This just in, Gordon has finally moved out his parents’ place! This means that, due to not having internet in his new digs, he will be absent from the blog for a little while.
If you wake up on Wednesday mornings expecting to dig into a little E> [Evan and Gordon Talk] like a new box of cereal, Gordon’s move can be likened to the following gif:
No cereal for you.
This just means that I’m going to be pulling double-duty for the next little while, doing a Shame Day and a 2 Broke Girls review today, as well as finding some way of filling in Wednesday’s post. And then Thursday and Friday after that.
Some time ago, I submitted a brief post recasting the Batman universe. Today, I will be doing the same for the Last Son of Krypton, a challenge greater than that of the Dark Knight first because it will be pretty much impossible to find a better Lex than Kevin Spacey…
…And second because of how much I hate and despise Superman.
Now I know that’s gonna be shocking news. After all, who could find anything but love and appreciation for an inherently powerful, indestructible being serving the US government and acting without any accountability? What could possibly go wrong?
But my issue with Big Blue is neither here nor there. Presented below, for your thoughts, consideration, and potential outrage are my picks for the cast of the perfect Superman series.
Kent Clark/Superman:
Actor: John Hamm
Why We Want Him: Because in addition to being the spitting image of Superman, Hamm is probably best known for his role as Don Draper, 1960s businessman. While I can’t say that I see Superman downing enough whiskey to kill a bull elephant, I can see Hamm’s immersion in a world with an antiquated sense of morality (and uncomfortable suits) as being a huge bonus in playing Clark Kent.
Cons: Weird as it may seem- Hamm is only 6′ tall- a full four inches shorter than Clark Kent’s reported height. While I like the idea of a slightly older superman, the simple truth of the matter is Hamm may be relegated to the speaking roles while a stunt double or two takes on any action scenes.
Lex Luthor:
Actor: Jason Isaacs
Why We Want Him: I’ve seen Isaacs play some pretty despicable characters (The Patriot), but also nail some complexly heroic ones as well (Brotherhood). Ideally, Lex is meant to be tragic hero- someone who could’ve or should’ve been a great leader of men were it not for his obsession with defeating Superman. If there’s anyone who can do this, it’s Isaac’s (also, did you know he played Lucius Malfoy in Harry Potter? I just found that out).
Cons: He’s not Kevin Spacey.
Lois Lane
Actress: Jennifer Morrison
Why We Want Her: It’s tough to respect an investigative journalist who can’t recognize Superman as the guy who works the next cubicle down from her simply because he’s wearing glasses. This being (in my experience) pretty much the extent of what Lois does in any Superman book, filling her shoes is a job that pretty much anyone can do- the question is, who can do it best? I submit Jennifer Morrison (House, How I Met Your Mother). She’s played intelligent characters, and we’re banking on that offsetting Lois’s apparent ineptitude.
Cons: As I said, L.L., having the same basic role as Princess Peach, could be played well by pretty much anyone- John Hamm included.
General Zod:
Actor: Viggo Mortenson
Why We Want Him: Because we (or at least, I) have yet to see him deliver on being a truly evil character (SPOILER ALERT: he’s a good guy in Eastern Promises).
Cons: I can’t say for certain that I can see Mortenson pulling off the self-assured, swaggering crypto-Fascist character that Zod has.
Bizarro Superman:
Actor: Benecio Del Toro
Why We Want Him: You might think that the anti-Superman would still be best played by John Hamm. I disagree, and submit instead Benecio Del Toro, who (and I mean no disrespect to him, I really like his work) looks more or less how you’d expect Hamm to look if you took a shovel to his head for a while.
Cons: Del Toro is slightly taller than Hamm, and like Hamm, may be beyond doing some heavy-duty action scenes at this point (but hey, 45 is the new 38).
Pa Kent:
Actor: Rutger Hauer
Why We Want Him: Because the man improvised the “Tears in the Rain” monologue in Bladerunner. That’s right- this guy right here made up on the spot one of the most iconic and moving speeches in film history.
Cons: What about “Improvised ‘Tears in the Rain'” did you not understand?
Ma Kent:
Actress: Jessica Lange
Why We Want Her: Because I’ve seen this woman do some incredibly moving scenes and play her insanely layered and complex characters to the hilt.
Cons: She’s terrifying. AHS fans know what I’m talking about.
Jor-El:
Why We Want Him: Because Rickman, in addition to being just generally awesome, has that strange accent (something entirely beyond British) that’s almost alien. Even if Jor-El is only going to have a few moments of screen time, you want to make ’em count for something- who better for the job than Rickman?
Cons: There’s a strong chance that the accent might be too much- but hey, he could always do that flamboyant American one that fooled John McClane.
Jimmy Olsen:
Actor: Rupert Grint
Why We Want Him: Because of the three ginger comic-relief go-to-guys ( the others being Seth Green and Fran Kranz), Grint is the only one young enough to actually pass for the Daily Planet’s whipping boy.
The dearth of creativity that went into titling this post aside, I thought I’d tackle yet another double standard that appears to exist in our culture. To begin with, let me refer you all to my primary example, Season 4 Episode 5 of Top Chef: Masters, “Holly Madison’s Pool Party.”
In this case, the background behind the show itself is pretty inconsequential: 12 award-winnings chefs compete against each other to raise money for charity, et cetera. On this season the chefs spent the vast majority of their time in Sin City [Las Vegas, aka where Gordon resides] and rubbed shoulders with quite a few celebrities. The superstar for this episode was Holly Madison, of Playboy’s “The Girls Next Door” fame, and their task was to cater her pool party.
Enter James Oseland, editor of Saveur and one of the show’s judges. At the party musclebound hunks abound, and after one is encouraged to sit next to the critic he somehow manages to ask “how are you guys gonna like, keep the, this thing [abs], going with, wha- all this food.” As he refers to the man’s midsection he gives it a few pats, prompting responses like the following [which I found on The A.V. Club, of course]:
And Larrybaby’s points are all incredibly valid. Thankfully the guys and girls who peruse the TV Club reviews weren’t the only ones to notice this, and celebrity chef website [yes, it is a real thing] The Braiser did a short bit on the episode. Oseland’s antics are described there as follows:
So, naturally, the daytime cocktails start flowing, the croque madames sizzle on the griddle, and James Oseland starts giddily stripping pool boys. Wait, what?! Yes, Saveur editor-slash-very esteemed and shmancy Top Chef: Masters judge James Oseland gets a little on the trashed side of tipsy at brunch and takes matters into his own hands when a cluster of bikini-clad women fail to get a pool boy to take his shirt off.
James marches right on over to the ripped hunk of manflesh (née “Warren”) and strips his shirt right off. And then he grabs another equally buff guy and steals his shirt, too! James Oseland is shameless, you guys.
Of course, the article then goes on to describe how they’d love Oseland to be their celebrity BFF, but we won’t go into that. The point I’m trying to make is that this man, who, yes, is a homosexual, acted in a way that was inappropriate. More than that, he wasn’t stopped but was actually encouraged by those around him with cheers.
I’m not saying that I dislike watching homosexual characters on television, or that they make me uncomfortable; far from it. Max is easily my favourite part of the sitcom Happy Endings, and his adventures in romance are both engaging and hilarious. I’m still waiting [and I know I’m not the only one] for Raj on The Big Bang Theory to come out of the closet, and more and more I’m realizing that it really is just art imitating life. Living in Toronto I’m very aware that there’s a gay population out there, and it just so happens that TV has finally gotten around to representing them.
What I don’t want to see is gay people, men or women, being handsy when they shouldn’t be. I don’t really appreciate it in heterosexuals, and the same extends to all other orientations. If James Oseland thinks a pool boy is cute that is fine. If he wants to touch him, that is also fine. If he touches him in front of others and without the permission of said pool boy, to flirt openly in a physical way, that is not fine. It’s kind of gross.
There’s not much more I can add to what larrybaby said, because he [or she, I don’t know] sums it all up really well. I’m not a homophobe by any means, but I’d like the world as a whole to keep people to the same standards. Let’s not cheer someone on when they paw at another person they’re attracted to. If we’re going to acknowledge homosexual urges and relationships as on par with heterosexual ones let’s treat them the same way.
I end with another comment highlighting the actions of both Oseland and his fellow critics [context: the hunks were asked about sit-ups, and one actually did push-ups for the critics’ benefit a little later]:
There’s a reason why I’m offering the spotlight to the most iconic psychologist (barring Hannibal Lecter) of all time. You’re probably wondering, “Why? Everyone knows Freud!”
True, but to echo every girl dating a scumbag, “You don’t know him like I do.”
Even with all his fame, Freud is nevertheless the butt of plenty of jokes. He’s often looked on not so much as the founding father of psychology, but a weird Austrian doctor who managed to touch off something huge in his twisted speculation on primal, sexual urges and Oedipal complexes. He’s essentially the equivalent of the crazy 80s hair-band- popular in its time, and now looked back on as a stupid stage of music needed as a simple stepping stone.
The cost of progress is steep indeed…
Now this thought I’m about to reveal isn’t my own, but nevertheless merits echoing.
Imagine if we treated every scientist and inventor the way we treat Freud.
Think about it.
Imagine putting down Galileo for all the stuff he got wrong. Imagine assuming that because 90% of everything Newton knew about the universe was incorrect, he really isn’t worth more than a foot note in scientific history. Heck, Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, yet the guy remains the standard of genius in our age (an honor that should belong to Tesla, but that’s another story).
Tesla Coils: I like to think of ’em as big “**** You, Edison” Towers
Heck, I’m willing to wager that if you juxtaposed everything Freud got wrong about his field, and everything Darwin got wrong about his field, Freud would come out ahead. Yet Darwin is a respected, if not revered, icon of academia and a poster boy for exploration and discovery.
This was the coolest (and only) Darwin gif out there…
Why can’t Freud get the same deal?
That’s all I’m really trying to get at here- the man practically pioneered an entire field of (soft) science. He deserves more than yo momma jokes. His legacy should be more than the stereotype of a bald, bearded psychologist sitting behind a couch (did you know that pretty much no psychologist uses those couches anymore? What a rip-off). Let’s give this guy respect for all he discovered, credit for all he got right, and a shred of leniency for all he got wrong.
It’s only fair. A person who has contributed so much to the world deserves at least that consideration.
EVAN: The particular topic of discussion that comes to us today is more one that finds itself passed back and forth within Christian circles, and that is: “Why is Christian media so bad?”
GORDON: I think the problem is self-imposed by the religion (I use the term loosely) itself. We’re not talking about a lack of funding (we’ve got plenty of good low-budget films), or a lack of good directors (there’s plenty of decent talent out there), we’re talking about an issue that runs right down the core of it all.
“Christian” media can’t just be media- they have to drag in everything that goes with it.
EVAN: So basically what you’re saying, and we talked about this a little earlier, is that Christian media more often than not has an agenda, correct?
GORDON: I’d say plenty of it has an agenda, but no, I don’t think that’s the core issue- there’s plenty of other preachy movies out there.
EVAN: So what are you saying, exactly?
GORDON: I’m saying that “Christians” can’t make good media because they won’t allow themselves to. Every protagonist has to fit the moral code to a tee, so that they wind up as either Aslan 2.0 or the epitome of Christian morality: John Smith, the middle class suburban, patriotic family man. Which is why I keep putting “Christian” in quotation marks.
We’re not talking about Catholic peasants in El Salvador or the East Orthodox Church in Ethiopia.
EVAN: Okay, I like that a lot, this idea that those creators of Christian media [and primarily I think we’re talking about films] box themselves in. They’re telling the same sorts of stories to who they perceive to be their audience [and they’re not wrong]: white suburban middle class families.
To sort of break this up a little, I actually saw a Christian film that was reasonably passable at some point last summer.
GORDON: Was it related in any way to Steve Taylor?
EVAN: Is that any way related to “End of the Spear”? It was not, if that’s what you’re referring to.
GORDON: Steve Taylor is the only good Christian musician who ever has or ever will have existed.
But anyway, what was the movie you saw?
EVAN: It was called “To Save a Life,” and it stood out for a couple of reasons:
1) The cinematography was shockingly good for something produced and made by Christians. You can tell which movies they are within the first few seconds.
2) The “villain” of the piece was actually the pastor’s kid. Which was- refreshing, and kind of nice.
It kind of broke out of the whole stereotype you introduced earlier.
GORDON: Huh- interesting. I’ll have to check out the trailer. But let me ask you this:
Can a Christian make a James Bond movie?
EVAN: You mean a movie starring a suave, debonair British man who beds women and guns down henchmen as naturally as he dons his suit jacket every morning?
I’d say no, probably not.
GORDON: I think that’s the problem. It’s not just that you can’t have any explicit sex or graphic violence or excessive profanity (which are overused and abused as is), you can’t have anything even remotely sensual or rough or crude. It rips away reality and humanity in the name of not stepping on anyone’s toes.
Self-imposed legalism.
EVAN: Well, I’d say the difference is that you can’t have a protagonist who glorifies such things as wanton sexuality-
I say that Christian filmmakers will never produce anything like James Bond because of who the character is.
GORDON: Did you like the movie “Fight Club”?
EVAN: I liked it a fair amount.
GORDON: Did you like “Ocean’s 11” or “Snatch”?
EVAN: I haven’t seen the latter, but I very much enjoyed the former.
GORDON: Did you like “Superbad”? “Kick-Ass”? “Ironclad”?
But I think you’re going to have to get to your point-
GORDON: Could a Christian make any of these movies?
EVAN: I think a Christian could, yes. In relation to “Fight Club”, at least, Christian author Ted Dekker has penned novels [sold both in and out of Christian bookstores] which offer a fairly decent psychological thriller aspect to the reader.
GORDON: Ah, Dekker. The whole reason he stands out as an exception is- I believe- that he grew up among Indonesian headhunters, and not in Middle America. Again, it’s about having that different perspective on life.
EVAN: And I think what he’s realized, as a creator of the arts, as someone who has a hand in shaping Christian media, is that you can have these other sorts of exciting, thrilling stories told with a faith-built worldview. People of every religion want a little excitement.
GORDON: Of that there’s no question. The heavy use of the video library at our school stands in testament to that.
But again I think the issue is that “Christian” self-imposed isolation inevitably leads to the vast majority of their work winding up as “White People Problems” or “Chronicles-of-Narnia-minus-the-good-stuff”…
EVAN: Or “Lord-of-the-Rings-but-way-more-heavy-handed.”
GORDON: Exactly.
EVAN: I mean, we’ve talked a little bit about why Christian media can be bad [terrible production values, cookie-cutter story lines, sheer absurdity], but how could it be better [to harken back a little to our last talk]?
GORDON: They have to stop being terrified of the big bad world. They have to realize they can show characters with flaws- real flaws- not drunkard stereotypes and the occasional swear word.
Saying this will get you expelled from Liberty, Pensacola, and BJU
EVAN: I mean, a deeply flawed person who finds redemption is a much more compelling story than a white bread sort of guy with his middle class problems.
And they have to stop coddling their audience. Yes, Christians turn to Christian media for “better alternatives,” but the odd cuss word won’t negate an overall positive message; neither will a fight scene, or two guys sitting around enjoying a beer.
GORDON: There’s this one scene in a (Christian) movie Steve Taylor directed:
A character hurts his hand loading something into the back of van. He lets loose a cuss word and his buddy chides him for it, saying “God don’t like it when we cuss.”
Later on in the film, the buddy hangs his head and apologizes, saying “I’m sorry. I was upset that you cussed- I should’ve just been upset that you hurt your hand.”
EVAN: Wow. That is very, very good.
GORDON: That right there is the problem not just with Christian media, but with the whole religion.
EVAN: Misplaced priorities.
GORDON: More obsessed with present clean-cut paragons of middle class etiquette than anything really real.
That’s why we turn to “secular” movies for actual substance. The struggle for identity in “Fight Club”, the heroism in “Kick-Ass”, the friendship in “Superbad.”
EVAN: I think what’s really ironic is that Christian media-makers have a Christian-made work out there that’s immensely popular. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” came out just this past December.
GORDON: I again reference an (alleged) quote by Steve Taylor.
“I’m not a Christian artist- I’m an artist who is Christian- it affects what I do.”
EVAN: Really well-put. And something that a lot of us [I speak for many in our graduating class] as writers, musicians, artists, et cetera would benefit from keeping in mind.
And that puts us more than a little overtime.
GORDON: Well, people, you know what that means. Time to vote on our subject for next week.
EVAN: My contribution this time around is . . . wow, I never think ahead . . . masculinity. You’ve done a post about “Manly Culture” in the past, but I want to talk about what it is at present, and how we feel about the shifts and trends and things.
GORDON: Interesting subject. I submit we speculate on the upcoming Star Wars movies.
EVAN: If you think you’re up for it, then yeah, cool. I’ve read quite a few of the post-original-trilogy books, so I know a reasonable amount about the subject.
GORDON: Nerd.
And with that witty response, we’re out! Have a good night, everyone.
To begin with, I’m not a huge fan of Glee. I am a man who can say with confidence how much he loves musicals and acapella arrangements, but the show’s claim to be a melting pot of diversity [a place where Black people, Asians, homosexuals, and the disabled can belt it out to their hearts’ content] is not one I find myself agreeing with. But that’s the topic of another post.
The issue being that Coulton released his own version of the song in 2006, which you can check out [and should, for comparison’s sake] here:
If you really want to scrutinize the two side by side, there’s a track on Soundcloud that simply places both tracks on top of one another [and an in-depth audio analysis, for those of you into that]. Coulton’s issue isn’t simply that Glee seems to have stolen his arrangement, but did so to the point where unique elements he added were copied as well. A duck quack is used to censor an expletive, and [this is practically impossible to ignore] the lyric “Mix-a-Lot’s in trouble” is replaced with “Johnny C’s in trouble” in both versions.
As he has kept the blog post constantly updated, four days ago he announced that having gotten in touch with the people at Glee, the following information was relayed to him:
They also got in touch with my peeps to basically say that they’re within their legal rights to do this, and that I should be happy for the exposure (even though they do not credit me, and have not even publicly acknowledged that it’s my version – so you know, it’s kind of SECRET exposure). While they appear not to be legally obligated to do any of these things, they did not apologize, offer to credit me, or offer to pay me, and indicated that this was their general policy in regards to covers of covers.
While Coulton is unsure of his exact copyright claim to the track, he had obtained a Harry Fox license to release it on an album alongside his own original music. His response is, refreshingly, a mature one in response to this whole ordeal.
In his interview with Wired magazine Coulton shared a very simple solution for the show that spends millions per episode. He suggests that “they could offer to pay artists whose arrangements they use the same amount of money they would otherwise pay a musical arranger,” and that “if they opened with that, I’m sure a lot of artists would jump at the chance.”
Somehow, this isn’t the first time this has happened. Singer-songwriter Greg Laswell’s cover of a song made famous by Cyndi Lauper, “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun”, was also seemingly ripped off for an episode in November 2011. I’ve embedded the two songs for you to compare once again [and because I’ve gotta break up this wall of text somehow]:
It remains to be seen whether or not Coulton’s lawyers will be able to take legal recourse, but for the time being I’m happy that the show is finally being taken to task by those who believe that creativity should be rewarded and acknowledged, not plundered.
Actress: Jennifer Morrison
Actor: Viggo Mortenson
Actor: Benecio Del Toro
Actress: Jessica Lange
Why We Want Him: Because Rickman, in addition to being just generally awesome, has that strange accent (something entirely beyond British) that’s almost alien. Even if Jor-El is only going to have a few moments of screen time, you want to make ’em count for something- who better for the job than Rickman?
Actor: Rupert Grint
Culture War Reporters 
More Writing On Sexual Standards
The dearth of creativity that went into titling this post aside, I thought I’d tackle yet another double standard that appears to exist in our culture. To begin with, let me refer you all to my primary example, Season 4 Episode 5 of Top Chef: Masters, “Holly Madison’s Pool Party.”
In this case, the background behind the show itself is pretty inconsequential: 12 award-winnings chefs compete against each other to raise money for charity, et cetera. On this season the chefs spent the vast majority of their time in Sin City [Las Vegas, aka where Gordon resides] and rubbed shoulders with quite a few celebrities. The superstar for this episode was Holly Madison, of Playboy’s “The Girls Next Door” fame, and their task was to cater her pool party.
Enter James Oseland, editor of Saveur and one of the show’s judges. At the party musclebound hunks abound, and after one is encouraged to sit next to the critic he somehow manages to ask “how are you guys gonna like, keep the, this thing [abs], going with, wha- all this food.” As he refers to the man’s midsection he gives it a few pats, prompting responses like the following [which I found on The A.V. Club, of course]:
And Larrybaby’s points are all incredibly valid. Thankfully the guys and girls who peruse the TV Club reviews weren’t the only ones to notice this, and celebrity chef website [yes, it is a real thing] The Braiser did a short bit on the episode. Oseland’s antics are described there as follows:
Of course, the article then goes on to describe how they’d love Oseland to be their celebrity BFF, but we won’t go into that. The point I’m trying to make is that this man, who, yes, is a homosexual, acted in a way that was inappropriate. More than that, he wasn’t stopped but was actually encouraged by those around him with cheers.
I’m not saying that I dislike watching homosexual characters on television, or that they make me uncomfortable; far from it. Max is easily my favourite part of the sitcom Happy Endings, and his adventures in romance are both engaging and hilarious. I’m still waiting [and I know I’m not the only one] for Raj on The Big Bang Theory to come out of the closet, and more and more I’m realizing that it really is just art imitating life. Living in Toronto I’m very aware that there’s a gay population out there, and it just so happens that TV has finally gotten around to representing them.
What I don’t want to see is gay people, men or women, being handsy when they shouldn’t be. I don’t really appreciate it in heterosexuals, and the same extends to all other orientations. If James Oseland thinks a pool boy is cute that is fine. If he wants to touch him, that is also fine. If he touches him in front of others and without the permission of said pool boy, to flirt openly in a physical way, that is not fine. It’s kind of gross.
There’s not much more I can add to what larrybaby said, because he [or she, I don’t know] sums it all up really well. I’m not a homophobe by any means, but I’d like the world as a whole to keep people to the same standards. Let’s not cheer someone on when they paw at another person they’re attracted to. If we’re going to acknowledge homosexual urges and relationships as on par with heterosexual ones let’s treat them the same way.
I end with another comment highlighting the actions of both Oseland and his fellow critics [context: the hunks were asked about sit-ups, and one actually did push-ups for the critics’ benefit a little later]:
Rate this:
2 Comments
Posted in bizarreness, lgbt, media, sex, television
Tagged abs, comments section, double standards, flirting, gay, Holly Madison, Holly Madison's Pool Party, homosexuality, hypocrisy, J Mann, James Oseland, larrybaby, physicality, pool boy, push-ups, S4E5, Saveur, sexual standards, television, the A.V. Club, Top Chef: Masters, touching, TV Club