Uberfluff

This is somewhat inspired by the latest Issues with Heroes, though the problem is not exclusive to that show.  In short, it really, really annoys me when there's not a proper Hero/Villain power balance in fictional works--be they movies, TV shows, books, etc.  In other words, to have proper dramatic tension, heroes and villains have to fairly matched.  When one of them is dramatically more powerful than the other, the whole exercise becomes silly and illogical.

In Heroes, the problem is that they've created a super-villain in Sylar who has an almost unlimited range of powers gained by killing other people with powers and stealing their abilities.  For awhile, he had an evenly matched nemesis, Peter Petrelli, who could also absorb powers from other superheroes, and without the messy requirement of sawing off the tops of their heads.  Alas, Peter lost his ability, and now Sylar is essentially unchallenged on the show in terms of superhuman ability.  This is a problem.  Not only does it mean that any limitations to Sylar's actions and choices are completely contrived (as there is no credible threat to his power), but it also denies us the possibility of a kick-ass fight between superheroes, which is quite a downer.

The imbalance can work both ways too.  Take Superman, for example.  Superman versus Lex Luthor has to be one of the dumbest match-ups in hero/villain history.  After all, Superman is . . . well, Superman.  And Lex Luthor is . . . really smart.  I mean, that's all he has going for him other than a few bumbling henchman types.  Not to mention that most of Luthor's schemes seem to revolve around real estate for some reason.  Lex Luthor has yet to have an evil plan that couldn't have been foiled by a detachment of Navy SEALs.  So why is Superman wasting his time fighting Luthor rather than rounding up terrorists or something?

I will concede that the drama can still work when one party is vastly more powerful than the other (generally the villain, since we all like the underdog), so long as the more powerful one has a giant, glaring weakness that can be exploited.  That's the essence of bringing down super-powerful villains like Sauron or Voldemort, who dwarf the good guys in abilities, but can be brought down by a regular hero who understands that weakness.  (And is willing to undergo some serious suckitude first.)  Theoretically, Superman has the giant weakness of kryptonite susceptibility, but exposing Superman to kryptonite has become little more than a cheap stunt, so it's hard to take it seriously as a flaw.  Not to mention that it's a logically goofy weakness.  He's really super-powerful, except when he stands next to a rock from his home planet, which not only makes him vulnerable, but also appears to give him a hell of a stomachache.  Fortunately for Superman, kryptonite is exceedingly rare--though Luthor appears to have a kryptonite tree in his backyard, considering how often he manages to scrounge some up for his schemes.  You'd think that Superman would make some effort to rid the world of kryptonite in his down time, but every time he encounters Luthor with some kryptonite, it's a complete surprise to him.  Maybe Superman's more glaring weakness is the lack of a short-term memory.

Good Morning.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have an update to our Issues with Heroes.  And if you're catching up, don't forget about the latest Second Opinion too.

I'm a little late to the game, but last night I finally saw King of Kong, the documentary about the battle over the world record high score in Donkey Kong.  (If you've never heard of the movie, I'm not quite as behind as you might think, as this stirring drama all took place between about 2005 and 2007, and not--as you might have assumed given we're talking about Donkey Kong--in the Reagan era.)

What it's really about is the efforts of a nice guy named Steve Wiebe to beat (and then get recognized for beating) the record held by Billy Mitchell (whose high score stood for some 20 years or so).  Wiebe is definitely the everyman in this drama--a regular guy and high school science teacher who took up the game during a bleak period of unemployment in an off-handed quest to beat Mitchell's score.  Wiebe's problems begin when he tries to get recognition from the organization that passes for a regulating body in the world of near-antique video game scores, as it quickly becomes apparent that the group serves largely as a Billy Mitchell fan club.

If you've ever asked yourself what can be geekier than a World of Warcraft convention, the answer is clearly, "an old school arcade game competition."  It will not surprise you to hear that there are very, very, very few women there.  And yet, we hear at least 2 or 3 times about how Billy Mitchell is such a stud for having the Donkey Kong record that he can get virtually any woman he wants.  This is one of a hundred moments in the film where you will shake your head slowly and wonder whether everyone they interview is on crack.  (Point of clarification: Nowhere, at any point in history, has the line, "I have the highest score ever in Donkey Kong," been an effective way of getting women.  Least of all when you look like Derek Smalls from Spinal Tap.)

By the end of the movie, you're sharing the bemusement and frustration of Steve Wiebe's friends and family at the insular club that surrounds the competition and the cult of Billy Mitchell that seems to have infected most of the participants.  You're also praying that the guy who writes folk songs about video games will please, please not sing another one.  Watching King of Kong is not a life-changing movie by any means, but it's definitely an interesting peek at the politics and drama of a subculture that most of us didn't even know existed.

Hello.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new Second Opinion, about a guy (or gal, who knows) who is lonely despite not having any friends, relationship, or credit card debt.  Enjoy.

For some time now, it has been the fashion to do throwback uniform days for various professional sports teams.  Yes, it's a gimmick, but I kind of like it.  It makes me nostalgic for a time when the electric bill was more of an abstract concept than anything with real-world implications.  Not to mention that it strengthens fans' ties to their favorite team, reminding them of the length of their devotion and providing everyone with a good laugh.  (Incidentally, the best throwback uniform of all time is easily the old San Diego Chargers look with the powder blue and gold.  Seriously, they ought to just go back to that one permanently.  I also have a soft spot for the old Patriots helmet with the minuteman about to hike a football--it has a great literal cheesiness to it.  It's like no one can be whimsical or fun in the modern NFL.)

Anyway, I was just thinking that we should expand the throwback day beyond sports and into regular life.  Think about the benefits of introducing a throwback day at the office.  How much would it improve office morale and teamwork if all the women had to come in wearing those skinny little bows around their necks and giant shoulderpads?  And the men could wear their hair slicked back a la Gordon Gecko and sport those too skinny/too shiny ties.  Or we could go all the way back to the '50s and dress like extras in Mad Men.  And why not totally embrace the stereotype and get wasted at lunch and grope the receptionist in the supply closet?  Stupid, no fun sexual harrassment law.

I'm still hoping to put a similar idea into effect for a party AnneArchy once suggested--where everyone has to attend as their former self.  I think it would be a lot of fun to see all of my responsible, job-having friends in their knee-high Doc Martens or marijuana leaf hats.

Friday at last, thank God.  Anyway, today (in addition to the Daily Fluff) we have an update to our Issues with American Idol.  And if you're catching up on the week, don't forget about the latest Second Opinion, Fluff Five, and our Issues with Heroes too.

Generally, when I'm talking about annoying commercials, I'm speaking of ads that are on TV right now.  I suppose one of the benefits of the 30-second ad is that they're easily forgotten.  In addition, for some reason I rarely include one of the most annoying genres of commercial: the TV show promo.  Like ads for a movie that I never want to see, these are suddenly everywhere and crazy repetitive.  At this point, for example, I'm actively cheering for the end of ER--just so that I can never see an ad for the final season again.

But my current #1 commercial annoyance is the new campaign for DiSaronno amaretto, where some smooth, hip guy keeps offering DiSaronno drink recipes for the congenitally retarded.  Seriously, I don't need someone to show me how to make amaretto and milk or amaretto and ginger ale.  I'm not walking around the house, tearing my hair out in frustration, saying, "I just don't understand it.  I have the DiSaronno.  I have the ice.  I have the ginger ale.  And I have the glass.  But what in the name of God do I do next?!!"

Yeah, I know that their point is to get us to think about trying easy drinks with amaretto. I don't care what their point is.  I just want them to stop grinning at me like pouring milk into a glass of amaretto is a culinary achievement on par with making a 9 course meal for the Queen.  I swear, if they do one where he shows us how to make amaretto on the rocks, I'm going to hurt someone.

Hello.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have an update to our Issues with American Idol.  And, if you're catching up, don't forget about our latest Fluff Five (featuring "Yo Mama" jokes).

Among my many cherished pet peeves is the fact that every "greatest ever" video countdown places Michael Jackson's "Thriller" in the top spot.  Being a sucker for countdown shows, this is often doubly annoying, since I've generally wasted several hours of my time waiting, watching, and hoping that someone might have changed things up this time only to be disappointed.  On one memorable New Year's Eve, I even delayed going out for about an hour to watch the end of BET's "greatest ever" video countdown simply because they had promised that "Thriller" was not number one.  So after all of that waiting, what had they chosen as #1?  Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech.  And #2?  "Thriller".

I'm not saying that it's not a good video.  It has the dance and the zombies and the voice of Vincent Price, which is a nice touch.  And it tells a story, which I generally think videos should do if they can.  But . . . the story is cheesy, the song is only ok (it's probably one of the weakest of Jackson's hits), and its interminably long.  Other than the zombie dance (which is still classic), there's not much to get excited about.  And between the false beginning and "twist" ending it feels like they just kept piling more and more on to the video and no one had the discipline to say, "enough."  (Writing that sentence gave me the overwhelming urge to mention George Lucas, even though I'm pretty sure that he wasn't the creative force behind "Thriller."  Look for his prequel though, where we get to see the zombie army as little kids.)

You could argue that "Thriller" is influential, in that it helped popularize videos--especially expensive cinematic ones, but how much credit should it really get for that?  Whle "Thriller" was somewhat groundbreaking in that sense, it was only a matter of time before videos merged with Hollywood production values and style--and arguably they had already done so, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale.  As for the price tag--well, it certainly set the standard for Jackson's own preference for expensive videos (he currently has 5 of the 25 most expensive videos ever made, including the top spot for "Scream", which cost $7 million.  But the age of expensive videos seems to belong to the late '90s, which either makes "Thriller" way, way ahead of its time or not all that trend-setting in the pricey videos category.

But I guess, in the end, my gripe just comes down to laziness.  For pure enjoyment and artistic impression, I can see "Thriller" in the top 20 (or even top 10) of all time videos, but it seems like pure laziness and inertia keep it around the top spot.  Choosing "bests" in a category like this is so subjective that the temptation is to just go with what has held the spot 'till now with very little examination of how deserving it is.

So what should be the best video if it isn't "Thriller"?  Damned if I know.  Though I do like "November Rain" for allowing us to ponder the eternal question of why someone would dive through a cake in an attempt to escape a summer thunderstorm.

Good morning.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new Fluff Five (featuring the top 5 "Yo Mama" jokes.  And, if you're catching up, don't forget about the latest Issues with Heroes.