacency? Sure, at least partially.
Does content affect that? Of course it does, if a movie is offensive to the mainstream, then why would they bother going to see it? HELLO, it BOTHERS THEM, (duh..)

Gee, is that where the term "Politically Correct" comes in? Yep! And I don't mind stating that PC is definitely out of hand in some areas, but it's still an aspect of our culture that has to be reasoned with. If I had a website that was dedicated to offending you, Terence, would you be sure to pledge your allegiance to it and send all your friends there to read what I had to say every day? What if it included retouched animated GIF's of you that made you look like you were naked and playing with yourself like you were an amusement park? Nope (unless it was to harrass me, but I'm no fool, there'd be no way to contact me, because if I was THAT intent upon it, I'd drop my current email adresses and not post the new ones.) Lucky for you, I don't have any intent to do anything like that, heh heh. However, the point is, no one backs things that personally offend them, and that includes the PART of the underground films that aren't PC.

With the underground movies, does the cream rise to the top of the crop? Of course, that's how most people get recognition in ANY field; start at the bottom and work their way up. Unless of course you count the "Blair Witch Project" people, and folks that are fortunate enough to start out with lots of cash, or happen to know the right people when they start.

Ok, Jason X..
I happen to like the character himself, the movies aren't usually stretching much, or doing anything particularly astounding, but I do like the way the character acts. No bullshit, straight-ahead, here's-your-head-it-was-in-my-way kind of behavior. The screaming of valley girls and cheerleaders and stuff really crack me up, it's a vicarious way of enjoying scaring the hell out of folks.
I also enjoy the stalking he does, the body-acting I talked about is unnerving at times. I used to love the way it panicked my sister whenever I imitated that walk, she used to get me to do it to her friends and stuff.

I love the way folks hit him and then he kinda' jumps a bit and then relentlessly goes for the throat like some kinda' unstoppable automaton.

Sure, I don't walk away from the movie thinking about the "bigger issues" but damn.. maybe that's why I went in the FIRST place?

Sure, the stories may be a bit on the lame side at times, but unless you've actually seen all of them, you might want to reserve the blanket judgements. Now, is it wrong of me to want to see my favorite character in a movie? Is it wrong for me to support a character I like so that I'll be able to see more of him? Nope!

Did I only do two articles that contained Jason in them, YEP!
Were they referring to two different movies? YEP!
Did Nolan fail to publish the first one until AFTER the second one? YEP!
Was I then forced to reference the Jason X movie in the first article because it had relevence to the movie that MIGHT come out after it? YEP!
Did I therefore go kind of heavy on it to ensure that enough Jason X info came out to make ANY kinda sense? YEP!²

For someone who complains about the lack of diversity, you certainly have a hard time dealing with the fact that folks are going to write about what they're intested in. The fact that there are folks here with tastes that differ from yours is what diversity IS. Are you sure you've got the right word here? Go ahead and do your bit on the underground stuff, that would add another layer to the DIVERSITY ALREADY HERE.. lol

Another thing I'd like to hit here is the concept of "influences" as far as movies go. If I go to a regular movie theater in the real world, I'm not likely to be exposed to the influences of today's movies. Ok, sure, but even if they WERE readily available, were THOSE movies influenced by anything? Of course they were! As long as they were created by human beings, they were influenced by SOMETHING. How far back is everyone supposed to go before they reach the enlightened status that you have apparently reached?
Also, is it required that they watch them all in the order of release? Are they supposed to do that AND watch all the underground stuff?

Christ, I don't want to eat seven bowls of cereal to equal one bowl of Total.

I'm not saying that the older movies don't have merits of their own, but if all of the media was filled with all the diversity inherent in all of the old movies combined with new ones, I'd start throwin' stuff. Personally, I like the concept that people try to do what they can to improve on old ideas. Otherwise, none of us would even have running water, because obviously we'd all be starting from scratch all the time. I believe this concept holds true for movies, too.

One rant that came up was talking about how bad CGI is. I don't know what you guys are talking about. I know that Terence is upset because computers apparently can't create art, even though guitars can create music (but don't get me started on that.. at least not yet). I know that Harryhausen did excellent work with models and stuff, but for some reason, I can't seem to see how folks are MORE convinced that the effects are real. I can't look at a fake tree a half-inch high and say, wow, look at the real tree, yet a photrealistic rendering of a tree doesn't pass muster because it's too shiny? Now, I do recognize that a lot of effort went into those effects, and I was solidly entertained by them when I saw the argonauts, etc. I even got to meet Harryhausen, and feel very fortunate to have done so. But the focus of the effects weren't REALLY to create artwork, were they? They were to carry the movie into an area where it would have proven to be impossible to create a scene that fit the requirements of the script. Why don't people want realistic effects to do that so that they can immerse themselves in it, rather than watch models that are jarringly unrealistic? Is it because of the art value?

As a producer and story writer yourself, would you want to jump-cut into a model world when you can do it in a more realistic way? Not for a fantasy scene, but like for a building explosion? Or perhaps a scene like in "Braveheart" where the countless men charged at each other across an open a battlefield (80% were CGI duplicates)? Or more poignantly, what about the battle scenes in "Episode I"? Would you guys have cheered Lucas on as little go-motion figures attacked each other en mass with the facial features lacking any real movement unless the model was big enough to sustain it? I think it would have quickly turned a tense, dramatic situation into a very comical scene that would have certainly left a lot of viewers cold, and possibly entirely lost. I recognize that no one's got anything good to say about "Episode I", but please remember that all of the Star Wars films were geared towards CHILDREN, not adults that were amazed by Star Wars as children and then got disillusioned when they got older and couldn't experience the "wonderment" that they had as kids. Ragging on Ewoks and Jar Jar and all that seems a bit silly to me.. sure they were goofy, and I didn't care for them, (I didn't like Yoda, either) but young kids were fine with them because THAT is where the movie was aimed. Now if it was rated R or something, I'd be all over Lucas's crap in a heartbeat, but his vison was aimed at children, and I doubt there's many that can sustain an argument that says it didn't hit its mark firmly between the eyes.

"THESE CGI ASSHOLES PUT RALPH MCQUARRIE AND HIS GORGEOUS MATTES OUT OF BUSINESS. FOR WHAT?"
For even more realistic environments that are certainly breathtaking in their own right. Ralph was HARDLY "put out of business" the Star Wars business perhaps, possibly even the movie business, but don't forget that Star Wars is what brought him INTO the movie business in the first place. He still paints, and his art is still accessible to those with a desire to see it, and NOW he doesn't have to sell-out to some director that wants a scene to fit within certain guidelines. You liked his sell-out stuff, huh? I did too. Careful though.. that dumps you squarely into the dread masses that liked his mattes. I should also point out that while in the process of whoring himself out to Lucas, he did more paintings for him than he's ever done since then (THAT's not including the stuff that didn't make it to the films).

"SEE, YOU DON'T GET IT. LUCAS'S VISION IS THE PROFIT. WHY ELSE ALL THE EXCESSIVE MARKETING OF POINTLESS TRINKETS?"
You're the one who doesn't get it, Terence. Do you really think that he sits there and goes, "Hmm.. today I'll get them to whip-up a set of C3PO earrings, maybe THOSE will sell even better than the 3PO baseball hats!" Excuse me Terence, but the marketers come to HIM to beg for the use of his characters. You know what else? He also dictates what can't be done with his characters (the ones he personally owns, like Yoda) and he's been pretty adamant about making sure that these characters that are AIMED AT KIDS, are not used in any way that could be contrived as being a non-kid thing, aside from the mannequins. I once saw a list compiled by Lucas's secretary that had a list of things on it that were turned down DESPITE the money offerred. Stuff like Yoda beer, Yoda dildos, etc.. it was amazing to see what kinda' crap folks came up with. Instead, you'll notice that the only real advertising done by his characters are the no smoking ads and stuff, with the exception of the promotion for the symphon (he doesn't personally own Darth Vader, which is why we got those cool Energizer bunny ads). You think that's because no one wants Star Wars characters to sell their stuff? The only other place you'll find them doing stuff like that is GLEF (George Lucas Education Foundation) that basically has literacy, arithmetic and related programs for kids in schools. The underfunded schools get the stuff for free. What a bastard he is.. making his movies geared towards kids, and then trying to help them get an education, AND sending out free monthly emails to educational facilities that are filled with teaching concepts and news about various advances in teaching skills. I used to get the emails in the hope of finding unique Star Wars stuff offered in there, but you know what? There wasn't any. Not a freakin' thing.

"TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK? ISN'T THAT WHAT THE MEDIA TELLS YOU TO DO AND THE UNTHINKING PUBLIC WHEN ALL THEY OFFER ARE GLOSSY EXPLOSIONS AND NOT ART?"
What? Heh, heh...uh...it's an explosion, designed to illustrate the photorealistic explosion of a building. Are they secretly telling me how to think just because of how they made something blow up? You figure they should get all artsy-fartsy with explosions too? Well.. for a good ol' CGI artsy-fartsy explosion, take a look at the revamped Death Star explosion, now THAT's art!

Now I'm stuck sitting here trying to imagine non-CGI explosions that could be considered artistic. OK, NOW I'm trying to imagine a film director trying to establish that something blows up and trying to make it artistic.. claymation? Naw.. CGI? WHAT!?! And actually be able to fully mold it into what I want to see? To be able to carry out my vision of the perfect explosion? To make the itty bitty pieces fall EXACTLY where I want them to, and place characters into the explosion area without actually risking anyone's life, or pay the heavy insurances rates, and risk funding a retake if anything goes wrong? NO WAY!! That's not Art! I will NOT SELL OUT FOR PERFECTION OF MY VISION!!

Sheesh..

Oh....I'm a tricky little armchair psycologist and I'll make you do what you absolutely don't want to do, I'll use that tricky ol' reverse psycology on you...

Heh heh...naw...how about a Jedi mindtrick? Terence's mind seems weak and simple enough to easily overpower, let's give it a go..

".. I will reply to this rant, even though it means that I love Ewoks and can't sleep unless I have two of the cute 'n' cuddly little guys tucked firmly into my armpits, and wear my Jar Jar underoos to bed every night..."

Hmm....will it work? Let's see if it does.. :)

-Mike
Oh, and for the record, feel free to name my name whenever it strikes you.

FOOTNOTES
1. "As the Screw Tightens":   An early videomovie produced and directed by Terence Nuzum for public access television. The second production from Viddywell Productions.
2. I claim partial fault in what appeared to be near-weekly updates of "Jason X" in Mike's "Deadguy's Dementia" column. In the process of editing Mike's long columns, a series of communication breakdowns, and my narrow window of opportunity in uploading these issues every week, two article segments were accidentally shifted onto columns they weren't intended to include.---Nolan B. Canova


Please use your browser's "back" button to return to Terence's Response or to Pop Culture Review, wherever you came from.