http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/universal/seren ity/ [apple.com]

Forget that sixth iteration of a failing childhood dream.

Ignore the pending defamation of Dentarthurdent.

Let Joss be your own Personal Moses and bring you to the Promised Land of fulfilling scifi!

(Oh, and the new BSG and Dr. Who, too, I guess. It's the nerd renaissance!)

I'm still shaking.

I intend to misbehave.

ayayayayayayayayayayayayyyayyeaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!

O happy, happy day! I have all faith in Joss that this will be good, for Joss is as unto God.

Also: David Krumholtz, whee!

yes, I must watch it again, for it is a beautiful moment, waaah don't want to wait till september!

In Response to Grimicus (#27033):

Serenity now!

In Response to jen (#27035):

...and a Festivus for the rest of us.

The trailer was one hundred thirty-nine seconds. Not including random explosions and crashes, i counted twenty-two overt acts of violence (someone shooting, kicking or punching somebody else). That's an average of ten per minute more than i'd care to tolerate. The advertisement identified the product as a "cult phenomenon". It seems like they're implying that it's a cult obsessed with hurting.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27037):

It seems like they're implying that it's a cult obsessed with hurting.
You must have seen the trailer for Sin City by mistake.

Serenity is about flowers and puppies. You should make definite plans to go see it. You will enjoy the ... crazy ... antics the puppies get up to with those flowers. Makes the birds and the bees look... tame.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27037):

Storytelling is about conflict. Sometimes conflict takes the form of violence. Anyone who expects stories to not have violence in them is being silly and petulant.

Just because your pet peeve is violence doesn't make you any better than folks who complain about all the sex and anti-family messages in movies and television. I could replace the word "violence" with "homosexual fucking" in your post and you'd be born-again from Tennessee.

In Response to jon (#27040):

I could replace the word "violence" with "homosexual fucking" in your post and you'd be born-again from Tennessee.
And once again, grep saves the world.

In Response to zamphir (#27041):

I find | far more useful.

In Response to jon (#27040):

It's not that i don't expect violence. Experience tells me that some people love it and that's a reason for it to be everywhere. There's nothing silly or petulant about describing that which interferes with my ability to enjoy something. It's not even criticism-- it's just an indication of personal preference. It's not much different from when somebody else says, "Hooray! Big explodey thingeys!" or when somebody else says, "Yuck! Space Nazis!"... these are only expressions of how we relate to some topic.

doesn't make you any better than

This seems judgmental. I didn't state my opinion in the form of "i'm better than X because of what i think about… …", i merely said what i couldn't tolerate.

And i find it strange that you draw a comparison between violence and homosexual fucking. My personal experience has been that only a small minority of people in my culture get enthusiastic about homosexual fucking, and we haven't been splashing it across every cineplex screen and television broadcast throughout the nation. Whereas the violence seems to be saturating almost every channel on TV and appears to be a selling point in so many movies about which tens of millions of my fellow countrymen are raving.

So when i state my preference and indicate my values, i don't see why you care to frame this in a context of "who's better?" It's not like i've ever tried to take violence away from you.... but i've spent my whole life listening to people try to take homosexual fucking away from me. At this very moment there are literally thousands of people working diligently to change, curtail, or enact laws in my state, my country, and my world which will punish me for homesexual fucking while continuing to reward people for violence.

I feel reasonable about the basis for my opinions. I only stated them, i didn't try to enforce them on somebody else.

In Response to jon (#27040):

Storytelling is about conflict.

This seems to be true of much which is popular. But it is not universal. There is no reason why a story can't be appealing to some audience without relying on a conflict to interest them. The conflict may be a basis for common sorts of drama, but it's not an integral part of every good story.

I heard many English teachers say what you said. But i think they (and you) are only describing a paradigm. There is no reason to doubt that there are other possibilities. There just aren't very many people trying very hard to do something different from this paradigm. It's not necessary to reduce all that is interesting to a variation on a theme of conflict. It could potentially be just as delightful to entertain ideas of plots and characters and situations and activities which are quite exciting, desirable, funny, or whatever, without relying on conflict.

I can think of plenty of good stories which are about cooperation and consensual activities and don't have any relevance to conflict. I certainly don't expect them to appeal to other people universally, but i'm sure some audiences love them.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27051):

And i find it strange that you draw a comparison between violence and homosexual fucking.

He didn't.

He expressed a similarity between your statement that set X="violence" and the same statement where X ="homosexual fucking".

He could just as well chosen to set X = "cheese twizzling".

But there aren't bigots in rural Tennessee that hate cheese twizzling.

Really, he was just asking you to free your mind, and check your head (however you choose to get there...)

Movies are Theater. Theater has it's roots in Drama. Drama was all about catharsis. Catharsis is a form of mental orgasm. Viewing movies about violence allows us to consummate our own inner lusts to experience violence in a safe and wholesome way.

You should be supportive of this, from your previous statements.

In Response to zamphir (#27054):

You should be supportive of this

I'm not trying to interfere with anybody, whether they feel as you describe, or some other way. I only mentioned how i felt. And i'm rather laissez-faire, but i don't think it's necessary for me to personally be very supportive-- we already live in a culture which is extremely enthusiastically supportive of violence, and it doesn't need my help to continue being that way. I think it would be nice if more people were supportive of some alternate values... but i'm not demanding anything. I'm just expressing a preference.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27052):

Conflict is fundamental to plot as literature understands it. That is, without a conflict - and the resolution of that conflict - you don't actually have plot, just a series of events in sequence.

That conflict doesn't have to be violent, but stories devoid of conflict are simply uninteresting to a vast majority of media consumers. Life consists of conflicts both internal and external; fiction without conflict is unrealistic and generally unappealing.

Out of curiosity, to which stories do you refer? I honestly can't think of a single story that has no conflict whatsoever. No violent conflict, sure. No external conflict even. But no conflict at all... where?

In Response to zamphir (#27054):

What Zamphir said. I was just trying to phrase the argument in a way that would be personally meaningful to you and make the greatest impact.

Basically, if you have experienced intolerance, you should learn from that and be tolerant of others.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27056):

I only mentioned how i felt.

Oh, I know.

But you missed the joke. I was saying that, based on previous statements you have made, and expressions of your feelings and leanings... you should be supportive of anything that lead people to have orgasms, mental or otherwise.

Maybe that's not true... ?

In Response to sakuruth (#27058):

you don't actually have plot, just a series of events in sequence

If they are events that interest some audience, then the audience might appreciate them as the plot of a story. There might be various amounts of complications, or unexpected happenings, or maybe even totally predictable sequences but sequences which appeal to some people nevertheless.

Three sorts of examples come to my mind. The first is something like a video i watched this week which was all about some homosexuals fucking (and doing other things for fun). To me, it was entertaining and engrossing and i was very excited to observe the details and series of events. I don't recall any sort of conflict, and everyone appeared to be cooperating with each other happily and no sorts of opposition of ideas were apparent. Obviously that's not everybody's idea of a good story, but it's one that i appreciate.

The second sort of example is the book America by Jon Stewart and the other writers of The Daily Show. They created a sort of parody of an American civics textbook. They mix together a few somewhat realistic observations about American politics with a bunch of silly contrived jokes and obvious inaccuracies for the sake of hyperbole and juxtaposition of the absurd with our real experiences. It's arguably not about some kind of plot that moves from Point A to Point B to Point C, but it seems to move along and keep me entertained when i read it.

The third example is perhaps not correctly used here in response to your question, but i'll try anyway. Throughout many of Jon's comic strips we find some sequences which tell jokes and make us laugh about things that are absurdly, impossibly, and/or ironically silly; and we find some sequences which make us laugh or shake our heads because they are actually exemplifying some things which are basically true and they provoke some feelings in us when we're reading them. But they aren't all exclusively devoted to conflict. Don't you think some of the funniest bits in Goats.com's years of humor are just wacky little gems, but not necessarily entirely about conflict?

I mean, look at some of the strips that were about the Pork-O-Tron-5000. Yes, that series did have violence and conflict, and i'm sure that was part of the story that interested some parts of the audience for some reason-- maybe they enjoyed laughing at those bits the most. But that series also had some parts that were just absurd and crazy but didn't necessarily have specific conflict... they just sounded so silly and looked so funny. And some parts of the audience probably enjoyed laughing at those bits the most. I was thrilled to obtain a copy of episode 17 [goats.com] because there were jokes in every panel and each part of the story. A goat in hollywood with stereotypical sunglasses sitting behind a big desk because he's now a powerful director, just because the author says so. Then a board meeting where they examine a graph that measures "Sweat" versus "Hogs". Brilliant! Then the introduction of the Pork-O-Tron-5000, who is "manufactured to exacting specificiations", leaving us wondering just what his role was supposed to involve?! It's so funny, but it didn't involve any conflict. But maybe it doesn't make sense for me to take this example out of its context; i do see lots of violence and characters who are in opposition during other parts of the bigger story, and this sub-section is perhaps slightly exceptional. I don't know if it proves your point, or if it helps me to make mine. I guess it would be hard to pick examples from Jon's work because so many of his plot points do revolve around conflicts.

Perhaps an author whose work shows a few examples of what i mean is Ursula LeGuin and her book Always Coming Home. It contained a number of short stories, poems, speculative essays, and fantasy postulations, and many of them were woven together into a bigger picture which did contain stories whose elements were sometim...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to jon (#27059):

Honestly, i'm trying to be tolerant at the same time that i express my opinions. I'm not trying to stop anybody from seeing some movie. I'm not trying to interfere with the existence of the movie. I'm not trying to prevent the movie from being part of people's interests.

I have experienced intolerance during which people tried to stop me from seeing what i enjoy, tried to prevent the very existence of what i appreciate, and tried to villify me for being unlike what they prefer. There is a big difference between their behavior and mine. I'm not trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment to forbid people from going to violent movies, even though i don't personally care for most of them.

I got your point. It just doesn't seem like a fair parallel when you compare my opinions and observations to those of a religious zealot from Tennessee. I describe what i like and i describe what i don't like, but i wasn't trying to stomp on anybody who felt differently. I know that it was stupid for me to behave that way in the past, and i've been trying to be different lately. I really am hoping to be open-minded at the same time that i still hold some of my own opinions and feelings. I'm sorry if my disparagement of the movie advertisement was somehow "close-minded". It felt like an accurate description of my first impression of the material. I wanted to be honest, but i guess i also must have expressed myself in a way that you didn't appreciate, and i do intend to improve these qualities of my discourse.

It can be so difficult to voice one's feelings without seeming harsh towards somebody else's. I guess it might have been better to simply keep my opinion to myself and avoid risking any unpleasantness with other people. As i continue to try to do that more often, i find myself speaking with fewer and fewer people all the time. The people around here seem rather tolerant, and so i often blurt out what i think without being tactful. There aren't really many safe places where that can happen outside the tiny circles of our closest friends, and i guess i'm presuming too much sometimes when i get comfortable here and spout my thoughts carelessly.

I read someone who (cynically?) stated, "A human relationship is what happens when you know you can rely on the other person to be as dishonest as you are." I guess i sort of hope that's not always so. I'd like to have human relationships which rely more on honesty. But i've been told that i'm quite idealistic, so i don't know whether it's really worth attempting. It might not lead to relationships which people would value.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27063):

I read someone who (cynically?) stated, "A human relationship is what happens when you know you can rely on the other person to be as dishonest as you are."

Really, that's not a cynical comment at all.

It's an extremely optimistic comment!

It implies that you will end up with a person who is no less honest than you are. And given the divorce rate... that's very idealistic these days.

Also.

Sneak PREVIEW!!!!

Thursday, May 5th at 10:00 pm, the movie (Serenity! Pay attention! Jeez.) will be playing at exactly 10 theaters in 10 cities across the country...

Seattle
Austin
Sacramento
Boston
Altanta
Chicago
San Francisco
Las Vegas
Denver
The Portland of Oregon


I don't know whether to go to Boston, Atlanta, or Chicago.

In Response to jon (#27059):

Basically, if you have experienced intolerance, you should learn from that and be tolerant of others.

You are so right. You've really made me do a lot of thinking about this. I hope that i've learned this well.

I apologize for responding to Mcgrue's thread with my comment about what i couldn't tolerate. At the time, i was just blabbing about why it's not the kind of stuff i'd pay to watch. But i realize now that my remarks weren't friendly, and i shouldn't rain on people's parades. Truly and sincerely, i do not mean to be a dickhead when other people are having fun, and i'm going to try extra hard to catch myself before i repeat this kind of mistake in the future, and hopefully this will lead to more successful interaction.

Please consider for a moment a crazy hypothetical proposition of an alternate Mirror Universe in which a situation unfolds in reverse. This is what i've been trying to imagine today:

Suppose Teledildonix starts a discussion. "Hey, everybody! DreamyHappyHomoSex: The Movie is being produced! This is going to be super! It's written and directed by some guys who are awesome creators of fantasy videos! Here's a URL to the trailer, so you can all see how exciting it is!"

Suppose you viewed the trailer for DHHS:TM, and found that it contains lots of explicit content which gives a good sample of what to expect if you pay to watch this extravaganza. Suppose the two minute preview contained two dozen depictions of dreamy happy homo sex.

Imagine the response to such a thread. As the owner of the forums, would you even allow such a post, or would you delete it right away because it links to adult content? Would you consider it equally acceptable to link to adult content which focuses on DreamyHappyHomoSex as to link to adult content which focuses on a violent story?

Suppose hypothetically that Teledildonix started that discussion, then Mcgrue (or some other member, i don't mean to pick on Mcrgue, i'm just making this up) comes along and says, "I don't like explicit homosexual fucking. It interferes with my enjoyment of some stories. I won't pay to watch it. That preview was full of homosexual fucking, i can't really tolerate it, and i guess the people who like that kind of stuff must be really into a culture of homoeroticism."

In this alternate universe, is Mcgrue being silly and petulant?

And last but not least, please note the difference in style of titles. "Serenity" is the title of a production whose preview seemed to show me the opposite of "serenity"; whereas "DreamyHappyHomoSex: The Movie" says what it's about, and anybody who views the trailer (in the alternate universe) would see happy homos having homo sex, exactly as named.

So i'm really sorry for being the jerk today who said negative things about something that was making other people happy. I will try very hard, with as much consideration and respect as possible, to not be that way towards you or Mcgrue or anybody else in the future. I will definitely put a great deal of effort into avoiding being intolerant in any way which imposes on your good times.

I hope this is what you wish when you try to encourage me to be "open-minded". I hope you can also momentarily imagine things from the opposite perspective, consider that hypothetical alternate Mirror Universe reality, and see if i make any sense to you at all.

In Response to Teledildonix (#27066):

If the TV show that DHHS was based on had as good a storyline as Firefly, then for certain I would allow a link to it. Because that's the point -- someone has come here to tell other people not about the violence, but about a story that they think is worth sharing. If I were to let the sex blind me to something more, then I would be as guilty as you.

I regret ever saying anything, honestly, because you take this shit to heart and then it becomes 50,000 words about you instead of the topic we were trying to discuss. Why don't you take this opportunity to ask some folks if there's more to what they've posted about than violence?

In Response to Teledildonix (#27061):

I must say that although I don't know which movie you watched, I think I am safe guessing that one or more of the following conflicts arose:

Will he use the long blue dildo or the fat red dildo?

Is he going to cum now on his back, or will the money shot be in the face?

What orifice is left for the fifth guy?

After the fucking, will the pizza delivery man still ask for money?

What will his tip be?

Just a few guesses. These are all conflicts. Otherwise, you are watching grass growing. But then, maybe you will start to wonder if the grass will be cut. Of if there will be rain. What happens when the sun sets?

----

Yup, no conflicts in America, the Book. Rightyho.

----
And for crissakes, please don't apologize for complaining about seeing too much violence. a) unlike consensual sexual behavior, there is an obvious victim b) no reasonable person condones the use of violence c) it was a friggin opinion. I can say 'there was too much gay fucking in that movie' if I want to. This doesn't mean I'm intolerant, maybe I just thought the comedy skills of Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey could be used to better effect. Or maybe I prefer to watch movies about war. Opinions are good. Not everybody likes them, but it is not insulting to state an opinion.

In Response to jon (#27069):

That's a great question. I should have just asked that in the first place and totally avoided bothering you with any mention of who i am and what i feel. Nobody wants to hear any of that meaningless shit.

So: what aspects of this Serenity topic are exciting for everybody, but do not involve someone shooting, kicking or punching somebody else? As an added challenge, maybe you could try to phrase your answer in a way which does not discuss your personal values, does not express your opinions, does not divulge your experiences, and in no way rambles on about your cares.

In Response to deerboy (#27070):

Okay, i see where some of my misunderstanding arose. It's just the usage of some terminology. I must have misinterpreted your general use of the word "conflict" to mean something more specific. If you are using it to mean "any situation in which there is some form of uncertainty", then i can understand what you, Jon, Sakuruth, and my English teachers were trying to explain.

---

Now that i'm agreeing to use your definition of the term, i can understand how my descriptions of stories in which i did not originally notice "conflict" are apparently moot. With your terminology in mind, i guess most activity of the universe can be viewed as "conflict"-based. That's not how i personally wish to see or describe everything, but i guess you're just generalizing, so no big deal. I wish there were more precise terms we could use, then maybe i'd catch on to your points sooner. Maybe. I'm apparently too busy having my own feelings and viewpoint to be very perceptive of others'.

---

I apologized for bothering people and for being intolerant or unfair. I don't want to be that way towards people because i don't want them to be that way towards me.

After my previous remarks, i found myself wishing, "Please oh please oh please i wish somebody would start a thread in which they post the URL to some really explicit HappyHomoSex video. And please oh please i hope that somebody is Deerboy, because Jon respects him and won't dismiss his actions instantly. If i do it, he'll probably just think i'm being a total jerk; but if Deerboy does it, he might tolerate it for an instant."

This was better. Nobody was a total jerk.

I'll shut up now, before Phillip's post:thread-length ratio Auto-Moron-urbator-thingy kicks in. It's too hard for me to express my personal opinions without surpassing people's tolerance for their length, so i'm going to work on keeping them entirely to myself. Thank you kindly for taking time out of your busy life to read anything i've said.