Wikipedia Nation
By SteveWhen I wrote about “Grindhouse,” I commented that it was pretty silly to spend a ton of money to make something look like crap. This terrific article at the Entertainment Weekly website does a terrific job of summarizing some of the points I was making.
It also discusses something I’ve been noticing for years, that we’ve become a nation of collectors. “Well duh,” you’re saying. The existence of eBay makes that obvious. But we’re not just collecting things, we’re collecting minutia in our brains. The Internet has made it ridiculously easy—thanks to Wikis, blogs, etc.—to catalog and inventory everything in excruciating detail.
When it comes to pop-culture, recycling is totally in vogue. When you’re not talking about remakes or homages, you have shows like “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” (or all of Adult Swim, for that matter) or “Family Guy” and any number of comedians throw up all sorts of obscure pop-culture references from the 70s and 80s and 90s, and because we’ve all catalogued the minutia of those decades in our heads, we nod and laugh. “Hah, Count Chocula, yeah!” “Don’t get all Jack Tripper on me!” “Shazbot!” It’s kind of lazy.
Chuck Klosterman has made an entire career out of being more into everything you were into as a kid, and writing amazing editorials and articles about those obsessions. But Klosterman makes connections. In his own goofy way, he’s a deeply analytical writer. He doesn’t just spew for spewing’s sake. (Try this piece on “Snakes on a Plane” for a good sampling of Chuck.)
My favorite review site on the Internet is The Onion’s AV Club. It features some of the best written reviews of movies, music, books and amazing features and interviews. A recent one was with director Paul Verhoeven. There was a bit of a discussion about “Starship Troopers,” in the interview. On the one hand, you had people who either appreciated (or criticized) the movie’s satire about fascism and Heinlein fans who obsessed over the minutia of how the movie differed from the book. To those who think it’s a travesty because it doesn’t include power suits, I say…WTF? Sometimes, our obsession with minutia causes us to miss the big pictures; if any movie dares to change any comic book, sci-fi or fantasy novel, it sucks. (Look at many of the criticisms of Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings,” which had less to do with its filmmaking and everything to do with what was omitted or added.)
Based on that AV Club interview, I Netflixed “Starship Troopers” and watched it again. The movie is about pretty Aryan people (and horrible actors; oh god, the performances from Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards are stunningly awful) turning into Nazis and getting slaughtered by aliens. (Doogie Howser, SS Officer, is particularly groovy.) Its satire makes “Robocop” look subtle, but it’s better than I remember (which is to say, it sucks, but it sucks a little less). It’s also pretty prophetic about how patriotism can turn into fascism, but that’s sort of, “Well duh.”
The Wikipedia entry for the movie is awesome. It offers a lot of summary information, details the plot, and then has an extended section about how implausible the bugs are. In fact, this comment: “Other criticisms include the apparent plot hole in which the bugs allegedly propelled a massive asteroid across 80 000 light years of space with no faster-than-light technology without hitting any other objects or being thrown off course, and were somehow able to hit a city with pinpoint accuracy. This is further complicated by the fact that the bugs would porbably [sic] not know where Earth was” is particularly funny because it assumes—despite a lot of evidence in the movie that says otherwise—that the bugs were initiating the war. A government would never fabricate evidence as a pretense toward war, right?
(I’m not above this kind of pedantic nonsense. I hated the movie Short Cuts because it took a bunch of Raymond Carver stories and transplanted them to Southern California. While that may seem as inconsequential as “power suits,” it wasn’t just some sort of geographical bias. Carver’s characters made more sense in Portland than they do in L.A. It’s a weather thing.)
Anyway, our obsession with cataloging the specifics of everything, all the minutia of pop-culture, seems to be getting in the way of our need or desire to actually understand anything. Maybe we never had that ability, or never cared. But while I love the fact that I have so much information at my fingertips, I don’t feel like it’s helping me get a better understanding of anything. I may know which episode of The Simpsons killed off Bleeding Gums Murphy (episode 22, season 6), but I’m not sure it helps me understand why they did it.
But at least I can whip out a Bleeding Gums Murphy reference at any time.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
What you’re saying about the obsession with details, and how the utility of the internet is sort of lost in the process (sort of a “can’t see the forest because of the trees” thing) reminds me of a Henry Rollins spoken word I saw several years ago.
Of course, Rollins was advocating using the internet to our advantage, and how it’s essentially stupid to *not* see how useful a tool the internet is when in the right hands.
Call me an old fart, but the selfishness and self-centeredness of our culture is just way out of control. Time magazine naming YOU as person of the year? Gimme a friggin’ break…
Makes me want to pack a single suitcase and move back to Mexico again for a much simpler life.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
All of this information is amazing and wonderful and great, but at some point I’d hope people were draw more inferences and analyze it instead of just use it for obscure pop-culture references.
I’m not sure if it’s just getting oldness, but I think people are becoming more self-centered and narcissistic thanks to the Intarweb. I first noticed this when team sports started to lose popularity to “x-games,” which were mostly solo sports with subjective scoring and rules. They became all about individuals showing off, and that “look at me”-ness has infected team sports too. (Though that’s probably ESPN’s fault.)
Now, with MySpace and Facebook and everyone having a blog, we’re all creating these worlds where everything revolves around ourselves and our circle of friends. It’ll be interesting to see how that impacts our understanding of the world, or at least the parts that fall outside the little bubbles we all create for ourselves.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
In the Starship Troopers book, the “Pseudo-Arachnids” actually had ships, faster-then-light drives, etc and were attacking as a response to human colonization of their systems. So orbital bombardment made a lot more sense. They were still stupid hiveminds, though.
The movie is more of a parody of the book then an adaptation.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
The movie apparently had nothing to do with the book and they added some changes once they signed the book license. Which explains a lot, if true.
It’s definitely a satire of themes present in the book.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:02 am
if any movie dares to change any comic book, sci-fi or fantasy novel, it sucks.
Bah. A Scanner Darkly fails because it doesn’t change enough (while changing things to the point where they don’t work) to feel like its own story. It loses all sense of atmosphere & substance. On the plus side, it still has considerable style & makes a damn good visual companion, even if it isn’t good for anything else.
I like The Lord of the Rings BECAUSE it tells its story for its own sake. (and all of those awesome, perfect, film making techniques too) The only part I dislike about The Two Towers is that the Extended cuts for Treebeard felt extremely rushed (his voice is about twice as fast - hello Lucasfilm level quality control!; I mean this is Jackson’s team: the guys who made King Kong the world’s first perfect 10 photorealistic CGI) and there were… I believe there were two or three spots in Return of the King that had slightly weak acting for all of two seconds.
…?_?…
Anyway, our obsession with cataloging the specifics of everything, all the minutia of pop-culture, seems to be getting in the way of our need or desire to actually understand anything.
That’s why I’ve temporarily confined my Science Fiction to just Philip K. Dick (I stuck one Jonathan Lethem book in there though: Gun, with Occasional Music - and yes, it’s just as awesome as the title; the 1994 cover too) even though there are about ten other godly authors of the genre I could be reading. He’s the best and the deepest. In many ways, his books are deeper than religion - or propose science fictional (and semi-autobiographical) conspiracy theories on the subject of religion.
Oh wait, you said I had to understand it…?_?… (well, I try at least)
I should stop interrupting my posts with the History Channel. It’s too damn addictive. One show ends, and the next one is even more indispensable. (I apologize for spelling)
April 14th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I first noticed this when team sports started to lose popularity to “x-games,” which were mostly solo sports with subjective scoring and rules. They became all about individuals showing off, and that “look at me”-ness has infected team sports too. (Though that’s probably ESPN’s fault.)
Not that teamwork isn’t great, but to say this is to deny the awesomeness of Xpogo.
(http://xpogo.com)
Now, with MySpace and Facebook and everyone having a blog, we’re all creating these worlds where everything revolves around ourselves and our circle of friends. It’ll be interesting to see how that impacts our understanding of the world, or at least the parts that fall outside the little bubbles we all create for ourselves.
If you’re curious about the theoretical outcome, I found this a few years back:
http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/
In any case, I rejected the very idea of blogs almost before they came into popular existence. (except for yours & those like it, of course - it’s more like a series of editorials than a social network, and I already have forums for the social part anyway) I try my hardest to find the purest, objective information I can, and I really can’t recall the last time I had a sheltered social network to live in my own little world.
Mind you, I can still redefine my own reality. I am already developing reclusive, eccentric tendencies, and I’m sure my desire to consume high quality fiction (especially the fact that I’m usually more interested in the fictional universe than even the story or characters) has something to do with being unsatisfied with reality.
On the other hand, if any of those fictional realms were the one I exist in, then how would I have access to the vast multitude I enjoy now? (here’s a fun game: count the number of words I misused and/or misspelled)
April 14th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Just to follow up from the Family Guy mention, do most fans of this stuff actually get the pop-cult references? So many of these comments seem to spring from the 70s, because the creators are 30-40-something guys who were kids back then, but I’d bet that the audience for the likes of Family Guy, AQTF, etc. skews younger than that. The other week there was a long joke about the Maude theme song on Family Guy that I can’t imagine anyone younger than late 30s getting at all. Even if you were all net-geeky and into collecting this sort of trivia online, would you really have a clue about something like the Maude theme song?
Anyhow, a lot of the time I find the writers pushing the pop-cult references too far. I get pretty much everything, as I’m in the right age group and love the 70s, but I know loads of people my age and younger that aren’t into the era and don’t get a good half of the references made in shows like Family Guy.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:25 am
“Just to follow up from the Family Guy mention, do most fans of this stuff actually get the pop-cult references?”
Good question. I suspect no, but now they know something about Maude thanks to Family Guy. And they’ll whip out that specific reference as a way to assert their own coolness/pop-culture savvy-osity, even though they’re only getting it filtered through Family Guy. Music is the most obvious place to find this particular phenomenon.
(Or maybe college kids spend all their time watching old TV shows on TV Land or something.)
April 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
God, I hate Family Guy…
April 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Time was, you had to work to make a snarky pop-culture reference. Guys like me–those who can’t remember the names of people they met 30 seconds but can recall with utter clarity the actor who portrayed Manimal–were able to use the otherwise useless trivia they’d accumulated over the years to surprise and delight others: “The ‘My Buddy’ jingle? Ho ho! I had completely forgotten about that!”
Now anyone can call upon these nuggets of kitsch with a quick trip to Google, even those who use their gray matter for the birthdays of loved ones and their checking account numbers. So, sure it’s lazy to whip out obscure references *now.* But in my day, it required a lot of pointless *effort.*
April 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
(Or maybe college kids spend all their time watching old TV shows on TV Land or something.)
I haven’t watched TV Land or Nick @ Nite in a while (I don’t really watch any TV actually… Just Whose Line?, Seinfeld - which I have on DVD anyway - and the occasional Discovery/History Channel show. Favorites on those are Man vs. Wild, Mail Call, Mythbusters [who doesn’t love it?] and the ubiquitous Modern Marvels; the problem is that I watch one show on the History Channel and then the next one comes on immediately afterwards. I get hooked right away.)
I have no idea what I was talking about before the parenthesis entered the sentence… *scrolls up*
Oh, right: …but I do find myself watching TCM & AMC more than channels like TBS & USA. (yes, I’m both a movie man & a basic cable-at-best man)
As for Family Guy itself, I understand a good… say maybe two references per show. I also find almost all Star Wars references (or other mass-referenced material that is only witty at a very deep, core level) to be ridiculously insulting. If it’s meant to be ridiculous though, then it’s saved.
Troy Goodfellow Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
God, I hate Family Guy…
I can watch it for about two episodes in a month and find it funny. After that, I’m with you. Slap stick doesn’t have lasting appeal when it has nothing to do with Leslie Neilson. On the other hand, I like Futurama almost as much as Looney Toons when it comes to cartoons… >_>
I can also agree with Justin, and there are definitely way more posers than legitimate geeks (or just “cool” people in some cases) in the world of culture. As for me, well… I’m just weird. I’m objectively sensational in my programming. Interpret that as you will - I’ll probably deny it.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I hate Family Guy, too, but Sunday is my TV night so I watch/PVR pretty much everything and watch it eventually. So used to watching the Fox animated stuff, also. Still mad that dreck like FG gets a second chance while Futurama gets treated like crap and cancelled, and even now is just getting those Cartoon Network movie thingies. It’s a crime, I tells ya.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Oh, and the first season of Maude just hit DVD, so huzzah. God’ll get you for that one, Walter.
April 14th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I was going to come on here and post “God, I hate The Family Guy”, but Troy already took care of that for me.
Maybe I should add some references to Quark, BJ & the Bear, Max Headroom, and the Shazam/Isis Power Hour.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:07 am
“…and the Shazam/Isis Power Hour.”
Throw in Ark II, and you’ve got live-action TV at its finest.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:08 am
16 comments later, I just want to point out that the link to the Entertainment Weekly article is broken.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Hah, the fact it was broken (actually, all were broken; I think WordPress screws with quotes to make them smart quotes, and I had the URLs in quotes) just shows how much value to another website outbound links from blogs have. (It’s fixed now.)
April 15th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Oh, we noticed. We just didn’t want to be rude (Bruce!).
April 16th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Foward: I’m not a Family Guy fan, in fact I purposely do not have Cable TV (or satellite, etc.) I get what I need from television over local broadcasts. Most of the other stuff bores me, frankly.
The guy I lift weights with is a huge fan of Family Guy (and a host of other, much more obscure cartoons). He’ll send me clips from various cartoons, then ask me about it later:
- “didn’t you think that joke was funny?”
- “Nah, well, I try not to watch much TV”…
- “yeah, but didn’t you get that reference!?!”
(interestingly, this guy is from Venezuela, so his interpretation of the pop humor may be different)
Everyone has a unique sense of humor, pop references or not. And it makes me uncomfortable when humor is proselytized.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:16 am
sidenote - why are “greater than” and “less than” symbols not appearing in posts?
April 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Family Guy is broadcast TV, so you can still see it, AB. Not that you would want to.
It’s the continual pop culture references that annoy me, and I think FG is partly responsible for a geek culture that both insists its youth culture was disposable and silly while all the time making it a litmus test for conversational coolness.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:54 am
There was a funny gag on South Park where they point out the Family Guy joke formula by combining some pop culture reference, something from history, and some non-sequitor or something (I can’t remember the specifics).
It was perfect, and it was every gag on the show. (”Look, it’s Bea Arthur whipping Thomas Jefferson while eating a hot fudge sundae, hah hah.”)
April 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Troy Goodfellow Says:
April 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Family Guy is broadcast TV, so you can still see it, AB. Not that you would want to.
——–
Ahh, yes, you’re correct. Seems all the clips my Venezuelan friend emails me are trailered with Cartoon Network logos. But I do see local commercials for FG, American Dad, and a few others. (and you’re right: I still don’t want to tune in.)
I say gimme my 1970s-80s Saturday morning Looney Tunes any time. Seems those consisted of a much greater effort in writing and production than most stuff now.
Changing gears: what are some games in recent memory that were genuinely funny? Not toilet humor like Postal and Bad Day LA. But geuninely funny, and clean. How about the conversations overheard throughout the NOLF series… they gave a good chuckle but could sadly be missed if you blasted through the game (cue hackneyed Russian accent: “Hey, Michel! How about an Orange Crush?”).
April 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
sidenote - why are “greater than” and “less than” symbols not appearing in posts?
They’re part of the HTML-ish coding for Bold, Italic, possibly Underlined (?), & Quote’d-ish content in your responses. The latter two of which I obviously don’t know how to do, but I tried anyway.