Greetings, mortals. For those who don't know me, I am Galactus, Eater of
Worlds. And I hunger...
Subject: cowboy bebop on CN
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!! What, isn't that a clever enough response? (what.body.part.are.ya.gonna.put.for.this.now?@revolutionsf.com)
Mortal, there is no response clever enough to save your planet. As you read
this, my herald arrives, clearing the way for your imminent doom (and my imminent
dinner).
Subject: Episode 2- Attack of the 50-Foot Killer Clones
(Note: What follows is from lack of sleep and an overdose of caffeine.):
OK, I have a request. Could they have paid a writer an extra $50 to come
up with a better title for Episode 2? I mean, you know that whoever came up
with that one was pissed that they ordered lunch out from Taco Bell that day.
Isn't it bad enough that Lucas has taken an Imperial piss on all his fans
with the last one? Now he's making fun of it himself. What's it going to turn
into, a series of James-Bond-like movies? ("Darthfinger" and "OctoJabba" come
to mind).
Anyway, if he really wanted to make it more 'pulp', I recommend having a
scene where Samuel L Jackson shows up at Jar Jar's apartment, comments on
the 'tasty burger' that Jar Jar was eating, quotes Ezekiel 25:17, and then
blasts him into a million pieces. That would be more 'pulp' and more satisfying
to fanboys all over. (rhythman1234@hotmail.com)
Galactus has a better title; I believe you will like it. It is called "Movie
that humans will never see, for they will serve as tasty appetizers for Galactus
this evening."
You'll thank me for it, I'm certain.
Subject: Dumb should mean mute, not stupid
Why is it that men don't fall silent instead of stupid when they see a beautiful
woman? Actually, I'd like to see a man get struck sarcastic by a woman's beauty.
That'd be a much more entertaining reaction.
Kenn, I loved your commentary about creators, but I felt that you sould have
also noted that frequently the opinions espoused by an authors characters
are not at all the opinions of the author (or other creator). The best characters
have a life and style all their own, which can't always be politically correct,
just like people. That's the point isn't it? Too often criticisms of authors
are based on opinions or situations expressed in the context of the story.
I mean, look at the people who think Huckleberry Finn was racist, when that
couldn't be further from the truth. A lot of what you get out of a story is
based on what you bring into it. Maybe the critics should think about that
while they're pitching stones at their own glass prison. The moral of this
rant: don't assume that the main character or characters necessarily represent
the authors opinions. Maybe it was just funny. (sirens_lair@hotmail.com)
Galactus feels that the best stories, as well as characters, write themselves,
and it is mortals that get in the way of the story. Those who allow public perception
to get in the way of the telling do nothing but impede the tale.
For the record, Galactus looks forward to saving Kevin Smith for dessert.
Subject: Kevin Smith- Bane to be GLAAD
I was going to shut up for a while, but I did have a question for Kenn, re:
Kevin Smith and his problems with GLAAD. You'd think they would've said something
when 'Clerks' and 'Mallrats' came out? Oh well, I'm done for now. But I'm
sure Smith's problems will work out in the end. No pun intended. (riddiman1-4@hotmail.com)
Phew -- thought I'd never get rid of Galactus. Fortunately there's a Popeye's
down the street, and World Eaters loooooove fried chicken.
At any rate, I almost wonder, now that I've thought about it for a bit,
if this isn't a work. Smith's brother is gay; so is one of his best friends.
We all know that protests like this only bring more attention to whatever's
being protested, and... Nah. Nevermind. I've obviously been watching too much
X-Files lately.
Subject: Re: I can see your house from here
Kenn, I have to both agree and disagree with your article, and here's why:
First, I don't see anything wrong with boycotting an artist's work if you're
so vehemently opposed to their beliefs or practices that you simply can't
tolerate being around what they've created, however, I would also seem to
think that if you're so opposed to how they think, you'd probably not like
their creations in the first place. But then again, my prevailing opinion
of the two is one that is based on experience, and that would be my love of
the Cthulhu Mythos and Lovecraft's writings. Why is this? I consider myself
a fairly 'left' individual and this pretty much necessitates that bigotry
based upon religion, race, beliefs, ancestry, sexual orientation, etc., is
pretty much out the window with me. I don't like it. I do, however, like Howard
Phillips Lovecraft and the mythos that has spawned from his slightly mad and
terribly creative brain. The difficulty here lies in a letter I read about
Lovecraft written by his wife/ex-wife (I don't know if they ever divorced,
but she did survive him) detailing his extreme hatred of jewish people. Extreme.
I believe the letter said that he would get terribly upset if he knew there
was a jew in the same room as he -- something that I wouldn't tolerate in
a friend or even a casual acquaintence of mine. Needless to say, if dear ol
HPL was around today with the same kind of mindset, I wouldn't find him to
be a man that I'd want to spend any sort of time around, or say any kind words
about. Does this change how I look at The Rats in the Walls? The Lurker at
the Threshold? Through the Gates of the Silver Key? I considered this when
I had read his wife's letter. How does this effect how I see this brilliance
in weird fiction, since I know the author was a complete and utter ass? The
answer: it doesn't. I've decided that I can love the fiction without loving
its creator. Even now, I respect HPL for his brain and its utter genius in
thrusting the world into a new and incredible world of writing, and I can
separate that from my discomfort with his views on race and/or religion. (runewitch@hotmail.com)
You've got the right idea -- boycott. If you don't like something, don't
support it. Tell your friends, and ask them not to support it. That's fine --
take away enough support, and the product/artwork/whatever will lose funding
and disappear back into the underground that spawned it. That's fine.
My problem, as Galactus stated above, is people that want to eliminate all
things that they disagree with. Let's say that you were so offended by HPL's
anti-semitism that you, in your goddess-like state, banned it from existence;
no one can enjoy it anymore. What gives you the right to determine what I can
or can't see? More to the point, what if your opinions start HPL on a path of
questioning everything he writes so that henceforth (I'm speaking from past-tense,
obviously) his material is watered down, smothered in self-doubt?
I think the thing that most bothers me is that creators allow themselves
to get riddled by the public, and thus begin to stand in the way of the creations.
The truest art already exists, and simply needs a medium through which it can
be birthed; if the medium begins to get in its way, the end result is cheapened.
So feel free to boycott it; just don't assume that your way is right, or even
that your beliefs matter to the rest of us, or to the overall grand scheme of
things. To each his or her own.
Or, one man's garbage is another man's art. But that's for later...
Subject: Patrick Stewart playing WHO?!
Screw that. If they get Patrick Stewart to play Spider Jerusalem, I'm going
to have to take a drive to Hollywood and kick some royal ass. IF we're sticking
to normally bald actors, I would think that the natural choice for Spider
Jerusalem would be John Malkovich. Is that NOT the obvious choice? The man
is bald. The man is sexy and psycho, and I'm positive he wouldn't have a problem
walking around in his bare tattoo-covered bum for a few minutes of film.
Sheesh. Do I have to think of everything here? (runewitch@hotmail.com)
Sweet -- a Runewitch ass-kicking. I wanna be there for that. However, Spider
Jerusalem can be played by only one man -- me. That's my last word on the subject.
Subject: Patrick Steward as Spider
NO, NO, NO, NO 1. He's too old 2. He's too authoritarian 3. Spider is more
than just bald
The one to be Spider is Steve Buscemi Younger, thin and plays a really good
psycho (mused@idirect.com)
Oh, crap -- Galactus is back. And he looks like he's worked up an appetite
-- ooh, and he's got some damned greasy hands! Gotta run and find that Ultimate
Nullifier -- anyone remember where I left it?
km
