SPOTLIGHTS
|
|
|
|
|
| And we're rolling... |
| Posted by J.D. Dunn on 05.06.2007 |
| |
|
| |
Miscellanea:
The SD Breakdown was a little late for a couple of reasons. First is the severe weather you've probably been hearing about. No tornados, but there was a lot of hail damage to the roof, and you just know the insurance company is going to try to pass it off as "flood damage" or something.
Second…SPIDER-MAN! It was a little disappointing, but how could it not be given the hype? It's a little more cartoony than the previous entries, but I think the bigger problem is that Raimi was just spinning too many plates at once, and they all come crashing down on him. In short, there's just too much going on. The even bigger problem I had was the same I had with the series in general (and all comic book-based movies): you're taking a serial and turning into a self-contained feature. I've said it before, this really needs to be a series á la Smallville where it can delve into Peter's personal life without glossing over what makes him such a complex character. Raimi and McGuire try, but the medium is just too limited with only two hours to work with.
Plus, and I don't want to spend all day on Spider-man, the original Spidey stories were a product of political turmoil and cultural revolution. Mary Jane wasn't the sweet girl next door. Mary Jane was a skanky ho, and that's what attracted straight-laced Peter Parker to her in the first place. Gwen Stacy only won out because she was everything both sides of Peter needed – a strong personality to attract shy Parker, and a sense of vulnerability to attract that need to save people. Of course, we'd later find out that Mary Jane was quite a different kind of victim, but that was with a lot of retconning.
I only bring it up to show how hard it is to squeeze that kind of psychological depth into a movie, especially one that doesn't come from as turbulent a time a the late 1960s. Oh, and I once wrote a pop culture thesis on Peter Parker, and it seems a shame not to recycle.
For a good laugh, head over to our Wikipedia page and check out the talk section and marvel at each new and exciting hurdle 411 has to jump in order to have an entry there. See, you can't have just anybody showing up on Wikipedia. You have to be notable. So that means you have to show that other media types are talking about you. Well, that's simple enough. There was Matt Hardy's blog, so we know that he read 411 at one point. There was the article on the Metallica hoax. Maven's official site linked to the RAWtopsy at one point. Peter David mentioned one of our reviews. Kevin Smith linked to us. Stephanie Miller mentioned 411 on her radio show. Hell, even Dennis Kucinich's website has a link to "The Murmur of the Crow," although I don't think his people actually read what Brandon had to say because it's not very flattering. Hey, there was even a Boston Globe article on "Two TiVos to Paradise."
Still not enough, apparently. I mean, 411 may be kind of notable, but not Zangief notable. What it really comes down to is that certain people don't like the way 411 does business (which is really supposed to be irrelevant because Wikipedia "strives for unbiased" articles). See, we just "cut and paste" the news. I've heard this one a lot, including from a former writer here who shall remain nameless (although, if I told you his name, you probably wouldn't recognize it anyway).
So here's my defense of 411. It's true, 411 rarely breaks a story, but that doesn't mean we're not a news site. We get occasional interviews - the routine TNA conference call, Bobby Lashley, April Hunter, and Chris Sabin to name a few, but 411 is primarily a "news analyses" site. We take what's going on, add context and opinion, and give it back to you, the reader. Guess what. So do 90-percent of the shows on cable news. Very rarely does Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann break a story themselves. They get the news, they compile the news, they give back the news.
It's considered good faith to share breaking news as long as it's credited (which 411 does religiously). Have you ever listened to an MSNBC anchor and heard "The Washington Post is reporting…" or "According to a New York Times article…"? Remember the V. Tech killer's video that was sent to NBC? Remember how it was on every news network? NBC could have just as easily hoarded the video, but that would break good faith and the next time a story broke, they might be excluded.
What 411 does provide is a perspective from informed fans' points-of-view, and we shouldn't have to apologize for that.
Not that all of Wikipedia is bad. It's actually quite a good little starting point if you're doing research, but be wary of people who have their own agendas.
ROH on PPV
"This is how it begins."
That quote either makes you giddy or apprehensive as an ROH fan. My worst fear for the state of wrestling was always that TNA would short-sightedly devour the companies beneath it and then fail when going up against the WWE, sending us back to the glory days of 2002 booking when no one was there to keep Vince in check.
With TNA pulling its talent and casting the stink-eye in ROH's direction rather than coming to some mutual agreement, this could be that step.
Other than that, ROH has a wider audience. Can't complain about that. |
| |
|
