PeterDavid.net

The solution, obviously, is to stage and televise Bat'leth battles and Quidditch matches.

Bravo PAD! I've made that point on many an occasion when someone ridiculed me for knowing obscure Star Trek or soap facts. I simply ask the person some sports trivia question, like "Who won the Superbowl in 1973 and what were the names of the quarterbacks for both teams?" If they can answer even part of that question, I've proved my point.

Well, what does that say about me?
I'm a big sports fan, (I can rattle off obscure stats and trivia) and a big comic/sci-fi fan (I can cite issue numbers and actors' movie roles).

I've heard the sports fans make fun of the comic/sci-fi fans AND have heard the comic/sci-fi fans ridicule the sports fans. Both have disdain for the other.

Why? I've NEVER understood that. I have and always will enjoy both.

"When he wasn't able to DH he was HBP and wound up on the DL when his ERA was 0.73, or else he would have been MVP."

DH= Designated hitter
HBP= Hit by pitch
DL= Disabled list
ERA= Earned runs average
MVP= Most valuable player

So yeah, your comment is VERY confusing since it makes no sense. You should have said: "When he wasn't able to DH BECAUSE he was HBP and wound up on the DL, or else he would have been MVP."

There, that's better. ;)

As someone who enjoys both sports and comic books (yes, we do exist), and has been a pro sporting events and sci-fi/comic shows in several states, here's my perspective:

1. There is a comparable phenomenon to comic "fans who are dressed as Klingons" in the sports world: body painters. Often, they are mercilessly ridiculed (and some, like the Washington R*dskins Hogetts thankfully don't take themselves seriously). Remember the Seinfield "Puddy face-painting episode"?

2. As for sports fans who memorize useless statistics, there are two types: a) fans who memorize sports facts just because they can - they are ridiculed as much, if not more than, comic geeks (remember Al Bundy?); and b) people who use their knowledge of sports facts to make lots of money gambling - they too are ridiculed, right up until to moment when they pull up in their new Ferrari.

As for "43,000, mostly drunkly drunk" patrons, I find that statement to be an example of a grossly and offensively stereotyping sports fans - unless you're talking about fans in any football/baseball stadium in NY, Boston or Oakland, in which case you're right on. ;)

Yeah anyway! ::pulling my Princess Leia costume out of the closet::

But what about the combination of sports and Star Trek?

You haven't lived until you've heard the "Who's on First" skit done in Klingon.

Actually it was a slight adaptation. Instead of a baseball game, the premise was two Klingon warriors talking about how one of them received a new ship to command, but how his crew had unusail names...

The audience had no idea what was going to happen, they were just expecting a Star Trek themed skit. For those who didn't know Klingon, a sheet was handed out to all containing a the key words used.

Before too long, everyone, no matter how well they knew Klingon (and even if they didn't) understood what was happening, recognizing the all-too familiar cadences of the bit.

"Who's the Navigator", "Exactly"

"I Don't know...", "Weapons Control"

There shouldn't be enmity at all. We are all fanatics, just fanatical about different things.

It is possible to be a sports fan and a sci-fi fan! It is possible to love both cats and dogs! It is possible to love both Star Trek and Star Wars! Okay, I'll stop now.

I really wouldn't count the Sci-fi channel as *ours*. I mean, Mansquito killed their credibility for me, that and the fifty million other so-bad-it-hurts Sci-Fi channel originals.

Kill Farscape, will you? Fine. You're dead to me... except when Battlestar Galactica airs.

As for the sports/sci-fi fandom comparison, I'll go you one further. Compare the mainstream, accepted customs of Christianity (gathering in churches, reading and discussing chapters of the bible, singing songs about the main characters of the book) with the fandom of a book series like Harry Potter.

I know, I know. Christianity is religion and religion is sacrosanct--but the entire basis of the religion is based on the worship of figures who only exist now in the pages of a very old book. This isn't an attack on organized religion, mind you, although there would be some irony there since organized religion sometimes likes to organize protests and book-burnings of the aforementioned Harry Potter. I'm merely making an observation about how society tends to marginalize the behavior of some fans, while making other fans, no matter how bizarre their behavior and beliefs may seem to the uniniatiated, a cultural institution.

Here's a thought that's been perculating in my head. Please don't call me a homophobe for it's just a harmless rumination. Here goes: comic book/Star Trek/fantasy fans are often mocked by being weak and picked upon by jocks. Jocks represent sports. Nerds, following this train of thought, are considered effeminate, read: gay. Jocks/sports fans, then, are masculine, read: straight. But, sports fans are sooooo obsessed with facts and minutia that stems from the activities of too much testosterone and men with much better bodies than they'll ever have that the whole is turned inside out as kind of being gay.

Again, just a spitballed thought...

Personally, fanatics of any sort freak me out. I make fun of sports nuts and sci-fi/comics geeks with equal vigor.

Hmmm...Nerds vs. Jocks. The age old struggle that has plague humanity for thousands of years. Just picture the lonely cave man scratching away at his cave wall drawing pictures of heroic cave men fighting off montrous dino's while the other neanderthals are off playing a rousing game of chase the rock. Not much in common there. I think the real picture here is fiction vs. fact. There are groups of people who love to tell stories of fictious adventures, or theroize on any number of "out of this world" concepts, or draw fantastic pictures of far away lands and then there are groups of people who love to tell the story of where their family went on vacation, or talk about the lastest football game, or study pictures in National Geographic. One group likes to think about "what could be" while the other focuses on "what is". Most times it seems that these groups don't get along and both have a tendency to point out each others downfalls but, what's really great is when people from these groups work together. The dreamer and the doer. I think this is the nature of alot of things. In almost every project there's a person who works up a concept and then a person who brings it to life. Now this could be just one person who likes to dabble in both groups or it could be a hundred people from each. Anywho, we all have a part of ourselves that's jock and a part of ourselves that's nerds. It just depends on how big that part is and whether or not you can see the good in both. Besides neither type would be much good without the other in this world. Anywho that's my rant.

Oh yeah, "Almighty Peter", I enjoyed last years Texas Wizard World where you did the wizard school and enjoyed the scripts I purchased from ya. Thanks.

Regarding costuming: we're not talking about someone walking around wearing a Federation tunic over jeans and sneakers, and answering to the name "Keith." We're talking about the Full Monty, here. Or the Full Qu'o'Reth. I'm not terribly hip on the Klingon lingo.

Civilians ought to be more tolerant and less judgmental of such sights and sounds. But I think fandom ought to be more patient and indulgent towards a society in which you just don't meet a whole lot of people who spend their weekends pretending to be someone or something else. Ignorance is natural and forgivable. Intolerance isn't. The words aren't interchangeable and when someone says "Wow! What's the deal with that guy in the cardboard robot costume?" it's probably not said out of hostility.

I'm fascinated by the costuming hobby. I have a sincere admiration for people who have a hobby that they're passionate about and that they invest lots of time, care, and creativity into. The Imperial Stormtrooper 501st legion deserves a great deal of respect. Not only do they put enough pride into their hobby to ensure that their costumes are movie-perfect, but they also mate this to a commitment to community service.

You see this sort of passion in every aisle of a good con. Part of the fun is seeing what sort of character has suddenly caught people's attention. Ghostbusters, Rocketeers, Robot Monsters...all done with a huge amount of care and love. I love to see it, I love to photograph it, I love to meet the people who do it.

At the other side of the spectrum, you have those people who look...well, tragic.

Let's come out and say it. There's a weight limit on a set of Superman leotards, and even if you've got the physique to pull it off, you've got to make a commitment that goes beyond spending $10 in the underwear section at Wal*Mart, followed by fifteen minutes of work with a black magic marker in the con parking lot.

And as for the "rubber Klingon forehead with attached wig"...when it's applied properly (affix it with glue, use makeup to blend it into the rest of the face) it's a nifty little piece of costuming. When it's just plopped on top of the head like a hat, we can officially declare it the Mullet of the fan community.

There's never any justification for rude behavior. I don't take pictures of the bad and sad costumes any more because I realized that the only reason to have such a photo is to say "Get a load of that guy!" and that's uncharitable.

But why do so many people over-react when you suggest -- politely, intellectually, miles away from the convention floor and the fellow in question, in a venue such as this one -- that you think this person looks foolish?

Returning to the Tragic Costume, what's the attitude of the guy in the bad Sharpie-markered leotard? I can't imagine. Guesses:

(a) "Oh, I realize that I look kind of silly. But I'm out here having good, harmless fun. And at least I'm out making stuff and enjoying a hobby -- a hobby that connects me to a community and allows me to meet new people all the time -- instead of spending all my weekends in front of a TV set."

Terrific. I applaud this. No delusions whatsoever; this is somebody I'd happily elect to my school board because here we have a mature, rounded individual. Seriously.

(b) "I don't know what anyone's talking about. I look fantastic."

Mmm...okay. I don't get it myself, but it's not my place to convince the guy that he's wrong.

(When I do come home with a Tragic photo on my memory card, it's usually due to this sort of delusional attitude from a costumer. I'm trying to shoot around Skid Row Spidey, but he keeps leaping in front of me and striking a pose. No joke; the only way to get rid of him was to take a picture. Odd.)

(c) "You know," (theatrical pause) "It's a shame that there are so many mean, closed-minded people, who live only to snuff out the creative flame that drives all of Humanity, who seem incapable of dealing with people who are just a little bit different..." (etc.)

Now this, I can mock. If someone's pointing and laughing at a costumer and clearly trying to cut them down, it doesn't matter how bad thr costume is. That's inappropriate and the person ought to be challenged.

But that's not usually the case, is it? Is it necessary to put on that sort of an air, when someone's just offering their personal opinion of a random photo on a random message board?

Truly, is the only acceptable comment on costuming "God Bless you, sir or madam; God bless you, and God bless your spirit, and God bless the country in which such a thrilling endorsement of creativity and individuality is possible"?

I mean, aren't you allowed to say "Holy cats! He'd have been less naked if he were actually naked! Didn't he understand that you're meant to wear something underneath a skintight white leotard?!?"

Are costumers' egos really made out of marzipan?

Naw. It's disrespectful to think that the average costumer has the fragile emotional core of a pre-teen and needs to be shielded from anything that's not clear, unrestricted praise.

And even when you praise a costume, it's hard to get out of the encounter safely!

One of my favorite costumes from the Boston WizWorld last year was a guy dressed as a character from "Sean of the Dead." I praised it in my photoblog, citing the wearer's ability to unflinchingly evaluate his own body type and then choose an appropriate character. Not just that, but to choose a costume that he was capable of executing perfectly. "He looks like a million," I said, and I meant it.

(the photo in question.)

And a week or so later, I got a rather angry response from him. He was a pudgy guy. I sort of assumed that of the two zombie-fighters in the movie, we was dressed as the pudgy one.

No, he saw himself as the trim, athletic one.

Ah.

I confess that the necktie should have tipped me off (I haven't seen the flick) but isn't that an understandable mistake for an observer to make?

Well, anyway. The true power of the freak flag is that you fly it openly and proudly and you don't care what people think. If you're walking around in a Klingon costume and you're not willing to accept all of the attention you get, good and bad...maybe the freak flag isn't for you.

To be fair, you don't ever see male soccer fans dressed up as Mia Hamm. And you DO see an awful lot of Sailor Steves and ManFayes at cons.

I've been saying this same thing for years!
Even though I am a HUGE Yankees fan, and do indeed have a Derek Jeter jersey.

And hat...

And bobblehead...

:)

I just mailed one of my favourite unjustly obscure films back to NetFlix.

It's called "My Name is Nobody", and respectfully spoofs Westerns in general and those of Sergio "I-didn't-direct-and-you-can't-prove-i-did" Leone, the producer, in particular.[1]

Henry Fonda, in his last Western role, plays jack Beauregard, an aging gunfighter who wants to retire. Terence Hill (who was 33 at the time, but playing a younger character very well) plays a kid who insists he's nobody -- but he can quote you the dates, locations and the nam,es of the losersfor every gunfight Fonda's Jack ever had.

Remembering hearing some of my sports fan friends ratling off the stats of every second-string waterboy on some 2A baseball team, i found that hilarious.

[1]According to friends who were on the set during filming in New Orleans (where they did an amazing job of backdating a large chunk of the French Quarter to 1899) the guy who is listed as director would outline how he thought the next setup/shot should go, and then look at Sergio, who would go either "Si" or "No" -- if it was "No", the "director" would start all over.

Everything has extremes. Some people wear body paint to the football games, some people wear Klingon makeup. If that was all there was, I think everyone would just lump those people together.

So why does Sci-Fi and Fantasy seem less mainstream? The crap. Look at low end football. A high school game, for example. The players aren't nearly as good as professionals, but it's still enjoyable to watch to almost anyone who likes football.

Now look at acting in general. In a high school production of "Death of a Salesman", the acting is usually pretty sucky. However, it's still a well written play. So it's nothing to get embarrassed about watching.

Now turn on Sci-Fi network and watch "Mansquito".

Even grade school football doesn't make football fans look bad, but "Mansquito" makes the entire human race look bad.

There's more that can go wrong with Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Even if the acting and script are good, the special effects and sets may be cruddy. So a bad recreation of 4 people talking in a coffe shop might make you change the channel. A bad recreation of laser blasters and aliens with toilet brushes for arms makes people embarrassed to have every known it existed.

Because sports are manly, sci fi is nerdy. Society's always going to place physical achievement over creative expression.

It's obvious why they're "cool" and we're "dweebs." They can beat (have beaten and will continue to beat) the snot out of us.

I asked the same question years ago when Mitch Albom wrote a very mean-spirited editorial trashing Star Wars fans for their excitement over the opening of The Phantom Menace. He basically ripped on them (us) for getting all worked up over something that didn't matter, sitting in line for hours or days, and for essentially worshipping George Lucas, who "only cares about your 10 bucks" (that's not an exact quote).

I've had trouble respecting Albom ever since he wrote that, but it really was the pot calling the kettle black.

Eric

Funny enough, I'd have to say certain producers of sci-fi could be accused of "separating fans from their money," like certain producers or studios that release multiple versions of the same movie... and many toys (I'm sorry, *action figures*) of the same character with different clothing or heads... and reference books and magazines... and comic books that might not always be of good quality... and collectibles in different forms: cards, lithographs, plates, chess sets, et cetera and ad nauseaum...

and then some of the bigger fish get very protective over their copyrights and get aggressive when fans produce similar material for free, such as informative websites and encyclopedic databases...

hm. Still, yeah attending the Superbowl costs a lot more than attending SD ComicCon... (but will an sports attendee spend more once in the stadium? or will the scifi fan spend more inside the con center? hmmm)

I have a simple response to people who make such silly comments: how many city centers have SF/comics fans (even HULK fans) trashed? How many city centers have sports fans trashed when their favourite team won/lost The Big Game?

The defense rests.

Here's another one: while PAD can surely mention a good hundred or so all time dumbest questions he's ever been asked by fans at a con, can they truly compare to the routinely stupid questions asked by professional journalists of sports figures? Some of these athletes are dumber than bags of fog but even they have to roll their eyes when some dope asks them, after they've just lost the championship by 1 point in overtime, "How does it feel to lose a close one?" It feels GREAT, you moron! I'll need PLASTIC SURGERY to get the smile off my face!

Hey, why all the hate for MANSQUITO? Sure, it's no MANT ("half man, half ant - all terror!") but the Sci Fi channel has done worse. Way worse. RAPTER ISLAND worse.

The sports vs. nerds/geeks difference reminds me of a quote from THE 4400: "A cult is what the big congregation calls the little congregation." If something is generally popular or socially acceptable (like sports), knowing an amazing about of information about it is considered fine, even a detailed interest in that area. If something is less popular (we all know who Harlan Ellison is here, but I've had to tell innumerable people who he is) or socially odd, knwoing a lot about it is considered weird ("why would someone want to know so much bout *that*?) or obsessive.

Of course, things get really odd when traditionally geeky things become really popular, like STAR WARS, LORD OF THE RINGS, and many of the current comic books being made into films. Then all that geeky knowledge becomes... well, not cool, but useful :-)

A year or two ago, Bob & Tom (radio show out of Indy) had Timothy Zahn, of all people, as a guest, and they made the point that EVERYBODY'S a nerd. It's just a question of what they're a nerd about. I believe the question that was asked was something along the lines of, when was the last time you actually saw somebody throw a punch over whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better?

-Rex Hondo-

My Husband and I say the same things that are being said here.

When was the last time you heard of a convention center being trashed due to a SF con?

For some reason SF fans are the only group the PC crowd seems to feel its ok to bash.
A person is told that they are not being "sensitive" if they put down any other group (racial, disabled, old, young, etc.) and heaven help you if you are upset when your favorite SF show is shuttled to late night or preempted completely for a sporting event.

SF is obviously big business or companies like Creation Entertainment or GenCon would not put on large conventions like the Star Trek 40th in Las Vegas or the Star Wars Celebrations in Indianpolis.

Of course, the media never mentions the charities supported by almost every convention pro or fan, and by the celebrities who appear.

I hate sports and sports fans, but what makes them more legitimate fans and fanatics? Because the stuff they rave and rant about is grounded in reality.

It's like asking why people who discuss the politics of the Middle East are taken more seriously (regardless of their professionalism) than people who discuss the politics of Middle Earth.

I personally am tired of the stereotypes of either. I hate it when anyone intelligent - National Spelling Bee Contestants, Bill Gates, Lord Of The Rings Fans - are classified as "geeks" or "nerds". Of course, the participants in each of these endeavors are at least considered intelligent and never have to worry about the "dumb jocks" label.
One other point, I do feel more effort should be made by many of those who love comics to separate more people from their money and buy more of them.
Then more comic books would survive and the companies would take more chances.
Finally, as far as the stereotype of sports fans being drunk...well, a friend of mine and I were once tossing a few back at a local pub and he then proceeded to tell me that "Voyager" was "way better" than either "Next Generation" or "Deep Space Nine".
That boy has GOT to start cutting himself off earlier:)

Seperating fans from their money? Have you forgotten the last time you were in a dealer room? Much as I like "Powers," for instance, I'd never buy a bust of Christian Walker, no matter how beautiful it is, for $150. That's almost a day in the hotel room, or the cost of three MiniDisc recorders.

The trick is that sports teams have conned civic organizations into believing that supporting sports is a great civic activity. Sports stadiums may be used only 20 days a year and lay empty the rest of the year, but cities go bankrupt building them to attract sports teams.

But then again, you couldn't get the City of Orlando to spend a dime to build a comic book store...

For Jason M Bryant's Death Of A Salesman analogy--part of the problem with a lot of high school productions that I've found as a former high school thespian who also worked in the biz in the real world wasn't really a lack of talent on the part of the performers usually. Well, not TOTALLY. But the bigger problem was people that had no business directing anything being placed in charge of these productions. Like the math teacher who thought she was God's Gift To The Boards who couldn't direct herself out of the bathroom.

Now, the costuming thing is just as capable as anything sporting-wise of being taken too far. A buddy of mine in high school put a Swiss Army knife(as an aside, why don't Swiss Army knives have holes in them?) through his hand because I made a crack about how far his Klingon character had fallen after he couldn't do something in our advanced programming class. Dude had some problems, methinks. But then, he HAD just spent twenty five hundred bucks on a head and a costume, so maybe it was a sore spot. And actually, now that I think of it, my ex-girlfriend did punch a friend of ours for saying that Star Wars was better than Trek. But then, we ALL punched him for one thing or another.

Funny thing about this is, Stace and I were just going through the Trek trivia book and I showed why I've been banned from trivia games by her family in four states. I'm just proof of the whole nature-abhors-a-vacuum thing. Perfectly meaningless stuff goes IN, really annoying trivia comes out. Sports-wise, though, hey, I'm still trying to figger out why New York let Hostettler be QB for a season after he went in for ONE PLAY in the Super Bowl and didn't blow it. But, hey, what do I know?

One year at a public affairs conference, I was on a panel entitled "Nerds vs. Jocks." You'd think that it'd be immediately obvious who was who. But the funny thing was that all of the panelists with "jock" credentials considered themselves nerds: Nerds for their sport.

It was just like that "Ebony And Ivory" video, I swear...

Here's another problem: we *expect* to be treated like lower class citizens. The worst thing you can do is take the word "nerd" as an insult.

I used to, but that was a long time ago. These days I'm proud to call myself a geek!

Another major difference between SciFi/Fantasy and sports is that in SF and Fantasy, rapists and murderers are usually villains.

there was a great quote on npr a few weeks ago saying that fantasy sports was dungeons and dragons for people who used to beat up people who played dungeons and dragons.

"George Lucas, who "only cares about your 10 bucks" (that's not an exact quote)."

I hate this statement, and it just shows people's ignorance when they use it. Why do they assume that if someone is rich, it automatically means they are only interested in making money? It's the truly wealthy, successful people who AREN'T all about making money, and who are simply passionate about what they do.

What does Lucas have to do to convince people that he's not in the movie business for the money, short of, you know, giving all his money away?

Robert, poor people want money because they deserve it, rich people want money because they're evil. No amount of logic will ever change that.

Robert, poor people want money because they deserve it, rich people want money because they're evil. No amount of logic will ever change that.

Oddly enough, I've been saying the exact same thing for years. I get jocks and their need to know everything, I don't get why they have to put us down. It's just two sides of the same coin; just try explaining that to THEM.

Interestingly enough, jocks aren't the only ones. One year I attended a Con that shared space with a Church Youth Group Con. If you think jocks put SF/Fantasy nerds down, you hear what the "chosen of God" (direct quote) call us.

Joke was on them. At least a dozen of their Youth group now attend SF/Fantasy Cons. *grins*

I hate sports and sports fans, but what makes them more legitimate fans and fanatics? Because the stuff they rave and rant about is grounded in reality. It's like asking why people who discuss the politics of the Middle East are taken more seriously (regardless of their professionalism) than people who discuss the politics of Middle Earth.

Well, it's hardly accurate to put sports on the same level of importance as Middle East politics. Nobody lives or dies based on the outcome of a game. Well, unless the losing team's fans react REALLY poorly.

While sports may be "real," that can hardly be a measure of how socially important they should be. While a well played sporting event may be exciting, it is utterly incapable of presenting an actual message, while art of any medium or genre (SF and Fantasy included) is.

Look at low end football. A high school game, for example. The players aren't nearly as good as professionals, but it's still enjoyable to watch to almost anyone who likes football.

You obviously never went to a football game where I went to high school. More people went to see the band than actually wanted to see the game. And anyone who's spent any time in central Indiana knows how serious a blow to a football team's ego THAT can be.

When all's said and done, I have no complaints about being a proud geek. Meeting one's future wife at a D&D game can go a long way towards eliminating any potential shame at having it as a hobby. :P

-Rex Hondo-

WHO is talking about Global Warming at a sci-fi or comic convention?? I doubt that is the topic of choice after talking about Star Trek or Superman vs. Hulk. Oh, I get it you say it's a topic at these conventions because it's science fiction, got it. PAD, sometimes you seem soo left you're almost right. ; )

I made a comment in my blog about that recently after seeing all the World Cup fans painted up the colors of their favorite team. Painting body green and white and wearing a fright wig is normal, wearing a TREK costume and reading comic books is weird? Um...

The Current Cinema column(the link is good fpor another few days; after that follow the link to the current review and then use the search engine to find "kryptology") in the current issue of The New Yorker, entitled "Kryptology", begins:

A passing demographer, faced with a crowd lining up to watch "Superman Returns," will find much cause for reflection. There, in heady profusion, will be the flower of American youth, all of them waiting—with that blend of sullenness and agitation peculiar to teen-age boys—to see whether the special effects will meet their fastidious standards. With them will be parents of both sexes, affecting tedium but actually in the throes of a hidden thrill, hoping for a nostalgic return to the Christmas of 1978, when they necked in the back row to the surge of the John Williams score and the voice of Christopher Reeve. Dotted here and there will be Supermaniacs—some of them sporting red underpants, others in panty hose of royal blue, none of them happily married. Last, and quite alone, will be a weary cinéaste, submitting himself to two and a half hours of blockbuster because, and only because, it represents a final chance to witness the union of Eva Marie Saint and Marlon Brando.

It goes downhill from there.

Of course, as one version of the story has it, it was a rather condescendngly "clever" New Yorker piece about an early SF convention, accompanied by drawings showing the fans all wearing propellor beanies (considered the headgear of geeky or nerdy kids), that led to fans defiantly adopting the propellor beanie as a symbol of fandom...

Bill Mulligan: "but the Sci Fi channel has done worse. Way worse. RAPTER ISLAND worse."

I was channel surfing last night just before bed and I thought I saw WCW(or WWE) wresleing on the Sci Fi channel. Can someone who was more awake than I was confirm this?

"What does Lucas have to do to convince people that he's not in the movie business for the money, short of, you know, giving all his money away?"

Making an effort to write or have written decent scripts. The last trilogy was the work of someone who didn't care enough to write a good story.

-------------
Sports attracts greater masses of people all over the world, but its importance in American society seems greater than anywhere else. The social divides between nerds and jocks also seems to be stronger. Although this is only my limited impression.

"Making an effort to write or have written decent scripts. The last trilogy was the work of someone who didn't care enough to write a good story."

I don't think it's a matter of not caring enough. I just think it's the work of someone who has spent the last quarter of a century not writing stories at all. My writing style and skills have changed a great deal in the past several decades. I look at stuff I wrote back then and wince. George Lucas' writing style hasn't changed from the 1970s, back in the days when Harrison Ford once threatened to tie him to a chair and make him speak his own dialogue aloud. And he's surrounded by people whom, I suspect, can't or won't say "No" or "God no" or "George, this sucks."

What he HAS been working on for a quarter of a century is special effects. That's why the films look so good.

PAD

Why is one the mainstream and other not? Because there are more of them!

Why is there a Golf Channel? Becuase there's an audience.

Why is there more than three sports channels? Because there are a lot of sports out there, a lot of games and teams and concurrent seasons; every team from every sport is someone's favorite. Also, there are games that are not actually sports (Poker) that get broadcasted on sport channels.

Why is there one Sci-Fi Channel? I mean, why that high a number? Obviously, through a variety of factors, the one we have is wholly insuficient for our needs and desires. How many programs are on that anyway? How many per day? How much original programming? How much paid programming? How many genre-themed reality shows like that Shannon Doherty death annoyance?

There is the jocks vs. nerds thing.

Also.... sports fans are obsessing about contests. What are we obsessed with here!? Stories! Stories with minimal basis in purest reality.

Thomas Reed,
Contraty to popular opinion, cities do not go "bankrupt" building sports stadiums and arenas. Much worse fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement cause that.
Of course, they are not the boon those who push them say they are either.
But remember, these structures are also used for concerts and the like and get used frequently in most cities beyond sports (I remember after 9/11, the NFL just couldn't move the date of the Super Bowl one week - to accommodate the lost week in their schedule and ensure a 16-game season - because there was this event that was very low-profile but considered just as important).
No, government doesn't pay to open up a comic store, but I sure wish an entrepreneur would open up a small chain of them, ala "Barnes and Noble". Too many people do not have a comic store near them and many who do are unaware of them.
Sean,
As a longtime Giant fan of over 30 years, let me say that Hostettler was named the Giant quarterback not after one play in the Super Bowl as you state, but after starting the last couple of games and leading the team to victory in 3 playoff games, including the Super Bowl. It was not a decision I agreed with, since I am a huge Phil Simms fan and the move turned out to be a mistake, but I just thought I would set the record straight.
Rex,
Your rapists and murderers comment was a bit unfair. Many - if not most pro athletes - do a lot of good.

"George Lucas' writing style hasn't changed from the 1970s, back in the days when Harrison Ford once threatened to tie him to a chair and make him speak his own dialogue aloud. And he's surrounded by people whom, I suspect, can't or won't say "No" or "God no" or "George, this sucks." "

Hee! I remember Carrie Fisher made a similar comment about the dialogue. Yet, for some reason it worked for them in the original trilogy, whereas it didn't work in the second. I don't know, I think it is a combination of factors. I was watching audition clips for Star Wars that showed many different people reciting lines of dialogue. Most of of the time the actors did a lousy job, and that was partly because the dialogue included a lot of fake technojargon. They didn't seem to know what to do with it, so it came out stilted and boring. But when they were compared to the audition clips for Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford (who were repeating the same exact lines), you could see a clear difference. They were spinning crap into gold. It gave me goosebumps.

I totally agree that George had too many yes people surrounding him.

It seems like everytime you've heard all sports statistic categories, there appears another one (a new category) that allows another player to be the best at something (something like "The first person in football to run 3 yards, go back two yards, and then go forward one). I believe sports does provide connections and socialization to those who can't interact with others any other way. It is also a good way to start flirtations with girls who support an opposing team (I've seen it done many times) :)

With respect to global warming, the new movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is definitely worth watching.

Brian

Comedian Toby Hadoke has a great routine about Doctor Who fans and football (the British kind) fans... how they both watch their heroes on TV on a Saturday... the intimate knowledge of history... how it brings families together... the scarves... etc.

I was channel surfing last night just before bed and I thought I saw WCW(or WWE) wresleing on the Sci Fi channel. Can someone who was more awake than I was confirm this?

Y'know, when I first heard of that wrestling was coming to Sci-Fi Channel, for one crazy moment I thought that the KWF (Klingon Wrestling Federation) would finally come into existence.

Sadly, it was just ECW instead.

If I want to pay seven bucks to see an old politician with a projector talk about science beyond his ken.... I want to be beaten severely until I come back to my senses.

At the point where I pay money to see Al Gore preach persuasive about science-thing is the day I should be declared "incompetent" in a court of law and put in the care of a nurse.

I confess that the necktie should have tipped me off (I haven't seen the flick) but isn't that an understandable mistake for an observer to make?

Well, honest unless, in your case, that honesty offends some one because you hadn't bothered to check the facts - in this case, you didn't check to see which character the fellow was portraying. And the two characters in the film are dressed quite differently. :)

Just recently, on some forum or other, I saw somebody make the comment that people who play video games are nerds.

I confess, I kind of scratched my head a bit, especially when you consider that more money is probably made these days from video games than Hollywood movies, which means we're not talking about a small segment of the population here, to which the term 'geek' usually applies.

I've gone to Chicago for a Cubs Convention. I've gone to San Diego for a ComicCon.

When it comes down to it, they're both equal, and it's getting pretty damn old that sci-fi/fantasy/gamers can be pissed on by sports fans as if we're a lower life form or something, when just as many sports fans are over the edge about their teams.

Hell, I think you can just boil it down to human nature. It's the whole "our tribe vs the other" thing.

They're not us and therefore they're kinda strange. And we can hurt them if they're weaker then us (or just believed to be so). That other tribe isn't that different then us so we can kinda get along with them (up to a point) and they can maybe help us with beating up on that first tribe.

Humans seem to work that way no matter what they do. It seems to be how most countries are often run and it seems to be how even the smallest factions of any sort of fandom acts. Science fiction and fantasy fans just get it in the end more often from the media and culture as a whole because most cultures seem to put displays of power (strength, sports, war) on a higher pedestal then they do most intellectual pursuits. And enjoyment of the imagination by adults seems to be seen as the lowest form of even those pursuits.

We can even see the tribe fractures in or own little world of fandom. I know people who love science fiction but think that fantasy is pure drivel and will argue, loudly and with great emotion, with anyone who says otherwise. Trek fans VS (fill in the blank) and vice versa anybody? Hell, the dumbest thing I ever saw was a group of fans arguing, almost violently, about whether the Seaquest was a faster ship then Starbug.

We all do it. How many times has someone you know, or even you, slagged on someone else's sci-fi likes because you couldn't fathom how anyone could ever like whatever film, actor or series? Like most everything else, we only really notice it and take offense when it's directed at us.

But, having said all that, I will agree that we often get the shortest end of all the sticks society likes to bludgeon groups with.

"... but the Sci Fi channel has done worse. Way worse. RAPTER ISLAND worse."

Come on...... House of the Dead II made that look like a Shakespearian production. And this is coming from someone who is a total zombie geek.

"I was channel surfing last night just before bed and I thought I saw WCW(or WWE) wresleing on the Sci Fi channel. Can someone who was more awake than I was confirm this?"

ECW. USA channel didn't want to add the latest WWE offering to its channel as it already runs three to five hours of it a week so NBC Universal (USA and Sci-Fi's parent company) decided that Sci-Fi was the perfect home for it. They at least demanded that the show have zombies, vampires and the like on it. Somehow, it doesn't strike me as any odder then some of the other stuff that has been running on Sci-Fi lately. Law and Order? Murder mystery movies? I think Sci-Fi may be close to ending as the science fiction network and may be slowly transitioning into a baby USA.

" Somehow, it doesn't strike me as any odder then some of the other stuff that has been running on Sci-Fi lately. Law and Order? Murder mystery movies?"

Eh? I haven't noticed any Law and Order on Sci-Fi. I haven't noticed any murder mysteries, either. Are you sure you were watching Sci-Fi?

WHO is talking about Global Warming at a sci-fi or comic convention?? I doubt that is the topic of choice after talking about Star Trek or Superman vs. Hulk. Oh, I get it you say it's a topic at these conventions because it's science fiction, got it. PAD, sometimes you seem soo left you're almost right. ; )

Wrong on all counts. Pretty much every fan-run (i.e. not Creation) sf convention has a signifcant science, not science fiction, programming track. And it's a standard trope among convention programmers that the attendance for a science item will almost always be significantly more than you initially think.

And while it's no longer the case, at least San Diego Comic-Con also used to have science programming.

I'm pretty sure of this because 1) I've been on lots of science program items, including at San Diego and 2) I've been involved with convention programming.

Oh, and Peter? '53 Dodgers in six over the '62 Yankees.

Unsurprisingly, THE ONION said it best: "Walking Sports Database Scorns Walking Sci-Fi Database" (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38664)

>I don't think it's a matter of not caring enough. I just think it's the work of someone who has spent the last quarter of a century not writing stories at all.

In the re-released DVD set of THX 1138, Lucas admits that Francis Ford Coppola had Lucas write - under protest - the screenplay for the theatrical version of Lucas' student film, but when Lucas handed him the finished script, Coppola looked at it and told him "You were right. You're no screenwriter."

"don't think it's a matter of not caring enough. I just think it's the work of someone who has spent the last quarter of a century not writing stories at all. My writing style and skills have changed a great deal in the past several decades. I look at stuff I wrote back then and wince. George Lucas' writing style hasn't changed from the 1970s, back in the days when Harrison Ford once threatened to tie him to a chair and make him speak his own dialogue aloud. And he's surrounded by people whom, I suspect, can't or won't say "No" or "God no" or "George, this sucks."

What he HAS been working on for a quarter of a century is special effects. That's why the films look so good."

That sounds right. When you see him on interviews, Lucas doesn't seem to get the criticism against the new Star Wars movies. I guess he sincerely believed there was WMD in these scripts.

Part of the problem is that the fans still payed to see these movies, so he was never penalized in the box-office. I'm afraid to see what will happen if he tried to go back to Indiana Jones.

It's amazing that the old movies came out as well as they did. It probably helped that ywo of them weren't directed by Lucas.

Still, although it is probably true that the new Star Wars trilogy was not the result of carelessness, It still has the feel as if very little effort was put on structuring the story or characters well. Probably because of the focus on special effects.

----------------

"Hell, I think you can just boil it down to human nature. It's the whole "our tribe vs the other" thing."

True. I never get the need of groups of people to put other people down.

I was channel surfing last night just before bed and I thought I saw WCW(or WWE) wresleing on the Sci Fi channel. Can someone who was more awake than I was confirm this?

It's the reincarnation of the beloved ECW brand. Probably doomed to failure what with the WWE's inability to let Paul Heyman present his undiluted vision, the toll of the last 5 years on the ECW stars, the fact that much of what made the brand unique has been used by the WWE and teh Sci Fi Channel's insistance on utilizing some kind of Science Fiction/horror element in the shows (Which has so far been nothing more than having Sandman beating up a guy dressed as a zombie) (though actually, they COULD probably have some succesful horror elements in the show, in the manner of the original Kane and the Brood).

Wrestling geek. That's me. Yes, it IS rather sad.

The big change in dialogue between the Star Wars trilogies?

No re-writers.

The original trilogy, Lucas had(at least according to a couple of my books which I'm too damn tired to think of the titles of right now) three or four dialogue writers that would take the basic scenes and human-ize the dialogue.

Man's brilliant with coming up with scenarios, ot at least adapting them and blending them. His dialogue, though, needs work. A LOT of work.

"I have a simple response to people who make such silly comments: how many city centers have SF/comics fans (even HULK fans) trashed? How many city centers have sports fans trashed when their favourite team won/lost The Big Game?

The defense rests."

****

Perhaps we have gotten to the meat of the situation. If someone mocks sci-fi fans, they don't think they're in danger... if they mock sports fans, they may get their ass kicked.

Your rapists and murderers comment was a bit unfair. Many - if not most pro athletes - do a lot of good.

Oh, for the love of Christ. I never said or insinuated that all or even most professional athletes are rapists or murderers. Those that are, however, see very little, if any, by way of actual consequences of their actions. The same way with many other celebrities. A popular athlete who has committed a crime will be bailed out, get a token slap on the wrist, and be back on the field for the big game, and thousands of people will be cheering for him as if he were man of the year. Sure, he got drunk and beat a guy half to death over a hooker, but he sure can run fast. What a hero...

And it's debatable how much actual good a lot of the other pros do, even if they are law-abiding citizens. Some do, that's a given. But a great many are just whining, money-grubbing prima donnas.

I know, I have a particularly dim view of pro sports in the US, but when Indianapolis builds ANOTHER stadium for the Colts instead of fixing our outdated sewers or crummy streets, or letting an internationally renowned ballet company go under instead of spending any cash on the arts, that sort of thing can happen.

-Rex Hondo-

The big change in dialogue between the Star Wars trilogies?

No re-writers.

*nods*

I think Lucas is a lot like Tolkien. Both are tremendously talented world-builders, but when their creations really get to shine is when others get to play in the sandbox. The LOTR movies blow the books out of the water, and a lot of the SW Expanded Universe stuff makes the prequel films look particularly crudely written.

-Rex Hondo-

"The worst thing you can do is take the word "nerd" as an insult.

I used to, but that was a long time ago. These days I'm proud to call myself a geek!"

Sure, next time try telling a black guy not to take offense when a non-black calls him a nigger.

If you call yourself something and mean it as a compliment, it doesn't mean someone else means it that way when they use it. Just listen to how Ann Coulter transforms the word "liberal".

"Sure, next time try telling a black guy not to take offense when a non-black calls him a nigger."

Wow, what an incredible exageration of my statement.

Why don't you go ahead and compare me to Nazis? I know you want to!

I think what Peter was trying to say is that it is one thing to call yourself a geek. It is another thing for someone else to call you a geek. Or more accurately, it is another thing for someone else to call you a geek and stick your head in the toilet and tap the flushing mechanism.

"Stick your head in the toilet and tap the flushing mechanism" falls into the "sticks and stones" category, in that it's a physical attack. That doesn't happen because of people finding a social group or any of the other things mentioned in this thread. It's a violent attack that would have been directed at *somebody* even if the grouping issue didn't exist.

And yes, when you call yourself a geek and stop worrying about it, it stops mattering what anyone else calls you. If someone calls you a geek and you are, no problem. If someone calls you a gearhead and you don't like cars, then you don't get insulted because it's not insulting it's just inaccurate. If someone physically attacks you, then his opinion about science fiction is irrelevant!

Peter's comment was absurd. Even the extremes of jocks vs. nerds is nowhere near the racial hatred that he's comparing it to. It's a gigantic exaggeration and not the least bit applicable to the conversation.

"Man's brilliant with coming up with scenarios, ot at least adapting them and blending them. His dialogue, though, needs work. A LOT of work."

"I think Lucas is a lot like Tolkien. Both are tremendously talented world-builders, but when their creations really get to shine is when others get to play in the sandbox. The LOTR movies blow the books out of the water, and a lot of the SW Expanded Universe stuff makes the prequel films look particularly crudely written."

The problem was not only with the dialogue. The prequels were bad on so many levels even the catering sucked. The scenarios were prety bad too; not well structured or tied up together. Some of the characters had unused potential, but that can be said about everything in those movies. I used to think the battle scenes were good, but now I can't even say that. Character interaction also didn't really work. [It is difficult to explain why I think these things didn't work without going into detail, so this discussion might be pointless].

World creating? I've read books in which world creation was good and the rest not so. But it is unfair to Tolkein and Lucas to say that about them. Tolkein was a briliant world creator, but much more than that. The characters and story may be old fashioned, but they worked. Lucas may be great at visualizing worlds, but not at creating them in the more detailed sense. He missed completely on his attempt to create the final stages of the Old Republic,

He is really good at the visuals. But you know what, even that got tarnished for me because he seemed to be using the movies to compete with other directors. The homage to Spartacus in the Phantom Menace was pretty cool. But the Gladiator arena in Attack of the Clones and the Titanic and River of Lava in the third movie were a little embarassing. I'm happy that Lucas's lava river is bigger than Peter Jackson's, but as far as a story is concerned Lucas's river seemed hollow.

I don't think the LOTR movies were distinctly better than the books. Most of the time the movies did a really good job of transfering the books to movie format. When they didn't it was not bad but not better than the books either.

A trilogy I'd like to see turn into a movie -- Dragonlance. It is a pretty straighforward story, not to complicated or long, very suited for movies. Good carcters more modern than LOTR. Decent roles for women. And with the right director great visuals. More colorful palette than LOTR. Yimou Zhang (House of the Flying Daggers) should direct, or Ang Lee. I think it would be a box office success.

-----------------

I think nerds are more oppressed in the US than other countries is because of the high status of sports and the competitive nature of society. In American society nerds are not only weird, they are 'loosers.'

I know, Jason, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek and not very successful at it.

Micha hit it hard. Tolkien, Lucas, and Roddenberry for that matter, all created something great, but it's only the foundation. It's the starting point. It's where it all begins, but it's the details that others have added.

Dragonlance the Movie, huh? Never a big fan, myself. Just couldn't get into them. I really think if any TSR properties got made into a movie, I'd love to see some of Salvatore's Realms books. But that's just the fanboy in me. That's one of the reasons I hope they DON'T make them. As good as Jackson's LOTR movies are, and as much as I like watching them, I kinda lost something when I watched them. I always pictured Aragorn a lot scruffier than Jackson made him, Arwen a lot more exotic, and I'm still disappointed that Bombadil was nowhere to be found. But now, when I think of the characters, I can't help but picture Mortensen and Tyler. Drizzt lives in my mind's eye, along with the rest, and no matter how close they come, no one will ever be the Drizzt in my head.

I have people in my head. Rooms are available cheap. Not like I'm using the space up there, anyway.

A trilogy I'd like to see turn into a movie -- Dragonlance.

www.Dragonlance-Movie.com

The site is a decade old, but there's fresh news for you. :)

"Eh? I haven't noticed any Law and Order on Sci-Fi. I haven't noticed any murder mysteries, either. Are you sure you were watching Sci-Fi?"

Yeah. The channel ran a one night block (about two or three weeks ago) of Law & Order: SVU eps that were a little X-File-ish in their storyline. My wife is a huge L&O fan and that's how we ended up watching it. The Sunday after that they ran a seriel killer movie.

"Wrestling geek. That's me. Yes, it IS rather sad."

Wrestling geeks rule the world.

"A trilogy I'd like to see turn into a movie -- Dragonlance."

I could live with the first trilogy but I would die for the twins trilogy.

Jerry C-
OoooOOooo the twins trilogy. I'd watch that. but who would you cast as the twins?
Kath

I used to always answer that by saying that I would want unkowns in the roles. Now, while still not sure who would make a perfect Caramon, I would pay damn good money to see Raistlin played by Cillian Murphy.

I personally don't see what the problem is with the Star Wars prequels. I think they're great movies, and certainly an improvement over Return of the Jedi (the first two, anyway. Episode III had quite a few problems that kept it from being on the same level as the rest of the series).

Really? I thought Episode III was a significant improvement over the other prequels.

My roommate has some serious plotting issues with Episode I. He really dislikes that they started off in one place, spent the entire movie going somewhere to get help, and then went back to where they started without getting the help they wanted. It made most of the movie seem pointless.

Episode II was "Obi Wan is holding me back! Waaaa!"

Episode III actually made me believe that Anikin had nearly legitimate reasons to think that he was doing the right things as he slid towards the dark side. It felt like it was actually doing significant things instead of just fiddling around for large chunks of time.

"Micha hit it hard. Tolkien, Lucas, and Roddenberry for that matter, all created something great, but it's only the foundation. It's the starting point. It's where it all begins, but it's the details that others have added."

You can say a lot of things about Tolkein, but he sure got into the detals. I can think of other reasons why he seems to have lost some of his popularity. A lot of the things he invented are now cliches.His characters and the whole atmosphere of the story may seem old fashioned. They are not cool in the sense that newer characters and worlds are. But still, he deserves a little more credit, I think. I personaly like the feel of the books (and the movies), although I like other styles too.

Lucas (in the original trilogy) is no great world creator. He did not create an especially sophisticated world. The basic story is simplistic and not very original. So are the characters. But somehow it all worked out just right. All the pieces fitted together really well. It was cool. Part of it is the visual aspect. He's a painter, not a builder of worlds or a developer of characters or plots.

Thanks Craig for the news about Dragonlance. Apparently they are working on an animated movie. In the past I would have been even happier about that. But with fantasy, sci-fi and comics related movies getting more acceptance than ever, I was hoping for more. One reason I thought of Dragonlance is because it is the first fantasy I've read. I've probably read better since then, but I have a soft spot for it. But my reasoning was also that it was a safe bet. It's like Tolkein but more modern, more accessible to the general public. Like Star Wars (for which I also have a soft spot) it is very simple but somehow works well, although some of the characters are more sophisticated. I'm afraid an animated movie will never have the same impact as a regular movie.

I liked the Twin Trilogy, but I prefer the Chronicles. I liked the group dynamics, and as much as I liked Raistelin, I found Tanis/Laurana to be much more interesting. Fopr me they are the voice of the story. I feel it is unfortunate that Raistelin & family took over the series. A movie twin trilogy is also something to hope for. There was an actor on the Hallmark version of Hercules (there is a Hallmark channel in my part of the world) that really has a Caramon look. As for Raistelin, the important thing is that it's a good actor who can develop he character well. Johnny Depp has a flare for roles like that, but may be too old. Cillian Murphy sounds good.

"I personally don't see what the problem is with the Star Wars prequels. I think they're great movies, and certainly an improvement over Return of the Jedi (the first two, anyway. Episode III had quite a few problems that kept it from being on the same level as the rest of the series)."

I suppose it is subjective. It is hard to explain why these movies worked when they did, and why they didn't when they didn't. On the other hand, there is a risk of getting to much into the details, because so many things bothered me about these movies. Jason only touches on a few. It was as if almost any decision he made in the movie felt wrong to me. Here are a few things:

Why the over complicated story with taxes and a trade federation, and a 16 year old democratically elected queen?

Why use an annoying little kid for the lead, thus preventing almost any character development in the first movie for Anakin?

Why waste so much time on goofiness in the first, second and third movies?

Why stick Nataly Portman in an ugly Kabookee suit and supress her personality?

Why was there no serious relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan was ever developed, except that they both annoyed each other an the audience?

Why were the villain characters so underdeveloped? Darth Vader steps on the scene in the first few minuted of Star Wars, and has a presence that makes him an iconic villain. Darth Mawl is cool but does not establish a presence. Count Dooku pops suddenly in the last third of the movie with to character or motivation whatsoever.

Why so little dialogue with the old series? You would expect that significant parts of the prequel wil refer to things in the original trilogy, but when it was done it was done very badly. R2D2 and C3PO emerging out of nowhere. The foster parents of both heroes of the original trilogy have insignificant roles in the prequel at best.

And the list goes on. I don't want to bore you even more. But the truth is that most of the time it felt like action scenes glued together. One of the few better parts was indeed the corruption of Anakin in Episode III in between the silly opening act and most of what came after.

I don't know what's wrong with Return of the Jedi. I know some people disliked the Ewaks, but it hardly dominated a large part of the movie. It surely was not as bad as the Gungans, or he droid factory, or the rescue scene in the beginning of III.

As you can see of been spending a lot of time obsessing about this. I should let it go, really. Move on. Take a deep breath. In any case, what was disappointing about the prequels was the feeling that little thought was invested in creating these stories, although they should probably have required more effort than the original trilogy because of the more complex story. Peter is probably right and it was not that Lucas did not bother with the developing a decent story as much as he couldn't. But it still feels a shame, because it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a decent story. After seeing the movies I've spend some time (as I often do) thinking of how things could have been done differently, and ideas started pooring out of my head. It was the only time I saw a story almost writing itself. There were son many other better ways of developing the story of Anakin. I'm certain most people on this board could have come with better ideas even if they were not skilled in writing dialogue. So it is a shame that this much expected return to the Star Wars universe ended up being so mediocre, whatever the reason.

There's nothing WRONG with Return of the Jedi, exactly. It's still a very good movie, I just can't enjoy it like I can the others. The Tatooine sequence is exciting as hell, but the rest of the movie bores me for some reason. And I actually like the Ewoks, so they're not the problem.

As for the prequels, you're right, it is very subjective. I was completely satisfied by them, which is all the more remarkable considering the amount of anticipation I had for them (I think I was more excited about Episode I than I was about any other movie, before or since).

I have a theory that people tend to like the first Star Wars movie they saw better. The first ipression has a very strong impact on people, so that those who saw Star Wars first might be less impressed by the time they saw Return of the Jedi, but others who were too young (such as myself) had their first impression of this kind of movie with Return of the Jedi.

The same thing is true about the new movies. If you look at Roger Ebert's review of Episode I, he was so impressed with the visuals that he pretty much said, don't bother me with characterization and plot, look at the underwater city, the senate etc. (What he actually said was, if you want characters watch Star Trek). So he gave it 4 stars. But by the time the two other movies came out he was not as tolerant, although the visuals were still quite impressive. It probably also helped that Episode I had two of the only characters in this trilogy whose charisma came close to that of characters in the original trilogy (Darth Maul and Liam Neesen). I personaly was very defensive of Episode I at first, because I thought the criticism came from snobs. But over time I reteroactively felt worse about it as I started thinking about the details beyond the amazing visuals. I had a similar delayed disappointed with attack of the clones.

So there is definatly a subjective aspect to it.

I don't wanna get off on a rant here but...Hulk would kick Supes ass..... it'll be like "Doomsday", and we all know how that turned out... the only limit to Banner's strength is his rage... That flea with blue tights is gonna tick him off a little too long, and he'll snap Jor El's little mama's boy like so much Kryptonite kindling...
Of course, I could be wrong.

As far as the Star Wars prequels go, personally, I would say "Revenge of the Sith" is the best, and sometimes agree with Richard Roeper (as in "Ebert & Roeper"), who called "Sith" the best Star Wars movie since "The Empire Strikes Back". (I say "sometimes" because I particularly enjoyed "Jedi" the last time I watched it; one effect I've found the prequels having is that they've increased my appreciation for the Emperor; and also made Darth Vader's change to the good side seem like more of a positive thing.)

"The Phantom Menace" I go back and forth about a little bit. I lost a lot of enthusiam for it after a couple of years - too much of a kiddie movie at times - but I've regained more of a positive feeling for it - beyond the whole "Duel of the Fates" lightsaber fight, which I've always loved.

"Attack of the Clones", I think, has been the victim of too much "Phantom" backlash. People seemed to give Phantom somewhat of a free pass, since we'd waited so long for another Star Wars movie; then when Clones came out, it seemed as though some people had let disappointment with Phantom build up and then unleashed excessive venom on Clones. I very much enjoyed "Attack of the Clones" - I left the theater feeling "THIS is the movie I've been waiting - nineteen years, by then - to see." (Though, to be fair, I was pretty blown away by Phantom at first, too; not THIS much, though.) I have cooled on it a little since then, but, while seeing some flaws - but hey, even Empire's not PERFECT - I do still enjoy and respect it. ...Though I do think that it would have been helped by the inclusion of the two scenes at Padme's family home (as shown on the DVD). The commentary indicates that they liked the character-building but were concerned about length - but they could have cut the meeting with the Queen, for instance. The only thing of any significance to that scene is that Anakin bristles at being called "only a Padwan" - if they really felt they needed that for Anakin's character, a variation on that exchange could have been worked in elsewhere. Anyway...

"Revenge" - wow. A few little disappointments here and there - I know (or strongly think, anyway) that Chewbacca was just added because the fans were like "Chewie's 200 years old - he can be here!" - but it's too bad that he couldn't have had a longer and more significant appearance. (Though it was very cool to learn that he knew Yoda.); pity Vader - fully-suited Vader - didn't have more to say... But, IMHO, this was an excellent and satisfying conclusion to the Star Wars saga. There was no way that it could have completely satisfied everyone who had waited for and anticipated this movie for decades; but, for me, it was powerful enough that I spent several minutes just sitting in the car after first seeing it, and took a while to completely return to normal. The action and the emotion, and the surprises... There is a lot that I love in this movie.

The prequels are at a bit of a disadvantage because of the charisma and comraderie of the original saga's cast. The way those characters just WORKED together - the pre-trilogy doesn't quite have something to compare to that. I will say that I'm a lot more fond of Obi Wan Kenobi after the prequels (not that I didn't like him before), and that Padme and Anakin's relationship seemed more moving and real to me - even before it went bad - in Sith.

As far as the dialogue goes - some of it could work a little better. But, I do think that Lucas may have been going for a more formal approach with Padme, a Senator and former Queen, and Anakin, a Jedi Knight. If one looks at some of the works in the past involving royal courtship, the sometimes-stiffness of the conversation here seems a little more understandable. (Not that the formality is totally consistent...) And part of the problem is the expecations caused by the Episodes IV-VI characters. They were a lot more coloquial in their dialogue - but they were also, for the most part, from more lower class backgrounds. Leia's a princess, of course, but she can snap back and forth between styles - "your foul stench" and such. (Maybe she gets the more casual talk from her adoptive mother? We never did hear how she talks...) And look at Luke in "Return of the Jedi" - he's a lot more stiff in that movie, after he has more or less become a Jedi Knight.

To get back to the orignal topic of this thread for a second: I can write this longish essay about the Star Wars movies, and I'm a big Denver Broncos fan who watches an hour of sports discussion shows (Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption) on ESPN every day, five days a week. What does that make me - a jock geek? ;)

Be passionate about what you love. I love sci-fi AND sports. I have been a Detroit Pistons fan since I was 9. I have only been a STAR TREK fan since I was 11. BUT I have spent much much MUCH more money on my sci-fi passion than I have on my love of the Pistons. On a quick estimate I have spent about $3,000 on sci-fi stuff. I think total I have spent less than $300 on the Pistons. So don't tell me that sci-fi and RenFest doesn't separate me from my money.

I love the theatre, too; I think I have spent well over $600 on plays and musicals.

So even while I have spent significantly less on my Pistons, 80% of my friends will tell you I am a sports nut but never mention my love of the theatre. Besides, it all depends on who you roll with. My friends dog me out for my interest in sports and don't think twice about debating details of the third season of VOYAGER.

EVERY group will be ridiculed for something. If the ridicule bothers you, you just don't love it enough. Here you are spouting off about the ridiculousness of the sports fanbase. So I may raise my voice and get excited about the competition and thrill of a game, but I do the same thing when I talk about books, series, politics, theatre, and SF. Raising your volume is part of showing your excitement.

How sad a person's life must be if they have nothing in it that they care enough about to be excited about.

I hate for this to be a 'me too' post, but I have always thought the exact same thing. Just recently on a Star Wars forum I watch someone posted a link where someone who obviously has a problem with Sci-Fi fans was commenting on the costumes worn by some attendies of a convention: http://krautboy.livejournal.com/243291.html

I admit that some of the costumes deserved to be put down, but some were actually well done ('Ziggy Stardust' and the 'Star Spangled Trooper', for example). But this person put all down equally.

Meanwhile, adult men can go to a football game in near zero weather in duo-color body paint and a rainbow 'fro wig, and still somehow be considered 'cool' and 'normal' :-/. To paraphrase a certain frog: "It ain't easy being Geek' :-)

I may be one of the few that is a fan of both sports and sci-fi... and here in Atlanta, besides the cable stations you mentioned with sports, we also have...

ESPN U - university sports
Comcast Sports South
OLN - which is now a sports channel for the most part...
Fox Sports South
Turner South - which was purchased by Fox and is now a sports station.
The Tennis Channel
Fox Sports World
The NFL Network
The Falcons Channel
The Braves Channel
the PPV channels for every sport...

and I know there are a few more i have skipped...

Is it even legal in the US not to be into sports?

I can't be sure, but I doubt any other culture is as concerned with sports as the American, including countries that are fanatic about certain sports.
(I'm not trying to put down Americans, this is just an observation. Different cultures have different quircks to their collective personalities).

It would seem that the people who make fun of geeks don't do it because geeks don't like sports (although some don't), as much as that they (the 'jocks') do not like Sci-Fi.

It also seems that these streotypes are mostly myths perpetuated by popular culture. It is interesting that even shows that try to present a positive view of geeks often helps perpetuate the stereotype, and also usually differentiates between the false geeks, who are actually models who will be cool if they took off their glasses and brushed their hair, and the real geeks, that are beyond help.

----------------------

Despite the subjective differences of our appreciation of the star wars prequels I share many similar impressions about these movies as the ones mentioned above.

I also had a first enthusiastic impression of episodes I and II when I watched them. I actually came to episode II with a lot more enthusiasm, feeling that in this movie there will be actual character development and interaction (the first one was almost a complete waste in that regard). But after a while the more I thought back on the movies the more disappointed I became. Not because of how they compared to the original trilogy, but because of the wasted potential of these stories. When I watched them a second time I was no longer dazzled by the effects, and even more disappointed by what was missing from the story development point of view. Maybe I'm ruining them even more for myself by overthinking about them.

By the third movie I was already ready for the experience, and had a pretty clear idea what I would like to see, how I would have done it and what to expect. The core of the movie was a satisfying conclusion. It almost had to be. anakin had to be corrupted, the Republic had to fall, the Jedi had to die. I think I had a better idea about how to handle Padme (I have the whole scene in my mind). But it was satisfying.

""Duel of the Fates" lightsaber fight"
It always bothered me that it was two fighting against one.

"Though I do think that it would have been helped by the inclusion of the two scenes at Padme's family home (as shown on the DVD). The commentary indicates that they liked the character-building but were concerned about length - but they could have cut the meeting with the Queen, for instance. The only thing of any significance to that scene is that Anakin bristles at being called "only a Padwan" - if they really felt they needed that for Anakin's character, a variation on that exchange could have been worked in elsewhere. Anyway..."

Bad editing to exclude character building scenes while having overlong special effects scenes, especially the one in the factory. I went further thinking of complete scenes that needed to be added or rearranged. Thinking too much again.

"The prequels are at a bit of a disadvantage because of the charisma and comraderie of the original saga's cast."
that was a major problem. Is it bad directing or just bad luck?

"I will say that I'm a lot more fond of Obi Wan Kenobi after the prequels"
I actually felt that he was cheated as a character. A strong relationship with Anakin was never established. In a way, the character of Qui-Gon was a mistake since he stole Obi-Wan's chance to develop a real relationship with Anakin. Things did not really iprove in the second, and by the third it was too late. Maybe Lucas was lucky. In the old trilogy the relationships were less important but somehow created themselves, but in the new trilogy more intense and layered relationships between the characters than he could provide were required.

I also think you are too tolerant as far as the dialogue is concerned. But I've pretty much shifted from being too apologetic to being too critical and disappointed as the result of overthinking. I felt as if Lucas missed an opportunity because he 'didn't bother to spend as much time on writing and directing as on special effects and the creature and planet workshop. But PAD is probably right and he meant well.

I can't be sure, but I doubt any other culture is as concerned with sports as the American

You are aware that the World Cup is going on, right? :)

Bah! Don't get me started about the World Cup. Every Italian yahoo (let me stress, I'm Italian-Irish-American) in my neighborhood (Astoria, Queens, NY)is running around draped in the Italian flag honking their horns endlessly into the night. You would've thought we caught Osama and all our boys are coming home. What gets me is that I know these Italy fans are probably third-generation Italian-Americans, aren't into soccer at all and probably have never visited the homeland. I embrace my cultures' contributions to the world, but I don't use my culture as a crutch to feel smug and superior. (In my mind, I'm a New Yorker first, an American second and a person of Italian and Irish descent last.) It's the same reason I hate ethnic pride parades. Cultural pride is another way of saying collective low-self esteem. Throw in the factor of sports yahooism and you have mega-ton hooliganism.