Those people you talk about all the time because you hate them

For me his name is Russell. He is also a creative writing major so of course we have several classes together. He's got this really effeminate nasally voice that is annoying enough on its own, but it's paired with the fact the he loves to talk all the time. And I mean he loooooooooooooooooooooooves it. He's that guy constantly interrupting the flow of class by asking some nonsense question or throwing out some kind of ridiculous anecdotal comment to which the professor's response is almost always that sort blank stare and "Uhh.. okay anyway" but he still doesn't understand. Maybe he has aspergers, in which case I would feel sort of bad for making fun of a kid with a mild form of autism. But then again I knew a girl whose brother had aspergers and while he was indeed socially awkward it wasn't because he went out of his way to be loud and obnoxious like ol rusty, he was sort of quite and reserved. It's happening, it's happening right now. Russell is asking some very long winded stupid question that isn't even asking any sort of real question. He's that brown nose guy that sits in the front seat closest to the desk of the professor and calls them by their first name all the time because they think they're friends and more than just teacher/student. By typing all of this I'm hoping to have channeled all of my frustration into this slightly more concrete... thing I guess, I sort of blanked out on a good word for a second there. But in conclusion, fuck Russell

Plan B

So it looks like for Valentine's day I will be getting really drunk until my Skype date with my good friend Kara in Virginia. I will probably eat a lot of sandwiches too.

3D (derp derp derp)

Stop it. Just... just stop it. 3D does not really enhance the experience as much as Hollywood thinks it does, seriously after the first twenty minutes you barely even notice it anymore. But it's not their fault, people keep paying for it so why stop making it? Speaking of greedy. George Lucas. Holy hell another Star Wars reissuing? I love Star Wars, love the shit out of it, but I want people to leave it alone even, if not especially, George Lucas. I'm sure he didn't actively pursue this 3D re-re-re-release, it was probably something some douchey exec at Lucasfilm suggested and he figured "Hey why not suck some more money out of this franchise?" But for the love of God, stop messing with Star Wars. It was great the way it was (the original trilogy anyway, the prequels are a completely different rant) The biggest problem is I know they are going to suck more in 3D because they weren't intended to be shown in 3D. What a lot of people don't realize is that the reason some movies look great in 3D and others look like shit is because the ones that look great were filmed with special cameras built specifically for 3D movies. Taking a movie that already existed and then adapting it to 3D is what makes shitty 3D movies like Clash of the Titans (although the poor 3D was by far not the only thing wrong with that movie) Even Avatar (which is also another rant altogether) was filmed originally with IMAX cameras but after the success of Disney's Up every douche in Hollywood decided to make the conversion to 3D, so they went back and updated the footage of several movies that were already well into production.

I guess it was really only a matter of time before they had to go back and have their way with Star Wars again, hell maybe I'll see the original trilogy again so I can get the movie theater experience. But if they announce the 3D re-releasing of Indiana Jones I'm burning down Skywalker Ranch. (That was an empty threat, police)

Gollum

The embodiment of Deus ex Machina, or God out of the Machine for those of you know who don't know Latin (not that I know much anymore) And if you're unfamiliar with the concept there's nothing I love more than explaining things like this. It's refers to the thing, usually something magical or made of advanced technology depending on the setting, in most stories that makes it so the good guys can win. But deus ex machina sounds a whole lot fancier and is less to say. If you've read Harry Potter, and I know you have, it's in every book, and in the last one there's like eight. Anytime you're reading a book and you think to yourself, "Boy, it sure was convenient they found the x that is the only thing that can defeat x." or "It's a good thing x came along just as x was about to x." And most of the time this happens within the last few chapters. Same goes for movies.

But in the Lord of the Rings the Deus ex Machina gets a face, a whole back story, and is in all of the books/movies. (As you might of guessed I'm watching it right now, The Two Towers to be exact) Try to imagine for a moment what would have happened if Frodo and Sam had tried to make it to Mordor on their own. There wouldn't even be a third book/movie. But let's back up. So Gollum used to be Smeagol, found the one ring, killed his cousin or brother or whatever, becomes a twisted insane creature, yadda yadda yadda, Bilbo steals the ring and then the first book/movie is more or less set up. First, how is Gollum still alive by the time Frodo gets the ring? I know the Ring gives you a supernatural lifespan, but Gollum was a river hobbit (I know that isn't the technical term) so I assume he has a similar lifespan to regular land hobbits. When Bilbo gives Frodo the Ring he's already well over one hundred, but dances around like he's in his mid fifties. At the end of the series when Frodo sees Bilbo again, he appears to be on the verge of death and relatively little time has gone by (I know it was more in the book, but shut up) But Gollum went a very very long time without having the Ring after Bilbo stole it  and yet he moves around like a god damn spider monkey and I'm pretty sure Gollum was already breaking 200 at the time.

But okay, maybe river hobbits are especially virile when they've been cursed with evil. So what else do we know about the little dude? Well as we find out in the first one he was captured and taken to Mordor where he suffered excruciatingly painful torture at the hands of Sauron's forces until he tells them where the ring is. I honestly don't even see why they would have to torture him. Why wouldn't he just immediately tell them who stole the ring? It's not like he owes anything to Bilbo, the guy who stole his most precious treasure. But maybe they just wanted to torture the shit out of him anyway, that's what evil guys do. You know what else evil guys do? Kill people, especially after they torture them because that is the ultimate dick move. Why would Sauron, who is literally the embodiment of malevolence, just decide to say "fuck it" this one time and tell his cronies to let him go? You can't tell me the guy, or creature, who wants to murder and/or enslave every race in Middle Earth has some code of honor that says he can't torture AND kill someone. If Sauraon had just had his orcs kill Gollum right then and there, boom, evil triumphs. But of course this is deus ex machina we're talking about. Everything had to be just so, otherwise how could we get to the part Gollum stupidly attacks Frodo at the edge of a barely stable bridge made of stone hovering precariously over what can only be described as a shit ton of molten lava? Again, not that Frodo would have even made it that far without Gollum to show them that there was a much better way to get into Mordor than walking right in the fucking front door (seriously, how could that have possibly worked?)

But if it hadn't been for Gollum, all of those heroic acts performed by every single character other than Frodo and Sam (seriously, what series has a more useless protagonist?) would have been for nothing. The forces of Mordor would have still rallied and killed the shit out of Gondor considering they had a seemingly infinite army at their disposal.

So who is really responsible for the destruction of the Ring and with it Sauron and the forces of Mordor? Sauron himself, that's who.

Mockumentaries

As a little caveat pointed out to me by good ol' Karly, the following does not refer to comedic mockumentaries but only the dramatic/scary ones. Comedic ones work because you are well aware that it's not supposed to be taken seriously. That's the point. Dramatic ones however, well...

I already went to town on that movie Troll Hunter. So while I was filling out job applications online today I threw on the movie "The Fourth Kind" because I like Sci-Fi, and it was on TV so I figured why not. The way they set it up was pretty clever. They would show you footage of the "dramatic reenactment" starring Mila Jovovich and that guy who's in all those movies but whose name you can never remember. Then they would show you some "actual footage" with some "actual audio" of the same scene, sometimes side by side in the most annoying way possible. So what's the problem? It's all a dramatic reenactment. Even the actual footage is a bunch of D list actors you're not likely to ever see in another movie which they filmed with a shitty camera from twelve years ago to make it look real. So I guess it's not even a reenactment so much as it's an enactment considering none of it is based on anything that happened. It is incredibly loosely based on some disappearances in Nome Alaska, where the movie takes place, that happened around twelve years ago and apparently the FBI came in and out a few times so of course it was Aliens right? Funny thing is they found a lot of the bodies so it wasn't really that mysterious. Also, it's fucking Alaska. Do you know what else lives in Alaska? Bears. Big ass bears that I'm sure love snacking on stupid drunks who get lost in the woods in the middle of the night. Not to mention the other hundreds of ways you could probably die getting lost in the Alaskan woods which I can only imagine are pretty easy to get lost in, especially when you're drunk. Why am I assuming they were drunk? Again, it is God damn Alaska. What else could they possibly be doing there right now? So I think the Alaskan wilderness theory probably explains the bodies that they didn't find.

But back to the movie. What sucks is that there were a few genuinely scary moments and if they had just filmed this as an actual movie and not some shitty mockumentary, and also taken out Mila Jovovich for someone who actually sounds like a woman (I'm told by Hollywood that she's sexy but I see no evidence of this), then it could have been a great Sci-Fi movie which there are very few of these days (I don't care one bit for Avatar, one screening was enough for me). Then they kept doing that thing where when something scary happened the "actual footage" would suddenly get really screwed up so that you can't actually see what was happening but for some reason the audio works just fine so you can hear all the stuff that is supposed to be scary. You know what would have been great? If they had just made a movie where they show all the scary aliens and people being abducted instead of just suggesting it for an hour and a half.

There can't be any good mockumentaries anymore and I wish Hollywood could just realize that. People know this shit isn't real. The last, and possibly only, good mockumentary was the Blair Witch Project because after that everyone knew what to expect. The first paranormal activity was sort of good, but they ruined the first one by making the subsequent ones. Especially since the third one was a prequel. Gee, wasn't it convenient that all three families had weird husbands who wanted to film shit all the time? And then there was the Last Exorcism, I watched that movie thinking it was soooooo good right up until the very end when they ruined it by also insisting that it was real and not just about how exorcisms are hoaxes, it's sort of hard to explain that movie since I'm assuming most people haven't seen it (I only saw it because I was bored one night and Netflix is a thing). If you're going to make a movie, just make a damn movie. Take those budgets and invest them in something that is actually worth watching.

Teaching

My young adult literature class is apparently geared towards people who are getting certified to teach or get a major in secondary education. I did not know this going into it. Had I known I probably still would have taken the class just because my other options for upper division literature classes were fairly limited and I didn't want to take European lit. So there will be two points during this semester where I will have to prepare a lesson plan geared toward any age group I choose, and I will have fifteen minutes and then thirty minutes to do these lessons on our class. Most of the class so far has been the students teaching students how to teach students, while Professor Bishop, who I do consider to be "the man", sits and takes notes to create your grade.

This actually excites me, I see a golden opportunity. I am an expert of the half-assed and smart-ass presentation that still manages to get full credit. Since I don't necessarily plan on teaching, at least not high school or anything lower, I want to have fun with this. I want to do something snarky so to speak. Although it will appear to be a serious lesson on the outside, I want it to also reek of my sarcasm to the point that no one is really sure what to think. Bishop will know, that is for sure, the man has a lot of experience and channels sarcasm like few other professors I've seen. But it takes a smart-ass to appreciate a smart-ass. Just ask my Dad.

Irony

Irony

This word bugs the hell out of me. Not in the way that words ending in "sks" bug me, saying masks out loud bothers me to no end. The problem with the word irony, and I mean situational irony (situational is apparently not a word according to my spell check) is that it can be, can being the key word, very subjective and often depends on how much either party understands about the situation occurring. Which almost creates a sort of dramatic irony if one person uses the word irony while the other person knows that it's just a coincidence. Almost. Irony is a bitch. I try to never use the word myself unless I am absolutely sure that what just happened was in fact ironic which you will often find it wasn't. Also, don't ever say ironical. I understand that yes, technically it is a word. But "ironic" is an adjective. Saying "ironical" creates an adjectival form of a word that was already an adjective. It doesn't make any sense. It's almost like irregardless, which apparently is a word according to my spell check, which everyone knows is a double negative. So I guess ironical is a double adjective.

And since I'm talking about irony (And since we're talking about grammar and word usage lately I also have to mention that starting a sentence with a conjunction is actually not breaking any grammatical rules despite what a lot of people will tell you) fuck Alanis Morisette. I don't know if I spelled her name right and I don't care, and also fuck my eleventh grade English teacher for the same following reason. That song "Ironic" by Alanis, actually does not contain one ironic statement in it (except maybe the one about the guy on the plane) but since it's actually a song of coincidences, the whole song itself is ironic. What is also quite ironic is that while we were learning about irony in the aforementioned English class, my teacher played this song several times so we could listen to all these examples of irony which were in fact coincidental. Just like 90% of cases of people using irony.