Get Deep Into Comics With Denny O’Neil

Bryan Stroud over at Comics Bulletin is interviewing comics great Denny O’Neil.  It’s well worth reading and this is only part one.  It covers stuff like:

  • History and how historical ideas limit us.
  • Parents.
  • Being a writing.
  • Traditional media.

And more.  Give it a read if you’re into comics!

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, publishes books on career and culture at http://www.informotron.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.

 

Super Mario Brothers The Movie: One Of The Worst And Why

hopper tongues it

[Yes, I know I usually do career and citizenship posts here.  But part of a good career and good citizenship is not making terrible movies.  In the light of Scott’s analysis of Super Mario Brothers, I wanted to put in my own two cents on why the film was awful.  Because I care.  And because the film was bad.]

I did not see the Super Mario Brothers film until Riffftrax released it. I had heard it was terrible. I know some people still remember it fondly, especially for the late and truly great Bob Hoskins’ performance, but agree the film wasn’t good. So my first encounter with it was with the talented Rifftrax comedians giving their take, which was mainly wall-to-wall sarcasm with intermittent horror at shirtless John Leguzamo.

At the end I could really only say that despite the truly marvelous commentary, this was one of the worst films I’ve seen. If you know anything about me, you know that is a terrifying statement.

I mean I’ve watched some seriously bad films without commentary. I’m not sure I could handle this one without sarcastic assistance. I can’t imagine the braveness of my friend Scott who viewed it raw for his analysis.

But this got me thinking – why was my reaction so visceral? What was going on in my head? Why would I rather watch, say “Plan 9” (which is bad, but there’s much worse) than this?

So, oddly, inspired by this debacle of a film, I began asking why it was so bad, and what I found surprised me.

Let’s go ask: what makes a film bad?

The Kinds Of Badness

First there are many ways a film can be bad. That’s one of the big problems in saying a film (or a book or a game) is bad – because there are different forms of things being awful. These are not the same or even equal.

After some analysis I came to the conclusion a film could be bad due to the following elements, or combination of elements.

Conceptual: Some films just have bad ideas. They don’t have a good script and concept to begin with. Now some films can overcome this with good acting, clever implementation, and so on.

Implementation: A film has to embody the concepts it has properly. If this is not done, then the film essentially is not embodying its core ideas. Implementation is challenging as a poorly implemented film concept makes it much harder for the cast and crew to make it work – whereas having just lousy concepts may at least be freeing.

Technical: Some films are technically incompetent, marred by bad vocal work, effects, camerawork, sets, and so on. A good film can overcome these limitations, but they can be a drag or limit the film, as we have seen where a good idea is poorly handled.

Casting: Sometimes you have a problem with the cast themselves. A good script, good effects, and people that just can’t carry it or who don’t carry it well can really mess it up. No matter how well you do, the people on screen can doom you.

Ethical: Some films may be bad due to what they have to say or what they do. Some political/propaganda and exploitation works fall into this area. These are films that are morally objectionable.

So a film could be well made but ethically suspect. A film can have a great idea but be ruined by a bad cast or incompetent director. For that matter a talented cast or director can pull off a bad script and make a decent film in many cases. I’d argue the first X-Men film had a seriously mediocre script and concept, but it was handled quite well.

So where does Super Mario Brothers fall in all of this? Let’s check.

Super Mario Brothers: Examine The Terrible

So let’s take a look at the film and how it faired in the areas it could be bad in.

Concept:

The core of the Super Mario Brothers worlds is a strange, whimsical, almost fairy-tail setting. It’s a cartoon thats a bit surreal, with a memorable cast of broadly drawn and wacky characters and some imaginative settings.

Now this is a bit challenging to make a film out of, though as i understand the earlier scripts were more of a comedy. However at it’s heart the Mario world is kind of silly and wacky and likeable.

But you do have some strong themes and recognizable elements to work with – it will take effort, and “continuity” in the Mario world is sort of something that happens by accident.  But you know what you’ve got.

Cast:

The cast was undoubtedly talented, though I question some of the choices (notably John Leguizamo whose comedic approach was grating, and Samantha Mathis who was rather dull). When one examines the cast you find:

  • Bob Hoskins as Mario.  Hoskins was a talented man with great charisma, and frankly a charming Mario. Good call for a non-standard hero. The fact he is so fondly remembered despite the flawed film is a testimony to his skill.
  • Dennis Hopper as Koopa.  Hopper is talented and great at being crazy, a fine choice for a villain. Hopper can dial the insane up to 11, a good choice for the ever self-frustrating Bowser/Koopa.
  • Fiona Shaw as Lena, Koopa’s henchwoman and lover, who had some excellent moments. Not part of Mario’s loose cannon, but a great actress.
  • Fisher Steves and Richard Edson, who showed excellent timing and chemistry as Spike and Iggy. I will note the characters were insanely annoying, but they did actual play off of each other very well, which tells me they could have been used much better.

Oh and no, I have no idea why Mojo Nixon was there. I really can’t say anything but “WTF?”

Technical:

Well, let’s get it out of the way, I expected a hell of a lot better. The sets were ugly, the direction lackluster, the costumes weird in the wrong way. There was clearly money here and the pairing of Morton and Jankel are the people who gave us Max Headroom.

Not only did it all look wrong, but it wasn’t even that interesting to watch. “Workmanlike” best describes the direction, and “inappropriate and stereotypical” describes the set. We were basically watching a post-apocalyptic set with uninspired direction.

Also light guns used as mice? The weird patches of Goomba slime? You wonder what they were thinking.

Of course why were we watching all this wrongness? Well, here’s where we get to the core of how the Super Mario Brothers Film fails

Implementation:

This was not a film about the Mario Brothers.

This was slapping the names of the characters onto two guys, one of who was a legal guardian to the other. This was turing the goofy Koopa into a sleazy politician and an evolved dinosaur. This was a garish, ear-splitting, ugly, noisy movie replete with things that were Not Super Mario Brothers.

There’s weirdly sexual elements at a dance club. Big Bertha, a giant fish creatures, is turned into a large, bosomy bouncy wearing fetish gear. No one kills Goomas by jumping on their head, and they’re just de-evolves dinosaur humans going back to . . . er, yeah.

I could go on. I could list so many flaws with the film that point out it’s basically not a Mario movie in concept or visuals or use of character or anything.

And we get to the crux of it all.

This is not just a film that isn’t “really” Mario Brothers. It is not just a film that doesn’t use many elements of the games. This is a film that actually rewrites things and rewrites ideas to not just be not Super Mario Brothers, but to be its opposite.

No brothers. No color. Characters turned into something else. Weirdly fetishy elements as opposed to something family-friendly. Screeching noises as opposed to goofy sounds. Dark and dreary and dismal as opposed to colorful.

The core of Super Mario Brother’s failure, what makes it truly terrible, is that it is a film that does what seems to be an intentional reversal of its very premise. It’s the Anti-Super Mario Brothers film. It could have been a Mirror Universe Mario movie – actually that would have been amusing, but I’d rather they not try to handle Wario and Waluigi

It didn’t just fail, it went out of it’s way to be completely wrong.

The Ethical:

Oddly I can’t entirely say the film is bad on the ethical/cultural/moral level. It is a bad film, but I can’t call any of the content ethnically questionable.

Admittedly marketing it as a Super Mario Brothers movie when it’s the opposite brings up whole other ethical issues I won’t address.

The Bad Of Being The Opposite

So when I look at this film, I can say what makes it rank among the worst films I’ve seen is that it is a shining example of a film doing the exact opposite of its core material. It takes the core materials and literally does the most inappropriate things with them. It goes from being just from being bad to being wrong. It’s not a failure, it’s an anti-achievement, it’s more of a failure than a simple bad implementation, and it takes effort to get it this wrong.

So I stand by my judgement in that this film is bad, and bad at a noteworthy level in a specific category – it violates its very concepts by its implementation.. In a way it breaks its agreement with the audience by doing a 180 on what it is based on and what it promises to deliver.

It is consciously bad. Someone(s) decided to make the film this way. It was released this way. Incompetence or lack of talent or lack of money is not an excuse here. It was basically made bad by intentional effort – or not enough people stood up and said “Seriously?”

Thus I stand by my judgement. I hope that this provides some insight o your own writing and media work and what can go wrong.

Big hint? Don’t do the opposite of your concept. Good start. Or lack of start. You know what I mean.

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, publishes books on career and culture at http://www.informotron.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.

Way With Worlds: Sex And Worldbuilding – The Biological Imperative

DNA

And its time to talk about sex and worldbuilding. Which, if you think is going to be exciting and arousing, indicates you are either sadly deluded, or really into worldbuilding to a level few are. You make the call, I won’t judge.

Sex in many ways is like air, and not in that it’s part of life and sometimes involves wearing a mask. It’s more the fact that it’s so omnipresent that we can miss out how important it is. We think we know how important it is because we just assume we do – until we really think about it.

Sex is part of being human (it’s why you’re here to be human), so we can get used to it like we do seeing and smelling and touching. That of course means we can miss its complexities, and that means we miss it when creating our worlds.  When you miss something so important in your worldbuilding, you’re far worse at it.

So even if you never delve much into sexuality in your settings and stories, it’s probably there in the background, and it might be in the foreground and you don’t know it.

So first of all, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of sex and worldbuilding – biology.

And let’s take a look at three basic things you may face – sexual biology that is familiar, sexual biology that is similar to our world, and completely different species.

But first, let’s remember what sex is for.

The Purpose Of Sex

Sex is about information – progenitors are able to transmit information about themselves in a way that allows it to be used to create new life.  In the case of humans, the DNA of the parents provides the blueprint for a new person to develop in the body of one of the partners.  No matter what kind of creatures you build, sex comes down to information being used to create new life – even if in the case of simple creatures its the information being copied in simple cellular division.

Sex in many ways is like a conversation, though in the case of the aforementioned simple animals, it’s rhetorical.

So when you start thinking about the biology of sex in your setting, always remember it comes down to information.  However it gets more complicated . . .

. . . really, when you think of it all life is about information.  It’s locating food or holding a rally that leads a country to victory in a war.  It’s about smelling out a predator or about listening for the right tone to tell you your significant other is cheesed off.  Life is input and output and retention and processing of information.

In turn, we can also see how living creatures don’t really have distinct boundaries among their organs and instincts and thought processes.  Someone seeking out a mate or a good meal will rally every resource they have to find it.  Our desire for an adrenaline rush can make us seek out thrills skydiving – and in turn someone had to actually rally their mental abilities to invent skydiving.

Now when you add in sex, the core “conversation” of life, you can realize how complicated writing it can be.  That’s the original part of life – the ability to pass itself on.  It’s affected every part of our lives as humans, and ties into our familial instincts, our habits, or ability to form social relations, and even our boundaries.  Sex is everywhere in its own way.

Thus, even from biological points of view, writing about sex becomes complicated because it’s at the core of a living being and because its likely to touch on far more than simple reproduction.

In the end, I find that when writing about sex and designing its point in your world it keeps coming back to these lessons:

  • Living creatures propagate themselves.  At the core a species is about transmission of information.
  • Living creatures lack boundaries among their component biologies – which is understandable because why should they be there?
  • Because of this it is likely that sex for any species you may write will go beyond the boundaries of reproduction and into all aspects of life.
  • This in many ways makes sense as, again, sex is a form of communication/transmission and that is what life is about.

Now with that being said, let’s move on to the three basic kinds of sexuality you may end up designing in your worlds.
Situation Normal

First of all if you’re writing about people that are for all extents and purposes human, i may seem pretty easy to write about sex and ignore it all together. It’s just standard. It’s normal. It’s background noise, though perhaps with an uninspired soundtrack.

This is where things tend to go wrong because we don’t pay attention.

The biology of sex for humans introduces any numbers of complicators that may play into your story. Just a few examples:

  • Issues of contraception.
  • Issues of social diseases.
  • The duration of pregnancy.
  • Complications of pregnancy.
  • Biological issues due to sex organs, from ovarian cysts to enlarged prostates.
  • Biological transformations such as puberty and menopause.

If you’re going to do any kind of setting with regular people, the biology of sex is likely to come up, even if it’s just figuring someone hauls off and kicks another character in the junk. They may be minor, but they may be there.

In most cases, writing “humans like us” and sex really focuses not on the biology (with which we have passing familiarity) but psychology and culture. That may lull you into a false sense of security.

So when worldbuilging “normal” humans, take a moment to inventory any issues of sex that may come up. A quick list is:

  • What diseases exist that are sexually transmitted or involved? This will also affect culture.
  • What areas of sexual transformation are affected by the setting. In an era of malnutrition puberty and pregnancy will be aversely affected, for instance.
  • What other environmental or setting factors may affect sexuality biologically. This can radically affect your setting – if a virus is causing sterility in your setting, you need to design it to explain why there is a population left in your setting.
  • How do cultural and psychological and even metaphysical elements affect sexuality – attitude, access to contraception, etc. Biology is a powerful thing, but these other factors will affect it.

Even in writing a real-world setting, don’t always assume you know enough about sexual biology to write. A little research is in order if it’s remotely part of your story. Because of many issues (psychological and cultural) you may know less than you think.

Sex And The Possibly Single Almost-Human

Then you get into settings or setting elements where you have almost-humans. Your standard fantasy races, the thing-on-the-forehead-but-human-otherwise aliens, and so on. You know, the beings in the setting that are are for most intent human but a bit different.

It’s often tempting in dealing with almost-humans to do two things:

  • To make their sexuality just like humans.
  • To throw in a twist or something extra, but treat them just like humans.

Both approaches are a mistake. The first is to ignore all other factors that make your species different – unless you’re quite sure there aren’t any (then you may be OK). The second is to forget that small changes can have vast repercussions, especially when you deal with reproduction.

Imagine a human-like race where the gestation period was half the time, completely changing the effect it’d have on the role of women. Lower the sex drive of a species and it might limit their spread (as often seems to be a trope of fantasy dwarves thanks to Tolkein). A few minor changes to your “almost human” races and you have major repercussions to deal with.

In handling the biology of near-human species I find a good way to deal with it is to stop thinking of them as near-human and focus on them as species that has familiar elements. These familiar elements provide you a lot of useful reference points, and from there you can extrapolate on what the differences mean.

Think of it as having a known path, and that makes it easy to figure out where you deviate from it and what happens when you do. This isn’t my favorite method (see below), but is useful.

A few examples:

  • Maybe you have increased fertility due to a hostile environment. In turn as a species tames its world population may be a problem quicker. There’s something to deal with in your story.
  • Perhaps you do limited gestation periods. That would affect the role of women in society as they’re less limited. It also would probably increase fertility for obvious reasons.
  • What if species have no case of menopause or reproductive limits in their lifespan. If couples can easily have children until death it’ll change ideal ages for marrying and conceiving.

However, remember you are creating a different species. Past a few minor changes here and there, you may really be inventing a new species. When things get different from regular humans to any degree, you’re really just designing a completely new species . . . and you might just want to start here to begin with.
Loving The Alien: The Sexual Biology of Non-Humans

And this is where it gets complicated. More complicated – creating a totally new species in your setting and dealing with their sexuality.

In designing a species from scratch, in not having a “human with funny ears” you’re going to enter into a very crazy world. Designing your own species can be tough as is, and when you get to sexuality it’s going to be a challenge because, as noted, sex is so complex and connected to other things in the case of living beings.

Just think how complex sex is for humans, biologically. Now inventory all the non-human species you know about and think about their sexual biology. Now realize you’ve got to create something like that. It’s enough to make you loose interest in sex.

Welcome to the cold shower of world building original species.

So I won’t lie, if you’re going to populate your world with definite non-humans it’s going to require some thought. There is some advice I can provide:

  1. Remember sex is about transmission and propagation, but it is likely to tie into other elements of any species, as noted above.
  2.  Read up on the sexual biology of other creatures and note how they work. It’ll give you ideas, and in some cases probably horrify you beyond words.
  3. Determine how far you have to go. Building realistic species (or building species realistically) can be very addictive and you can go pretty far down any rabbit hole of biology, be it sex or something else.

The key to designing good sexual biology is, like many things, to know how much you have to do then take it a little farther to make sure you know enough.

I’ll just have to leave that up to you.

Sex Is Important

Hope I haven’t scared you off, but sex is a complicated issue, as we all know, however it’s incredibly important to do in your worldbuilding.

It’s why there is a population to experience it.

It’s a part of our own lives so readers will notice its absence.

It’s part of life itself.

It might just be one of your biggest challenge as a worldbuilder. But if you’re able to tackle it, you’ll be rewarded with a very believable world.

Of course once we talk biology, we have to talk about psychology, and that’s next . . .

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, publishes books on career and culture at http://www.informotron.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.