I generally don't watch many movies these days.  It's kind of a big continuous time commitment, despite my willingness to waste tons of continuous time on other hobbies.  And it feels like all movies are part of a "universe" which I have a hard time getting into. 

But aside from all that, the one thing that's been bugging me for a while now is that movies in the past 15 years or so feel more "fast-starting" than they used to, which makes them feel less impactful.  This could absolutely be because I'm older and my brain is less flexible or whatever.  But it feels like modern movies don't spend enough time developing the plot and characters early on.  We just jump right in, here's the main guy, he's got one characteristic, and he's currently involved in the main plot of the movie which is currently operating at full pace.  Like, where's the build-up, and the character arc, and the tension and resolution?  It feels like every one-dimensional character encounters the story's main obstacle and instantly overcomes it.  It leaves me feeling disconnected from the character and uninvested in the outcome of the movie. 

The thing is, I would say I typically feel "entertained" by movies, even the dumb ones.  Fast cars, explosions, aliens -- it's entertaining, but it's not meaningful or fulfilling in any way.  I don't ask other forms of entertainment to provide me with fulfillment, but I guess if I'm investing 2 hours  of my life into something that cost a billion dollars to make and will win awards and become part of the cultural lexicon, I expect a little more than "ooh cool explosions." #entertainment

The Who's Pete Townshend on the stage antics of Jimi Hendrix:

When Jimi went on and started doing the same gimmicks we had done--and they were just gimmicks--I realized I had underestimated Jimi's readiness to play the fool to get attention. He didn't need to do it. We're talking crass, show business nonsense here. My guitar smashing started as a serious art-school concept with a clear manifesto.

The phrase "serious art-school concept with a clear manifesto" has to be the douchiest thing I've ever read. (via Room Full of Mirrors) #entertainment

Steps to becoming a Jedi, based off a casual drunken watching of (probably) the first Star Wars movie: 

1. Wear Yoda as a backpack, swing from some vines, and run through the woods.
2. Crawl in a hole and hallucinate killing Vader.
3. Do a hand stand with Yoda on you.
4. Pull your ship out of the pond.

Congrats you're a Jedi. #entertainment

A good storyteller is able to take a less-than-interesting topic, and make it engrossing and enjoyable.  Such is the case with podcasts like 99% Invisible, Freakonomics, and Hidden Brain.  Malcolm Gladwell is on this list as well, and even though I've read all his books, I'm still a little unsure about his podcast Revisionist History.  But by far my favorite new storyteller is a person whose books I've read and who recently started a new podcast:  Michael Lewis, Against the Rules.  This is the guy who made left tackles interesting, and his podcast is such a perfect example of taking an ordinary, or even boring, topic like referees and making it interesting. #entertainment

A few points about the dragons in Game of Thrones: 

1. I have a hard time believing they could possibly fly.  Airplanes fly because they have gigantic wings and are propelled by powerful engines.  Birds and bugs fly by flapping their wings to lift their lightweight bodies.  Birds have hollow bones, and feathers weigh almost nothing.  Dragons on the other hand are big, bulky creatures with scales and completely aerodynamically useless tails.  The wing size required to lift a body that big would most likely make them too big to flap.
2. Fire doesn't automatically make things explode.  When the dragons are flying around and fireblasting the ground and buildings, wooden and brick structures are shown exploding into bits.  In reality, it would be like spraying something with a hose.  Maybe a firehose, but still not a method of destroying solid things.
3. Ok, dragons fly.  Ok, dragons breathe fire.  But where is this fire coming from, and how is it produced?  Is it like a propane tank, or is the fire created as needed by mixing chemicals like an epoxy gun?  Either way, surely there's a limit to how much fire can be created in a specific amount of time.  Destroying an entire city is a bit out of the question, because the dragon would need to refill or recharge.

Or, you know, it's magic. #entertainment

I think I could happily go the rest of my life without seeing another reaction video.  I keep finding them accidentally when I search for some band playing a song or some comedian telling a joke.  The video title or description matches what I'm looking for, but I keep missing the "reaction" part.  These videos consistently have hundreds of thousands of views, and I can't for the life of me figure out why any human being would want to see some random asshole's reaction to some band playing a song or some comedian telling a joke. #entertainment

I started reading Jordan Peterson's book about 12 rules.  No, this isn't a review of that book.  I read about a chapter and a half, then gave up.  I just couldn't do it.  Parts of it were interesting.  He's similar to Malcolm Gladwell in that he'll tell a completely unrelated story and then suddenly and convincingly explain why it's related to the real point he was trying to make.  I actually like that. 

I've been having a hard time trying to figure out why I didn't like his book, and I think it's as simple as:  the dude talks too much.  Too many words, not enough content.  And that's how I've felt every time I've seen one of his videos or read one of his posts.  What are you saying, and why is it taking so long for you to say it?  But I think that's sort of his appeal.  He tends to almost say things that are somewhat controversial, and then when questioned about them, says, "That's not what I said; you said that."  I feel like he could stand to be a bit more efficient with his language. 

Also he seemed to make a few unsubstantiated claims in the book that were stated almost in passing.  I've read a lot of nonfiction, and much of it is written in a sort of persuasive/explanatory manner, i.e. "This was observed; after it was tested and analyzed, it led to this next thing."  Peterson seems to use a bit of argument from authority, and honestly I'm not sure what he's an authority on (also argument from authority isn't a good way to state your case). 

But then there's the whole other issue of the kinds of people who tend to be attracted to what he says.  He's not alt-right, but he appeals to people who are.  And it's hard to pinpoint exactly how, because of all his evasive language.  But there's just something about it that I find disagreeable and frankly annoying.  This reddit comment sums it up:  "Peterson's got a great gig: pleasing conservatives without ever admitting to supporting them by twisting like an eel rhetorically."  That's exactly it. #entertainment

It seems like most movies these days are either sequels, prequels, or remakes.  I appreciate a good standalone movie, something that exists entirely in itself.  Bonus points if there are no product placement ads, merchandise tie-ins, or things like that.  My Cousin Vinny, A Bronx Tale, and the Sandlot are good examples of this.  (Sequels or prequels were attempted or talked about, but nothing really came of them.)  They told a story, developed interesting characters, and had a beginning, middle, and end.  They weren't tarnished by some greedy movie studio realizing they could eke out a few more bucks by making the exact same movie and calling it a sequel.  A few more recent examples are the Adjustment Bureau, In Time, and Looper.  Sure, some of these movies might borrow some themes or plotlines from other movies or stories, but they're also entirely self-contained. #entertainment

Recently Rosanne Bar said a racist thing on Twitter and got her show cancelled.  It was heartwarming to see pretty much everyone agree that (a) she said a racist thing and (b) racism is bad. 

Samantha Bee, the host of a TV show that makes fun of current events, called the daughter of the president of the United States a "feckless cunt" for posting mommy-and-me pictures on social media while failing to utilize her familial connections to do something positive about immigration policies that are literally separating mothers and children. 

Some of those same people who applauded the cancellation of Rosanne called for the cancellation of Sam Bee's show.  Rosanne said a bad thing and got cancelled.  Sam Bee said a bad thing and should get cancelled. 

But here's the thing:  There's a difference between racism and mean things.  Our society has collectively agreed (somewhat recently) that racism is unacceptable in a lot of circumstances, and racist people should be punished, perhaps not by legal action, but definitely by negative attention.  This is a remarkably progressive viewpoint from our largely regressive populace.  Good on us. 

But Sam Bee said a mean thing.  Maybe someone was offended.  Our society hasn't yet taken a negative stance on being offensive.  We're generally ok with it.  Also, being offended by something doesn't actually mean anything other than the fact that you can't deal with your own feelings in a healthy way.  That's a personal problem. 

To be clear, both things were mean.  But one of them was also racist, and racism is a specific kind of mean that we don't put up with.  This whole episode was yet another false equivalency. #entertainment

I've noticed that my opinion of a video game is sometimes largely dependent on the main character.  One of my favorite games of all time, Red Dead Redemption, is a third-person shooter which takes place in a wild west frontier town, so a lot of the action is on horseback.  That type of game seems unappealing to me on paper, but I gave it a shot and totally loved it.  The way the story was gradually told through interactions with different characters made it surprisingly thoughtful and immersive.  But I also had a strong attraction to the main character, a law-abiding, even-keeled cowboy with a strong sense of justice and a gritty voice.  The voice actor chosen for the part was spot on.  I think any story where you think, "I want to be that guy" means it's a good story and a good character. 

Contrast that with the video game Watch Dogs, where the main character is a cyber criminal who steals money from people on the streets and who's voiced by a man with the weakest, most unbelievable, unemotive voice I've ever heard in my entire life.  The game itself isn't terrible, but the main character completely kills it for me. #entertainment