sxsw__span

HULK WENT SXSW.

HULK DID AWESOME THINGS.

SO PLEASE ENJOY AS HULK TALKS ABOUT THE BEST OF SXSW INCLUDING: MOVIES, FOOD, EVENTS, ART, BBQ, SASHIMI, AND… WELL… PENISES.

ENJOY!

http://badassdigest.com/2013/04/02/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-the-best-of-sxsw


HEY EVERYBODY!

THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT PLOT-HOLES LATELY SO HULK THOUGHT HULK WOULD THROW HULK’S HAT INTO THE RING ON THE WHOLE THING! CHECK IT OUT HERE:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/10/30/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-plot-holes-and-movie-logic/

<3 HULK!

WHY HULK GO TO MOVIES

December 14, 2011

MOVIE THEATERS MAKE MOVIES BETTER IN ALMOST EVERY WAY.

SOMETIMES THAT MEANS DEALING WITH ANNOYANCE.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ANNOYING PEOPLE ARE PART OF IT.

AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF NON-PARTICPATION MAY BE EVEN WORSE…

CHECK OUT HULKS THOUGHTS HERE:

http://badassdigest.com/2011/12/13/film-crit-hulk-smash-why-hulk-go-to-movies/

POST-MODERNISM… NOT A THING

September 7, 2011

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING IS  THE MOST PRETENTIOUS, ESOTERIC, AND WHOLLY UNIMPORTANT PSUEDO-ACADEMIC ANALYSIS THAT HULK HAS EVER WRITTEN. ENJOY!

HULK TOOK A QUESTION TO HULK’S TWITTER A FEW WEEKS BACK:

IS THERE SUCH A THING POST-MODERNISM?

IF WE’RE GOING THE COGITO ERGO SUM ROUTE, THEN SURE IT EXISTS. PEOPLE SAY IT A THING SO IT A THING.

BUT HULK NOT NECESSARILY A FAN OF GOING THAT ROUTE. THAT ROUTE NOT… WHAT’S THE PHRASE… HELPFUL IN ANY SORT OF WAY. LARGELY BECAUSE HULK BELIEVE  “CLARITY OF DEFINITION” ONE THOSE VERY IMPORTANT THINGS IN ACADEMIA. VAGUERY OF DEFINITION = THE ENEMY OF CLARITY AND CLARITY THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CONVEYING INFORMATION. AND IF WE NOT CONVEYING INFORMATION HERE, WHAT THE HELL ARE WE EVEN DOING?

CLARITY ESPECIALLY RELEVANT BECAUSE IF YOU’VE EVER TRY TO GRADE A COLLEGE FRESHMAN’S PAPER YOU WOULD SEE SUCH A BREADTH OF PURPOSEFULLY-VAGUE INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTS MASHED TOGETHER WITH THE CARE OF A TODDLER. THE INESCAPABLE TRUTH THAT HULK WOULD RATHER TAKE A PAPER WITH 4TH GRADE LANGUAGE AND A CLEARLY EXPRESSED IDEA OVER THE HIGHEST-AIMING VAGUERY EVERY TIME.

THIS NOT IMPLY THAT BEING VAGUE NOT SOMETHING WE ALL GUILTY OF. EXPRESSING AN IDEA VERY DIFFICULT THING (ESPECIALLY WITH HULK-SPEAK). BUT THE SAD TRUTH THAT ONCE YOU DISLODGE YOUR FEAR OF BEING FOUND OUT AS “NOT-SUPER SMART” AND ACTUALLY LOOK UP WORDS YOU DON’T KNOW, IT BECOME VERY EASY TO READ SOMETHING AND KNOW IF THE WRITER HAS ANY CLUE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAYING.

WHAT ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH POST-MODERNISM?

A LOT OF THINGS ACTUALLY.

IT NOT THAT PEOPLE JUST BULLSHITTING WHEN THEY TALKING ABOUT POST-MODERNISM, IT THAT THEY SO WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ACADEMIA-BOUND VAGUERY  THAT GO ALONG WITH IT. EVERYTHING ABOUT POST-MODERNISM INVITES VAGERY. THEREFORE, IT INVITES BULLSHIT.

AND MOST OF ALL, HULK CONVINCED POST-MODERNISM NOT REALLY A THING AT ALL… SO ONE SUPPOSES MOST OF THE PROBLEMS STEM FROM THERE. AND ONCE AGAIN, BE WARNED: IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT’S SUPER-BULLSHITTY, HULK GOING TO HAVE TO GET A LITTLE BULLSHITTY HULK-SELF.

COOL? COOL.

LET’S DO IT.

PROBLEM #1 – THE POPULAR CONCEPTION

SO LET’S ESTABLISH THE POPULAR NOTION OF POST-MODERNISM. HULK ASKED THE QUESTION ON TWITTER, AS GOOD A PLACE TO CROWD SOURCE AS ANY OTHER, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT ONE OF HULK’S MANY OBTUSE, LITERATURE-FOCUSED MESSAGE BOARDS WHERE EVERYONE WOULD GIVE 5 PARAGRAPH ANSWERS. NO, TWITTER A PLACE WHERE THE ANSWER WILL NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN LONG-WINDED EXPLANATIONS AND BLISSFULLLY LIMITED TO 140 CHARACTER TWEETS.  SOME OF YOU MAY THINK CROWD SOURCING TWITTER IS IDIOTIC, BUT 1) HULK’S FOLLOWERS PRETTY SMART IF YOU ASK HULK 2) THE REQUIREMENT OF BREVITY NECESSARY TO HULK’S UPCOMING POINTS AND 3) YOU TOO WILL REALIZE THAT MOST OF THESE RESPONSES ARE THOUGHTFUL, FUNNY, AND STRIVING TOWARD A RELEVANT POINT. SO WHAT HULK REALLY WANTS YOU TO CONSIDER IN THE FOLLOWING IS THE WIDE RANGE OF ANSWERS:

catch42_ Matthew Ruddle

Modernism: “Even geometric shapes can be art!” Post-Modernism: “Define art, lolz”

Smile_cat Elizabeth

Not all things modern postmodern. Postmodern not have to be rational or for socio-technology progress. Modernism sort of does.

T_Lawson Trey Lawson

Here’s my take: modernism reworks myth in search of meaning. Postmodernism deconstructs myth to prove the absence of meaning.

tomnomnomnom Doctor Tom

Modernism: seek, gain, lose (always lose) narrative. Post-modernism: don’t even bother. The narrative is a lie.

Sam_Strange Sam Strange

In Shakespeare’s plays you can see how the final bunch looks back and comments on his whole career. That to me is PM.

otakucomics Otaku Comics (Gerry)

modernism includes a sense of nostalgia. Pomo does not.

jettek Jette Kernion

I’m just happy not to hear anyone use the expression “po-mo” anymore. Gaaah.

nuitsilencieuse Tim Baumann

Peter Barry says it has to do with outlook. Modernism is sadly nostalgic, post-modernism is optimistic and vaguely campy.

JasonGBCam Jason Morrow

“Moe” from “Simpsons” explained PO-MO as “Weird for the sake of weird.” Does that make it different from modernism?

teeneyteeney Teeney Hood

Post-modernism is what you want it to be, maybe that’s modernism.

bigtotoro patrick mcdaniel

Breathless? Depends on what you consider modernism.

keithcalder Keith Calder

True post-modernism is what I call earnest-whimsy. Realism tempered by the understanding that it’s possible to deconstruct. Of course I’d never call that “post-modernism” because I think the term is ridiculous.

TheLazy1 Lara P.

Post-Modernism thinks it exists therefore it does. It’s descartesque, really. :)

OKAY…

SO THESE ARE A HANDFUL OF THE INITIAL RESPONSES BEFORE HULK STARTED THROWING OUT HULK’S THEORIES ON EXACTLY WHY POST-MODERNISM NOT A THING. NOTICE HOW THERE (SORT OF) A WAY IN WHICH SOME OF THE COMMENTATORS ARE (SORT OF) TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, BUT THERE ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD WAY TO CONSOLIDATE THEM INTO A SINGULAR COHESIVE IDEA.

WHY THAT SO IMPORTANT? BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE  CONCEPT, HIGHLY ACADEMIC OR OTHERWISE, SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE EXPLAINED WITH A SINGLE SENTENCE. NOT THE TOTALITY AND RANGE OF THE IDEA, BUT THE CRUX OF THE IDEA ITSELF.(1) SERIOUSLY, IF QUANTUM MECHANICS CAN BE EXPLAINED IN A SINGLE SENTENCE, THEN SO CAN ANY CRITICAL GROUPING OF AN ARTISTIC MOVEMENT.

THIS WOULD BE AN APT PLACE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF POST-MODERNISM, BUT HULK WANT TO NOT GO THERE FOR A SECOND, FOR REASONS THAT WILL BE CLEAR IN PROBLEM #2.

HULK JUST WANT IT TO SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE POPULAR CONCEPTION OF POST-MODERNISM IS ANYTHING BUT AGREED UPON OR CLEARLY EXPRESSED.

PROBLEM #2 – POST-MODERNISM = THE SAME THING AS MODERNISM

OKAY, SO MOST LITERARY/ARTISTIC MOVEMENTS TEND TO BE A REACTION TO THE PRECEDING ONE. FOR EXAMPLE, RENAISSANCE PAINTING WAS A REACTION MEDIEVAL AESTHETIC, ROMANTICISM WAS A REACTION TO NEO-CLASSICISM, ETC. ETC. GOT IT? GOOD.

SO IN ORDER TO DEFINE POST-MODERNISM WE REALLY HAVE TO DEFINE MODERNISM FIRST. SO HERE, HULK HAS AUGMENTED A PRETTY GOOD DEFINITION OF MODERNISM FROM WIKIPEDIA: “Modernism was a revolt against the conservative values  of realism [including the] rejection of tradition and its reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms.”

THE MOST OBVIOUS WAY THIS EXPRESSED WAS IN THINGS LIKE PAINTING, WHERE WE EMBRACED ABSTRACT FORMS. WITH LITERATURE, WE FRACTURED THE NARRATIVE. MODERNISM WAS ESSENTIALLY THE CONFIRMATION OF ABSTRACT THOUGHT, MADE LITERAL IN ARTIST EXPRESSION. AND BY NATURAL EXTENSION, IT QUESTIONED THE VALUE OF REALITY/SINGULAR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THESE FORMS MEAN/ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

MAKE SENSE? OKAY.

NOW HERE THE WIKI-DEFINITON OF POST-MODERNISM (HULK INCLUDING THE LONG VERSION FOR A REASON): “Postmodernism is a philosophical movement away from the viewpoint of modernism. More specifically it is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problem of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist of. It attempts to problematise modernist overconfidence, by drawing into sharp contrast the difference between how confident speakers are of their positions versus how confident they need to be to serve their supposed purposes.”

PHEW, THAT A LOT OF DESCRIPTION.  THE FIRST THING YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE WIKI DEFINITION NOT EVEN THAT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT POST-MODERNISM REALLY IS… THIS IS A PROBLEM OF COURSE, BUT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO LOOK PAST THAT VAGUERY AND GET A SENSE THAT POST-MODERNISM MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN OUR SOCIETY, OR SOMETHING. YES, YOU COULD PROBABLY READ THAT DESCRIPTION AND THINK: “OKAY I GET IT. I SEE HOW THE TWO THINGS ARE DIFFERENT.”… BUT IT WOULD BE AT THAT POINT WHERE YOU WOULD BE, RATHER DISTINCTLY, WRONG.

AND THAT’S BECAUSE MODERNISM SAID/DID THE SAME EXACT THING.

HULK MUST RESTATE: THEY NOT DIFFERENT WHATSOEVER. THE ONLY THING THAT’S DIFFERENT IS THAT THEY SOMETIMES CENTERED AROUND DIFFERENT SUBJECTS OR POINTS IN RECENT HISTORY.

LET’S RETURN TO MORE OF THE WIKI DEFINITION OF MODERNISM: “Modernism rejected the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking and also rejected the existence of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator God[8][9] in favor of the abstract, unconventional, largely uncertain ethic brought on by modernity, initiated around the turn of century by rapidly changing technology and further catalyzed by the horrific consequences of World War One on the cultural psyche of artists.”

FIRST YOU’LL NOTICE HOW THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE TODAY, AND SECOND YOU’LL NOTICE HOW POST-MODERNISM THINKS IT IS SO CENTERED AROUND THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTION OF CERTAINTY AND DEFYING TRADITIONAL AESTHETICS.

THINK ABOUT IT. JUST HOW IN THE HELL IS POST-MODERNISM MOVING AWAY FROM MODERNISM?

FOR EXAMPLE, THE GOAL OF MODERNIST ABSTRACT ART WASN’T JUST TO SAY “ART CAN BE ABSTRACT!” BUT TO SAY “ART CAN BE ANYTHING.” THAT’S LITERALLY WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO, TO INVERT OUR CONCEPTION OF WHAT IT COULD BE. AND THE PROOF WAS THAT PEOPLE SAT AROUND AND LOOKED AT MODERN ART AND ASKED “IS THIS ART?” THE PROOF IS IN THE PROVERBIAL PUDDING. THEY HAD THE EXACT SAME CONCERNS AS TODAY’S MODERNIST CULTURE AND THE DIALOGUE CENTERED AROUND THE LANGUAGE WAS THE EXACT SAME IN IT’S NATURE.

SO WHEN AN ARTIST TODAY MAKES A FOUND OBJECT SCULPTURE, OR SOME IDIOT PUTS A CROSS IN A JAR OF PEE AND SAYS “IT’S POST-MODERN” BECAUSE THEY’RE INVERTING THE CONCEPT OF WHAT ART CAN BE, THEY’RE LITERALLY DO THE EXACT SAME THING IN THE EXACT SAME GOAL AS MODERNISM. YES, OF COURSE, FOUND-OBJECT ART IS DIFFERENT FORM THAN ABSTRACT PAINTING, BUT JUST BECAUSE IT COMES LATER IN THE MOVEMENT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S NECESSARILY DIFFERENT. IT’S NOT EVEN A DISTINCTION. THINK ABOUT IT. THE FOUND-OBJECT SCULPTURE IS NOT SAYING SOMETHING AGAINST ABSTRACTION. THEY’RE DOING THE SAME THING IN A DIFFERENT, LATER ART FORM. THAT’S IT.

THE TRUTH IS WE REALLY HAVEN’T MOVED PAST MODERNISM.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN TERMS OF LITERATURE, JAMES JOYCE’S ULYSSES AND FINNEGAN’S WAKE ARE CONSIDERED THE SEMINAL WORKS OF MODERNISM (PRETTY MUCH ALL JOYCE, REALLY(2)). BUT THERE NOT A SINGLE CONCEPT, FORM, OR IDEA USED IN POST-MODERN LIT THAT CAN’T BE FOUND IN THOSE BOOKS. AGAIN, THOSE BOOKS WHICH ARE USED TO DEFINE LITERARY MODERNISM. REALLY, IT’S TRUE. YET TIME AND TIME AGAIN HULK SEE PEOPLE REFERRING TO POST-MODERN ART AND LITERATURE: THE WORK OF ANDY WARHOL. TIM HAWKINSON. THOMAS PYNCHON. DAVID FOSTER WALLACE. THERE NOTHING POST-MODERN ABOUT ANY OF THEM, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT ISN’T MODERNIST ABOUT ANY OF THEM. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HULK WANT BE SURE THIS MAKES SENSE. AND KEEP IN MIND HULK ADORES ALL THOSE PEOPLE, BUT THEY JUST CURRENT MODERNISTS STRIVING TOWARD THEIR OWN PARTICULAR BRAND OF IDEAS.

SO WHAT GIVES? HOW THIS ACADEMIC + POPULAR MISCONCEPTION KEEP HAPPENING?

HULK BELIEVE THE ANSWER COMES FROM A COMPLETELY UNFAIR PRACTICE: THE RETRO-ACTIVE CHANGING OF THE DEFINITION OF MODERNISM TO REMOVE ANYTHING WITH SO-CALLED POST-MODERN LEANINGS.

LOOK, HULK UNDERSTAND THAT ALMOST EVERY HISTORICAL LABEL IS A BROAD STROKE TO IT’S SUBJECT. NEO-CLASSIC WRITERS WEREN’T SITTING AROUND THINKING ABOUT FALLING IN LINE WITH THE RULES OF THEIR CURRENT ERA. THAT WOULD BE ABSURD. AS SUCH, THERE A DEGREE TO WHICH WE CAN REVISE HISTORICAL GROUPINGS OF PEOPLE TO MAKE SENSE OF CONCEPTUAL TRENDS. BUT THIS MODERNISM/POST-MODERINISM SCRAMBLE IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THIS IS STRAIGHT UP MIS-CHARACTERIZATION. GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TWO DEFINITIONS OF MODERNISM AND POST-MODERNISM. TO BE HONEST, IT’S LIKE POST-MODERNISM NEVER EVEN BOTHERED LOOKING UP THE REAL DEFINITION OF MODERNISM.

THE WAY IT IS STATED, POST-MODERNISM STRIKES HULK AS NOTHING MORE THAN THE BASIC INTERPRETATION/GOAL OF MODERNISM, TAKEN TO IT’S FURTHEST LOGICAL/CONCEPTUAL POINT. IT IS A CONTINUATION. AN EXTENSION. AND THERE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING “POST” ABOUT IT.

HULK FLOATED THE IDEA THAT MODERNISM AND POST-MODERNISM WHERE SAYING THE SAME EXACT THING IN THE SAME EXACT WAY  ON TWITTER (SPECIFICALLY THE JOYCE POINT, ALBEIT IN TRUNCATED FORM) AND PEOPLE RESPONDED ONCE AGAIN. PLEASE NOTICE THAT MOST OF THE REACTIONS ARE COMING FROM A PLACE OF GENUINE CARE AND THOUGH, BUT ALSO NOTICE THE RANGE OF ANSWERS:

otakucomics Otaku Comics (Gerry)

Mod = peeling artichoke and enjoying the heart lament the waste Pomo = peeling onion, nothing in center, but fuck it, eat.

not familiar enough with FW, but always thought it was more mod. Crying of Lot 49 is true Pomo.

TheLazy1 Lara P.

Well, they are similar but mainly b/c postmodernism is really a consequence of modernism.

Modernism asked questions to which it sought logical answers. Postmodernism recognized there were no answers.

bg_ohthehorror Brett G.

I think post-modernism is just a little more cheeky/cognizant of meta concerns.

Not that modernism wasn’t meta (FINNEGANS WAKE is a good example), but it generally let the art stand.

But really, I think we feel to need to constantly categorize things as eras wear on. What are we in now? Post-post-post mod?

Smile_cat Elizabeth

Excellent points, but self-identification should not be discounted. If Pomo people say they not Mod, not fair to say they are.

nuitsilencieuse Tim Baumann

Modernism got interrupted by history the way that no other critical movement has been, I think. That’s why it seems that way.

zackschuster Zack Schuster

Postmodernism is different in attitude than Modernism, but not in technique.

What would you call the era we’re in right now? Neomodernist or Post-postmodern? Or something else?

Kilgoar Billy d0x Walshe

Hulk, we can’t arrive at absolute truth because of sensory and lingual barriers.

Jarimor Scott Hawkes

Post-modernism only works until it explains itself through semantic slight of hand, devouring itself with its infallibility

Post-Modernism it is an attempt to plug self-explaining logic into Modernism in order to make it all-encompassing, a fallacy

bg_ohthehorror Brett G.

Oddly enough, wouldn’t post-modernism be the one type of movement that would point itself out?

Carpie2112 Jesse A Carp

I remember discussing post-mod in every class the first two years of uni… by year four it was no longer a ‘valid’ concept.

B_Kritz Bryan Kritz

It doesn’t exist in reality and can never be fully formed. Same as tomorrow, when you are there it’s today. :)

Sam_Strange Sam Strange

my take, and still based primarily on Shakespeare: good postmodernism is an artistic reaction to precedent…

done well, pm storytelling forges new storytelling methods by knowingly diverting from normal narrative paths.

it’s a narrative response to the art form, but not a textual one. I think this is the difference between pm and meta.

warmandpunchy John Cameron

not sure about this – modernism carried with it a certain volume of conservatism as well (in lit anyways)

vs. postmodernism which in multivalent perspective + voice opened doors for feminist/marxist/etc thought in arts

viously an oversimplification but i’d argue that modernism was about style vs. postmodernism being about substance

which it should be pointed out is not hierarchical – contemporary art/thought has benefited from both in fairly equal measure

XtianHardy Christian Hardy

In many ways Moderism became THE method of delivering literary realism see also: viriginia woolf #tryharder

for more info on Post-Modernism see the 1980s-90s, they want their critical theory back

Finnigan’s Wake is post-Ulysses however, which is the arch-text of literary modernism. So yes in a way, FW is post-modern.

Why am I arguing about modernism with the Hulk? Isn’t he supposed to be all smashy-smashy? I suspect @FilmCritHULK is really the Grey Hulk.

AND LASTLY:

tomnomnomnom Doctor Tom

Completely disagree with this logic if you’re attempting to conflate ideals of modernism and postmodernism into one thing.

This is akin to saying that Saussure and Bakhtin because they operated under a mechanism of broad questions and disentangling

…these problems of language and text that they invented and solidified the same theories. This is obviously problematic.

Modernism is concerned with the process of the loss of humanity, the process of the loss of dignity, process of the loss…

of the familiar, of language, of Narrative. Po-mo exploits the lacuna left over as a means to re-create this idealized loss

I would point you to a comparison of Ulysses and House of Leaves – or L’Eclisse to Slacker. #toobigfortwitter

TO BE FAIR TO THESE RESPONSES, HULK WAS TALKING IN BROAD STROKES ON TWITTER (AS THEY WERE) AND COULDN’T EXPLAIN HULK’S THEORY AS IN DEPTH AS ABOVE, BUT NOTICE THE FREQUENT ISSUES OF POST-MODERNISM DEFINITIONS THAT SAY THE SAME AS MODERNISM, ETC. AND HULK COULD RESPOND TO EACH ONE OF THESE TWEETS AND SAY WHY HULK DISAGREE BUT THAT WOULD BE SILLY AND A RELATIVE WASTE OF TIME. HULK JUST WANTED YOU TO THE FULL RANGE OF DIFFERENT RESPONSES. SUFFICE TO SAY, HULK NEVER GOT AN ANSWER THAT CONFIRMS THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT WITHOUT RADICALLY AND UNFAIRLY LIMITING THE SCALE/INTENT/INTERESTS OF MODERNISM.

PROBLEM #3 – BOTH PERIODS ARE POORLY NAMED

IN SOME WAYS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROBLEMS STEM FROM THE FACT WE CALLED MODERNISM “MODERNISM” AND NOT SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC. PROBLEMS INCLUDE: A) IT’S A VAGUE TERM TO BEGIN WITH UNLIKE, SAY, “ROMANTICISM” WHICH VERY SPECIFIC AND DESCRIPTIVE PHRASE. B) THE WORD “MODERNISM” EXPLICITLY BEGS TO BE THOUGHT OF AS WHATEVER TREND IS CURRENT. AND C) THEN CALLING THIS NEW PERIOD POST-MODERNISM IS LIKE CALLING “WHATEVER IS AFTER THAT ALREADY BROAD, VAGUE THING. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT REALLY, AS LONG AS IT’S AFTER.” … YEAH WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT THE PHRASE “POST-MODERNISM” IS QUITE POSSIBLE THE MOST THOROUGHLY INACCURATE NAME FOR A TREND EVER.

SO YEAH, THIS ISN’T A LONG PROBLEM TO DISCUSS, BUT STILL NOTEWORTHY.

PROBLEM #4 – WE’RE TOO CLOSE TO “IT” TO BE LABELING ANYTHING

THE BALL DIDN’T DROP AND ALL OF SUDDEN EVERYONE CHEERED “YAY, IT’S THE RENAISSANCE!”

IT IMPLICITLY TAKES HINDSIGHT TO SEE A TREND. TO SEE WHAT STRIKES A CHORD IN OUR CULTURE (OUTSIDE OF ECONOMIC IMMEDIACY). HULK KNOW SOCIETY IS SO INTERCONNECTED TODAY AND TRENDS MOVE SO FAST (INTENET MEMES CAN BECOME BORING WITHIN… MINUTES?) SO SOMETIMES IT’S BETTER TO WORK WITH FORMS OF ART THAT ARE MORE READILY APPARENT THAN PAINTING, OR LITERATURE. MOVIES ARE ACTUALLY A GREAT EXAMPLE. WHY? BECAUSE THEY’RE SO EXPENSIVE SO THERE IS LESS CONTENT AND ARE SUCH A NEW ARTFORM (ONLY JUST OVER 100 YEARS OLD) THAT THERE IS A MUCH SHORTER TIMELINE TO INTERACT WITH, MAKING IT SO MUCH EASIER TO PUT THE PIECES OF INFLUENCE + HISTORY TOGETHER. FOR EXAMPLE: AMERICAN NOIR WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF GERMAN EXPRESSIONISM. ITALIAN NEOREALISM WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF ALL THE SOUNDSTAGES IN ITALY BEING DESTROYED IN WORLD WAR II. STUFF LIKE THAT. NONE OF THEM REALIZED AT THE TIME THEY WERE PART OF ANY MOVEMENT (THE FRENCH NEW WAVE MAY HAVE BEEN CONSCIOUS THAT THEY WERE PART OF “SOMETHING NEW AND DIFFERENT” BUT THEY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THEIR LEGACY AND TIES WERE UNTIL A FEW YEARS LATER). EVEN WITH SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS BLOATED 90′S ACTION CINEMA IT WAS JUST CONSIDERED THE “CURRENT” AESTHETIC AT THE TIME, BUT WHEN WE LOOK BACK WE CAN SEE THE OBVIOUS AND INANE TREND.

THIS NOT TO IMPLY THAT THIS OVER-WILLINGNESS TO LABEL CURRENT TRENDS RUNS COUNTER TO HULK’S BELIEF THAT “CLARITY OF DEFINITION” REALLY IMPORTANT. THERE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LABELING A SPECIFIC THING TO TRY AND GET TO THE HEART OF WHAT IT’S DOING/SAYING, AND THE INCLINATION TO HAPHAZARDLY LUMP SOMETING IT INTO SOME GLOBAL ALL ENCOMPASSING TREND. FOR EXAMPLE OF WHAT HULK MEANS BY THAT, HULK WOULD FEEL VERY COMPELLED TO TRY AND EXPLAIN/DEFINE WHAT CUARON’S “Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN” MEANS IN A SINGLE SENTENCE. BUT HULK WOULD FEEL LESS COMPELLED TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE LATIN AMERICAN “NEUVA WAVE” MEANS IN A SINGLE SENTENCE. MAKE SENSE?

WHAT’S FUNNY IS THAT THIS “GLOBAL TREND” POINT JUST HIGHLIGHTS THE IRONY THAT POST-MODERNISM THINKS IT DISMISSES THE NOTION OF GLOBAL TRENDS, AND YET ITSELF, CAN ONLY EXIST AS GLOBAL TREND. IF THEY DO NOT, THEN POST-MODERNISM IS JUST NOTHING MORE THAN  STRUCTURAL NIHILISM OR CHAOS THEORY.

SO IF POST-MODERNISM IS WHATEVER THIS “CURRENT” ART FORM/CULTURE TREND IS, THAN TO LABEL SOMETHING AS POST-MODERN IS, AT BEST, GETTING AHEAD OF ONE SELF, OR AT WORST, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ALL-INCLUSIVE BUZZWORDISM.

LABELING IS WEIRD. ONCE WE FOR REAL IN SOMETHING ELSE CULTURALLY (PROBABLY WHEN A TECHNOLOGICAL/SOCIETAL SHIFT DRAMATICALLY AFFECTS THE PRODUCT OF ART, LIKE IF WORLD WAR 3 HAPPENS,  THE ECONOMY DIES, OR SOMETHING MORE INNOCENT LIKE IF WE STOP PUTTING BOOKS ON PAPER), THEN THE REALITY OF WHATEVER THE HELL WE THOUGHT POST-MODERNISM WAS, WILL BE OBVIOUS. (3)

PROBLEM #5 – IT CAN’T EXIST BY IT’S OWN DEFINITION.

THIS ONE A LITTLE BULLSHITTY, BUT ONE OF THE DEEPEST PROBLEMS OF POSTER-MODERNISM IS THAT IT TECHNICALLY CAN’T EXIST. POST MODERNISM BELIEVES THAT THERE NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH, AND ALL CONSTRUCTS ARE RELATIVE. BUT BY PRODUCING A WORK THAT IS “POST-MODERN” EVEN IN IT’S REFERENTIAL STATE, YOU ARE STILL CREATING A DEFINITE CONSTRUCT. EVEN BY WRITING DOWN THIS IDEA, HULK MAKING A CONSTRUCT. THIS MEANS THAT (TECHNICALLY) YOU CAN’T WRITE A POST-MODERN BOOK AND CALL IT A BOOK. YOU CAN’T CREATE POST-MODERN ART AND CALL IT ART.

IT SORT OF A SCHROEDENGERS CAT THING, BUT IT PROOF THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO EVEN BE AMBIVALENT ABOUT OBJECTIVE TRUTH, IS THEREFORE TRYING TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT THAT TRUTH IS OBJECTIVE.

HOORAY FOR PARADOXES.

AND HULK JUST KNOW PEOPLE WOULD IMMEDIATELY JUMP ON HULK’S/SOCIETIES INABILITY TO DEFINE POST-MODERNISM AS PROOF THAT POST-MODERNISM EXISTS BECAUSE THAT WHAT IT SAYING, THINGS CAN’T BE DEFINED, BUT THAT, IS ACTUALLY, IDIOTIC BECAUSE IT RUNS DIRECTLY COUNTER TO THE POINT HULK JUST MADE. IT DOESN’T MAKE POST-MODERNISM “POST-MODERN” IT MAKES WHAT THEY THINK “POST-MODERNISM” IS, MERELY A REFLEXIVE STATEMENT… THAT IT.

OOOH AND THERE’S ANOTHER GOOD PARADOX TOO. HULK’S FAVORITE PART OF THE POST-MODERNISM DISCUSSION IS WHEN PEOPLE CALL SOMETHING POST-MODERN BECAUSE IT EMBRACES THE “NEW MYTH” AND USES MODERNIST CONSTRUCTS TO REBUILD AN OLD GENRE, LIKE A TRADITIONAL ROMANCE OR SOMETHING. THIS IS HILARIOUS BECAUSE SAYING THAT POST-MODERNISM IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO BUILD A NEW-MYTH TRUTH IS THE EXACT OPPOSTITE OF THE SUPPOSED POST-MODERN DEFINITION. THERE’S A FURTHER IRONY, THAT THEY ARE PROBABLY MAKING THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE BUILDING THE “NEW MYTH” IS GENUINELY A REACTION TO MODERNISM (WHICH TO INCLUDES POST-MODERNISM IN HULK’S EYES) THUS MAKING THE IT A GENUINELY “POST-MODERN” CONCEPT! WHICH MEANS THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DEFINING POST-MODERN AS! (IF WE’RE GOING TO USE THAT HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE PHRASE).

ALL WE’D NEED TO DO IS FIGURE THE CONSTRUCT OF THOUGHT THAT ALL LINES UP.

MAYBE IT COULD BE NEO-ROMANTICISM. OR NEO-HUMANISM. HELL, HULK COULD TOTALLY ARGUE WE GOING THROUGH A NEO-RELIGIOUS ARTISTIC MOVE (ONE THAT HASN’T REALLY BEEN ALL THAT REFLECTED IN ART). THE POINT IS WE WONT’ KNOW IF IT’S PART OF ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT TREND UNTIL SOME TIME HAS PAST. BUT IN THE MEANTIME? YOU CAN CALL IT NEO-ROMANTIC PIECE THAT USES MODERNIST LANGUAGE. AND GUESS WHAT? THAT’S A TOTALLY MORE ACCURATE WAY TO DESCRIBE THAN CALLING IT “POST-MODERN.” WHICH, IN CASE HULK HASN’T MADE IT TOTALLY CLEAR AT THIS POINT, COULD FUCKING MEAN ANYTHING.

DAVID FOSTER WALLACE’S RECENT UNFINISHED BOOK IS A MODERNIST APPROACH TO THE MEMOIR. EVERYONE THROWS OUT THE WORD POST-MODERN TO DESCRIBE  IT (AND TO BE FAIR, IT DOES FEEL QUITE REVOLUTIONARY AND NEW) BUT TO DESCRIBE LIKE THAT WOULD ALSO BE VERY, VERY WRONG. IT’S A MODERNIST APPROACH TO THE MEMOIR, THAT MIGHT BE, VERY NEO-HUMANISTIC.

ULTIMATELY, POST-MODERNISM IS SO FUCKING EITHERAL AND VAGUE WHY HAS NO ONE EVER STOPPED AND SAID, “YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS REALLY STUPID. WE’RE TRYING TO LUMP A LOT OF CONCEPTS INTO A SINGULAR THING THAT DOESN’T EVEN MAKE SENSE, AND WORSE ARE THEORY ITSELF ARGUES AGAINST EVEN DOING SO.  AND MAYBE THIS IDEA DISAPPEAR UP IT’S OWN ASSHOLE SO FAST THAT CALLING SOMETHING POST-MODERN IS TO INSTANTLY SAY ‘I HAVE NO WAY OF DEVELOPING THIS IDEA IN CONCRETE TERMS SO I’M GOING TO USE A BULLSHIT PHRASE’ OR ‘I DON’T WANT TO USE CATEGORIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOREVER SO I’M GOING TO MAKE UP A NEW ONE THAT CAN’T BE DEFINED.’”

OKAY… THAT’S SUPER HARSH… HULK SORRY. BUT BEYOND THAT, THE WHOLE REVOLUTIONARY IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE SUPPOSED TO GAIN FROM POST-MODERNISM IS, QUITE FRANKLY, FUCKING OBVIOUS. OF COURSE CONSTRUCTS ARE A FUCKING FABRICATION. OF COURSE WE SHOULDN’T TAKE THEM LITERALLY. BUT CONSTRUCTS ARE WHAT WE USE TO HOLD UP SOCIETIES. THEY ARE, QUITE FRANKLY, THE MOST NECESSARY THING ABOUT OUR HUMAN BRAINS BECAUSE THEY ALLOW US TO MOVE BEYOND CLUBBING EACH OTHER OVER THE HEAD AND STEALING EACH OTHER’S WALLETS.

THE PART OF THIS RANT LABELED A “CONCLUSION”

WHAT PERHAPS REALLY TOUGH ABOUT THIS, IS THAT HULK JUST CAN’T GO AROUND CALLING SOMETHING “MODERNIST” WHEN WE LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT THINKS THIS VAGUE POST-MODERNISM IS ACTUALLY A THING. IT’S LIKE TRYING TO PAY AT THE CORNER STORE WITH MONOPOLY MONEY, MODERN ACADEMIA IS JUST FUCKING USING THE PHRASE AND THAT MIGHT BE THAT.

BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, HULK BEEN ARGUING WITH THOSE ACADEMIC TYPES FOR YEARS ABOUT THIS (MANY WILL LIKELY TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS ARTICLE TOO). BUT ALL THAT’S REQUIRED TO MAKE IT WORK WITH THE OTHER ACADEMIC TYPES IS FOR HULK TO MAKE HULK’S USE OF THE LANGUAGE RATHER WELL-KNOWN AT FIRST BEFORE QUALIFYING.

AND HULK, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, NOT THE FIRST ONE TO EVER SUGGEST POST-MODERNISM NOT A THING, NOR HULK EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO DOING IT AS GOOD AS SOME EXPERTS. IN FACT, HULK REALLY NOT HAPPY WITH THIS EXPLANATION. IT WHOLLY INCOMPLETE AND HULK MAKE WAY TOO MANY UNQUALIFIED STATEMENTS. BUT HULK SHOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO WRITE A COLUMN THAT NOT 12,000 WORDS. AND BESIDES, THIS HAS BEEN THE LEAST FUN COLUMN HULK HAS EVER WRITTEN SO THE THE IDEA OF WRITING ABOUT POST-MODERNISM FOR EVEN ANOTHER PAGE OR SO ENOUGH TO DRIVE HULK TO THE BRINK OF MADNESS.

HONESTLY, IT NOT THAT HARD TO DO.

ALL HULK REALLY WANTED OUT OF THIS WAS FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE SUBJECT A LITTLE BE… TO NOT USE PHRASES WITH A LACK OF CLARITY… TO NOT USE THE TERM “POST-MODERN” WITH SUCH DEFINITIVENESS… AND TO MAYBE BE A LITTLE MORE SKEPTICAL WHENEVER SOMEONE USING THE TERM.

AND BESIDES, HULK THINK OVER-LONG CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FORM ITSELF = ABSOLUTELY THE MOST BORING CONVERSATIONS ONE COULD HAVE. THEY JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT CULTURALLY, NOR DOES HULK THINK THEY’RE THAT IMPORTANT ACADEMICALLY (QUALIFYING LITERARY DOCTORATES AND REQUIREMENT OF “NEW” LEADS TO MOST OF THE PROBLEMS HERE). HULK KNOW LOTS OF PEOPLE DISAGREE. BUT HULK THINK IT REALLY NOT THAT IMPORTANT COMPARED TO ACTUAL INTENT OF SUBJECT.

THERE A GOOD/SUPER-ON-THE-NOSE SCENE IN A DEAD POET’S SOCIETY WHERE THEY READ FROM A PASSAGE ABOUT CHARTING THE “IMPORTANCE” OF A POEM. IT’S VERY SQUARE AND STUPID AND THE REJECTION OF THIS CONCEPT OBVIOUS. BUT IN ANOTHER WAY, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY, REJECTING OVERT CARE ABOUT THE SEMANTICS OF FORM. AND TO HULK, THE POST-MODERN DISCUSSION IS NOTHING BUT THE OVERT CARE ABOUT THE SEMANTICS OF FORM. BY TALKING TOO MUCH ABOUT THE FORM/POLITICS OF MODERNISM/POST-MODERNISM WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE SAME THING, STRANGLING THE VERY THING THAT IS CRITICAL TO OUR HUMAN OPERATION.  HULK THINK IT’S DOING A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE PIECE OF ART. WHAT MAKES DAVID FOSTER WALLACE GREAT IS NOT THAT HE FRACTURES A NARRATIVE. HULK LOVED WALLACE BECAUSE CARED ABOUT OUR CULTURE DIRECTION IN A DEEP AND PROFOUND WAY. THAT’S THE CONVERSATION HULK WANTS TO HAVE.

SAY WHAT YOU WILL, BUT TO HULK? POST-MODERNISM… YEAH… NOT A THING

… BUT IF POST-MODERNISM IS A THING HULK PRETTY SURE IT MAYBE ONLY EXIST IN ARCHITECTURE… OR MARIA BAMFORD.

BAMFORD!

ENDNOTES:

(1) YES, ALL IDEAS SHOULD HAVE A CRUX. AND YES, HULK FULLY AWARE THAT POST-MODERNISM ARGUES THAT SUCH SINGULAR DEFINITIONS ARE FALSE, BUT THE FACT THAT IT CAN’T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IN A SINGLE SENTENCE ODDLY ENOUGH PROVES HULK’S RELATIVE POINT: POST-MODERNISM ISN’T EVEN THAT GOOD AT WHAT IT’S TRYING TO NEBULOUSLY EXPLAIN.

(2)IF YOU EVER WANT TO TEACH KIDS JOYCE AND ALSO KEEP THEM AWAKE, TEACH PORTRAIT OF AN ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN. YOU SORTA NEED TO BE IN YOUR TWENTIES TO TACKLE ANYTHING ELSE BY HIM.

(3) HULK SHOULD POSSIBLY QUALIFY THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN/WESTERN CIVILIZATION HERE. CULTURAL TRENDS ARE, WELL, RATHER DIFFERENT SORT OF DISCUSSION IN FIRST WORLD CHINA OR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.

RANDOM ENDNOTE #1: LOTS PEOPLE CLAIM SHAKESPEARE THE FIRST MODERNIST. POST-MODERNISTS CLAIM HE THE FIRST POST-MODERNISM (EVERYONE WANTS A PIECE OF SHAKESPEARE. HE THAT GOOD). PLAYING THE LEAD IN THE TEMPEST, IN THAT ROLE, THAT NOT POST-MODERN?

WHAT IF HULK TELL YOU THAT THERE ONE SINGULAR THROUGH-LINE TO THE VERY NATURE OF CRITICISM?

HULK READ LOT OF MOVIE CRITICISM. AND HULK MEAN LOT. HULK POSSIBLY EVEN READ YOUR BOOK/COLUMN/SITE TODAY. AND OVER DOING THIS LAST TWENTY YEARS OR SO, HULK BEEN LOOKING FOR ONE SINGLE THROUGH-LINE HELP EXPLAIN WHY CRITICS SAY THE THING THEY DO. SPECIFICALLY, HULK INTERESTED WHAT CAUSE SOMEONE TO HAVE SEEMINGLY BIZARRE OPINION. IT NOT EASY THING DO. LOTS PEOPLE COMING FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND HAVE ALL SORTS VALUES. AND IT ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT WHEN TRYING DECIDE IF IT YOUR OWN BIAS GETTING IN WAY. YET HULK DESPERATE KNOW WHY PEOPLE RESPOND TO MOVIES WAY THEY DO. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW THEY THEN PROCESS AND EXPLAIN THOSE RESPONSES. THE ANSWER NOT JUST RELATE MOVIE CRITICISM, BUT UNIVERSAL CRITICISM. HULK BELIEVE CENTER AROUND ONE THING:

TANGIBLE DETAILS.

OK. HULK KNOW YOU THINKING “TANGIBLE DETAILS? DUH, OF COURSE! WHAT YOU IDIOT? OF COURSE THE FREAKIN’ DETAILS MATTER!”

HULK KNOW. HULK KNOW. IT SOUND BROAD AS HECK, BUT HULK ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT VERY SPECIFIC WAY THE OBVIOUS, TANGIBLE DETAILS OF MOVIE DIRECTLY AFFECT HOW THE AT-LARGE CULTURE DIGEST IT. SO ALLOW HULK MOMENT ILLUSTRATE EXACTLY WHAT HULK MEAN… OKAY MORE THAN MOMENT. OVER 4000 WORDS AND LOTS OF TANGENTS. HULK SORRY, BUT VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT OFTEN THE HARDEST KIND TO JUSTIFY.

SO…

GIVEN: OUR ABILITY PROCESS THINGS INHERENTLY LINKED TO AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE UNDERSTAND. MOST OF US QUASI-EXPERTS IN SOME WAY AT SOMETHING. OUR FAVORITE TV SHOW. BEER-BREWING. OUR FAVORITE SPORTS TEAM. WHATEVER, CHANCES ARE IT SOMETHING.

BUT THEN THERE LARGE NUMBER THINGS OUTSIDE THAT AREA WE QUASI-EXPERTS IN. AND MANY OF THESE THINGS STUFF WE ALL HAVE TALK ABOUT IN FORM OF PUBLIC SOCIALIZING. THE PROVERBIAL CAMPFIRE. STUFF LIKE ELECTIONS, THE SUPERBOWL, POPULAR TV SHOWS, BIG NEWS EVENTS, HIT MOVIES, RESTAURANT CHAINS. THE USUAL STUFF. AND OFTEN THESE UNIVERSAL SUBJECTS THROW US INTO CONVERSATIONS THAT WE MAY OR MAY NO HAVE STRONG KNOWLEDGE ABOUT.

"THE NYE METS ARE MY FAVORITE SQUADRON"

IN ONE WAY, IT OKAY IF NOT KNOW LOT ABOUT CERTAIN SUBJECT. THERE ACTUALLY SUBCONSCIOUS WAY IN WHICH MOST OF US ABLE PROCESS SIMPLE GOOD OR BADNESS OF JUST ABOUT ANYTHING: MOVIES WORK ON LARGELY VISCERAL LEVEL. FOOD CAN TASTE GOOD OR NO TASTE GOOD. SPORTS TEAMS HAVE WINS AND LOSSES. PRODUCTS CAN SIMPLY WORK OR NO WORK. THERE WAY WE UNDERSTAND SOME FORM RELATIVE VALUE OF ALL THESE THINGS.

BUT WHEN COME TIME ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THEM, NOT EVERYONE HAVE LANGUAGE/VERNACULAR TO BEST EXPRESS WHAT AT PLAY. SO ONLY WAY CAN EXPLAIN ANYTHING BY PRESENTING EVIDENCE. AND EVIDENCE 100% DEPENDENT ON THINGS WE NOTICE. AND THOSE THE TANGIBLE DETAILS.

… and FOR MOST PEOPLE, IT NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT DETAILS PER SAY, BUT INSTEAD THE ONES THAT SIMPLY STICK OUT MOST.

THE FILM THAT MAKE HULK FIRST THINK IN THESE TERMS ACTUALLY SPIDER-MAN 3. MOST PEOPLE AGREE THAT SPIDER-MAN 3 PRETTY MUCH SUCK. OK? GOOD. MOVING ON. THE REAL REASON IT SUCK IT BECAUSE IT FORGET MOST BASIC ELEMENTS OF STORYTELLING 101. IT HAVE ZERO NARRATIVE STEAM AND ENERGY. IT CONFUSED ABOUT CHARACTER MOTIVATION. IT  SIDETRACK PLOT CONSTANTLY. THESE SIMPLE SCREENWRITING PROBLEMS. BUT WHAT THE ONE THING TONS PEOPLE POINT TO AS WHY IT SUCK?

EMO PETER PARKER.

NEVERMIND FACT MOST PEOPLE NOT KNOW WHAT "EMO" ACTUALLY MEAN

HULK HATE SAY IT, BUT THE SAD TRUTH THAT THE “EMO PETER PARKER” SEQUENCE THE ONLY ONE IN FILM THAT ACTUALLY HAVE SENSE OF HUMOR AND PALPABLE ENERGY. SERIOUSLY, HULK ARGUE IT THE ONLY “GOOD” SEQUENCE IN FILM. WATCH IT AGAIN BELOW. HULK THINK MAGUIRE DELIVERING GREAT COMIC PERFORMANCE. ESPECIALLY SINCE THE REAL JOKE THAT THIS WHAT A “CONFIDENT” PETER PARKER ACTUALLY LOOK/ACT LIKE. HILARIOUS.

BUT GIVEN THAT REST OF FILM HAVE NO ENERGY + FUN SCENES WHATSOEVER, IT THEREFORE NOT FIT TONE OF MOVIE WHATSOEVER. IT SIMPLY WAY, WAY DIFFERENT. THEREFORE, IT TANGIBLE TO EVERYONE WHO SEE IT. IT BECOME DEFAULT THING PEOPLE POINT OUT WHEN TRYING EXPLAIN WHY THE MOVIE (WHICH THEY ABSORBED ON VISCERAL LEVEL) SUCKED. TRUST HULK, EVEN IF THE EMO PETER PARKER SEQUENCE NOT IN MOVIE, PEOPLE STILL BE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH SPIDER-MAN 3 COMPLETELY AND WHOLLY SUCKED. IT JUST THE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO EVERYONE.

OKAY, THAT NOT EVEN THE ONLY REASON. THE OTHER BIG THING PEOPLE POINTED TO THAT “IT HAVE TOO MANY VILLAINS!” NO. NOT AT ALL. IT JUST IT HAVE VILLAINS WHOSE PLOT-LINES GO NOWHERE AND HAVE NOTHING DO WITH EACH OTHER. THE DARK KNIGHT HAVE TWO VILLAINS AND WORK CAUSE THE VILLAINS STORIES INTERTWINED AT KEY POINTS AND CONSTANTLY DRIVE NARRATIVE FORWARD. HULK RECENTLY TALK ABOUT REASON FIRST KUNG FU PANDA WORK SO WELL THAT THE FIVE MAIN CHARACTERS MOTIVATIONS AND PLOT ALL TIE INTO EACH OTHER SEAMLESSLY. AGAIN, IT GO BACK TO STORYTELLING 101. BUT IN SPIDER-MAN 3 EVERY CHARACTER JUST SORT OF DOING OWN THING REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER ELSE GOING ON. AND RAIMI HAD NO INTEREST IN VENOM SO STUDIO FORCED IT ON HIM TO BOOT. AS RESULT, THE SCENE WHERE VENOM AND SANDMAN “TEAM UP” LAUGHABLE IN ITS LAZY CONSTRUCTION. IT COULD NO GIVE LESS OF SHIT. AGAIN, IT NOT THAT THERE ARE TWO VILLAINS. IT THAT THE TWO VILLAINS JUST NOT DONE WELL WHATSOEVER. THE “TOO MANY VILLAINS!” MANTRA SOMETHING NOTICEABLE TO MOVIE-GOING PUBLIC BECAUSE THE PRIOR SPIDER-MAN MOVIES SUCCEED GREAT WITH JUST ONE VILLAIN.

BEING “EXPERT” JUST MEAN YOU ABLE MAKE THE LESS TANGIBLE DETAILS, WELL, TANGIBLE. MANY MUCH-BETTER CRITICS AND HULK SPENT LIFE TRYING FIGURE OUT MOVIES. SO MAYBE HULK CAN TELL WHEN SUBTLE TONE SHIFT AFFECTING AUDIENCE ENJOYMENT. OR WHEN CHARACTER SUDDENLY ACTING OUT OF CHARACTER. OR WHEN DIRECTING DECISION BEING MAKE FOR WRONG REASON. OR IF WRITER’S CERTAIN PERSONALITY TIC COME SHINING THROUGH AND DISRUPT ON THEMATIC LEVEL. OR HOW SOME SORT PRODUCTION HISTORY COMING INTO PLAY. BEING AWARE THIS STUFF THE VERY GOAL BEING CRITIC.

MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL OF THIS, HULK FINALLY LEARN THE ABILITY TELL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD-INSANE NIC CAGE AND BAD-INSANE NIC CAGE. +5 CRITIC EXP. POINTS!

“WAIT A MINUTE” YOU MAY SAY TO HULK. “ISN’T THERE AN OLD SAYING THAT “NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING” IN THIS BUSINESS?”

EXCUSE HULK, BUT THAT HORSESHIT. LOTS PEOPLE KNOW THINGS. IT JUST THERE MORE PEOPLE THAT NOT KNOW THINGS AND THEY HAVE TENDENCY FUCK THINGS UP. BUT WHEN CAPABLE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN PRODUCING, DIRECTING, ACTING, EDITING, AND THEN MARKETING… THE SKY THE LIMIT. LIKE WITH INCEPTION. THAT MOVIE IN ENTIRETY, EVEN THE CORPORATE NON-MOVIE STUFF, HANDLED PERFECTLY. SO TRUST HULK: SOME PEOPLE KNOW THINGS.

HULK ONCE BRING UP “TANGIBLE DETAILS” THEORY IN ONLINE FORUM TO EXCELLENT FILM CRITIC DEVIN FARACI. HE SEEMED AGREE WITH THEORY AND MUCH TO HULK’S SURPRISE, HE OFFER EXACT SAME ANECDOTE HULK OFTEN USE WHEN PROFESSING HULK’S OWN IGNORANCE ABOUT STUFF: NOT KNOWING SHIT ABOUT CARS.

REALLY, HULK KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CARS. HULK KNOW HULK’S CAR EITHER GO BROOM BROOM OR THE ENGINE LIGHT COME ON AND MAKE FUNNY NOISE. BUT OF COURSE THIS NO STOP HULK MAKING BROAD STATEMENTS LIKE, “THIS CAR HANDLE GOOD”, “THIS CAR SUCKS” , OR “THIS CAR LOOK COOL.” IT USUALLY BASED ON OBVIOUS THINGS LIKE APPEARANCE OR SIMPLE FEEL. MEANWHILE, A REAL GEARHEAD WOULD BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THE PROBLEMS OR BENEFITS OF SAID CAR WITH, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL ACCURACY.

THIS IMPORTANT BECAUSE HULK NO WANT YOU THINK HULK BEING POMPOUS BOUT THIS STUFF. HULK NOT SAYING PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT MOVIES POORLY = COMPLETE IDIOTS WHO SHOULD NO BE ALLOWED. NOT IN SLIGHTEST. IT OFTEN JUST ARTICULATED LESS GOOD.

“]

HULK WELL AWARE OF IRONY OF THAT STATEMENT. IF THAT PROBLEM HULK CAN INTRODUCE YOU TO SMASHY [HULK POINT TO RIGHT FIST

EVEN IF SOME PEOPLE MAY BE SAYING SOMETHING “IDIOTIC” IN TERMS OF CINEMATIC UNDERSTANDING, THAT NOT MAKE THEM IDIOTS. THEY MAKING SNAP DEDUCTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING OUTSIDE THEY FIELD. HULK TRYING SHOW WITH CAR EXAMPLE THAT SOMETHING WE ALLGUILTY OF. WHICH MEAN IT ALWAYS IMPORTANT THAT WE COLLECTIVELY UNDERSTAND WHEN WE GIVING OPINION THAT NO MAY BE WORTH MUCH. SELF-AWARENESS = CRITICAL.

BUT OF COURSE, NOT EVERYONE ACT ACCORDINGLY. AND EVEN MORE PEOPLE LACK SELF-AWARENESS. GOING BACK TO THAT ONLINE FORUM HULK MENTION EARLIER, THE REASON SUBJECT OF “TANGIBLE DETAILS” COME UP IN FIRST PLACE BECAUSE OF WHAT HULK FIND BE FUNNIEST TREND FOR FILM ARGUMENT AROUND… THE OLE’ “WHAT ACTORS LOOK LIKE” ARGUMENT.

FOR SOME REASON, THE INTERNET LOVE FANTASY CASTING. AND THIS ALWAYS REALLY FUNNY TO HULK CAUSE IT SEEM LIKE MOST FOLKS WHO ENJOY DO IT, PURELY BASING IT OFF PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND NOTHING MORE. AS IF IT ONLY THING INVOLVED IN ACTING AND NOT ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, PERFORMANCE AND SKILL. THIS MOSTLY HAPPEN WITH COMIC READERS FOR SOME REASON (WHICH HULK COUNT AMONG THEIR MEMBERS… OBVIVOUSLY… THAT OBVIOUS, RIGHT?), BUT HULK HAVE SHOCKING NEWS FOR FELLOW READERS: PHYSICAL LOOK HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DO WITH IT. SO STOP IT.

PUT IT THIS WAY, EVER WONDER WHY THERE NOT LOT PEOPLE OUT THERE COMPLAINING ABOUT GWENYTH PALTROW NOT BEING NATURAL REDHEAD IN PEPPER POTTS ROLE AFTER THE MOVIE COME OUT? IT BECAUSE SHE FUCKING FANTASTIC IN THOSE MOVIES. SHUT EVERYONE RIGHT UP. MEANWHILE HULK SEE ALL THE TIME LOTS COMIC READERS SAY THE REASON JESSICA ALBA NO GOOD IN FANTASTIC FOUR THE “SHE NOT LOOK RIGHT” OR “SHE A BRUNETTE. IT IDIOTIC!” WHY, YOU RIGHT! IT HAVE NOTHING DO WITH FACT SHE TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE ACTRESS.

THIS SORT OF “LOOK BASED EVALUATION” INSANITY HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. REMEMBER THE CRAIG NOT BOND PEOPLE WHO HAD GIANT CAMPAIGN GET DANIEL CRAIG UN-CAST AS BOND BECAUSE HE HAVE BLONDE HAIR. THE HUMANITY! EVER WONDER HOW SAD THAT CAMPAIGN GET? ONCE MOVIE COME OUT AND BECOME HUGE REBOOT SUCCESS EVERYONE LOVE THEY CLING TO FACT THAT HAPPY FEET OUTPERFORMED IT AS “EVIDENCE” THEY RIGHT…

HULK HATE BREAK TO YOU BUT CRAIG PRETTY INCREDIBLE BOND

THE BEST PART THAT THIS SOMETIMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTORS. THE O.C.D. “LOOKS BASED” TANGIBLE DETAIL THING ONCE APPLIED TO MICHAEL BAY’S TRANSFORMERS MOVIE. IN CASE FORGET, THERE ONCE TONS OF PEOPLE ONCE SIGN BOYCOTT THEY NO SEE TRANSFORMERS MOVIE IF OPTIMUS PRIME HAD FLAMES. THIS HAPPENED. AND IT ACTUALLY KIND OF POPULAR DESPITE NO ONE FROM DREAMWORKS EVER TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. AND THIS MAY SOUND CRAZY, BUT WILLING WAGER MOST PEOPLE SIGNED IT ACTUALLY SAW MOVIE ANYWAY.

TAKE THAT!

BACK TO REA- LIFE ACTORS: THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF ACTING ONLY AFFECT THESE VIEWERS ON SUBCONSCIOUS LEVEL. IT NOT TANGIBLE DETAIL TO THEM. SO TO EXPLAIN WHY JESSICA ALBA RUB THEM WRONG WAY THEY CLING TO PHYSICAL DETAILS. IT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. O.C.D. COMIC NERDS CLING TO PHYSICAL LOOKS TO EXPLAIN CASTING CAUSE THEY JUST SIMPLY NOT FAMILIAR WITH ACTING.

BUT THE IMPORTANT PART THAT IT NOT LIKE THEY INHUMAN EITHER. VAST MAJORITY CAN GET OVER PHYSICAL DETAILS HEN ACTOR ACTUALLY GOOD. LIKE THE AFOREMENTIONED PALTROW. AND REMEMBER WHEN HUGH JACKMAN “TOO TALL” FOR WOLVERINE? NOBODY GAVE SHIT WHEN HE AWESOME. IDRIS ELBA” TOO BLACK” BE NORDIC GOD? THAT RIDICULOUS CLAMOR DIE DOWN AS SOON AS THEY SEE HOW BADASS HE IN IT. NOPE, IT ONLY COME UP WHEN THESE VIEWERS TRY EXPLAIN BADNESS. HALLE BERRY “SUCKED” AS STORM CAUSE OF HER HAIRDO. RIGHT. IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HER CHARACTER HAVING NO PLOT/MOTIVATION. THE “LOOKS” THING ABSOLUTELY MOST PERFECT EXAMPLE PEOPLE CLINGING TO THE TANGIBLE DETAILS ARGUMENT.

BUT THAT JUST EXTREME EXAMPLE, RIGHT? HA-HA-HA LET ALL LAUGH AT THOSE DUMB COMIC NERDS ALONE IN THEIR MOM’S BASEMENT EATING BOOGERS (HULK HATE THIS STEREOTYPE WITH PASSION OF THOUSAND SMASHES) WHO SO BENEATH THE UNDERSTANDING OF ESTEEMED CINEPHILES LIKE US!

OKAY. HULK RAISE YOU WITHTHE SUPPOSED BELLWETHER-AND-BASTION-OF-QUALITY… THAT RIGHT, EVERYONE’S FAVORITE FILM CRITICISM LIGHTING ROD, THE OSCARS!

OR AS IT KNOW IN HULK'S HOUSE "THAT THING BETTY MAKE HULK WATCH"

UGH. HULK SORT OF UPSET WITH HULK-SELF CAUSE HULK USE THINK OSCARS ACTUALLY MATTERED. OH THEY MATTER IN HOLLYWOOD BUSINESS SENSE. THEY OFTEN GIVE MORE VIEWERSHIP GOOD FILMS AND HELP SPUR CAREERS MANY TALENTED PEOPLE. IN THAT SENSE HULK APPRECIATE THE WORTH. BUT HULK USE THINK THERE THINGS LIKE INJUSTICES AND TRAVESTIES. LIKE WHAT ACTUALLY WON IMPORTANT FOR SANCTITY OF UNIVERSE OR EVEN SOME KIND OF INDICATOR OF RELATIVE QUALITY. IT NOT TRUE.

THERE OLD ADAGE ABOUT OSCARS AND THAT YOU “SWITCH THE WORD ‘BEST’ WITH ‘MOST.’” AFTER SEEING VOTING PROCESS UP CLOSE HULK TELL YOU IT ABSOLUTELY TRUE. MOST ACTING. ALWAYS THE BIG BOMBASTIC PERFORMANCES WIN. VOTERS LOVE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE LIKE ACTOR PUTTING ON WEIGHT OR “GOING UGLY.” EVEN EXTREME EXAMPLES OF METHOD ACTING WILL DO. OR PERHAPS MOST COSTUME DESIGN. PICK YOUR PERIOD PIECE DU JOUR! MOST SCEENWRITING. PICK MOVIE WITH MOST MEMORABLE DIALOGUE, IGNORING CHARACTER MOTIVATION AND STORYTELLING 101 STUFF. JUST THE STUFF AVERAGE MOVIE-GOER KNOWS THE WRITER DID. HECK, EVEN MOST PICTURE WORKS. LOOK HOW MANY FLAWLESS FILMS HAVE LOST TO THE MOST EPIC ONE (MOST OBVIOUS L.A. CONFIDENTIAL VS. TITANIC). AND TITANIC AT LEAST HAVE SOME KIND HISTORICAL RELEVANCY. THERE REASON SO MANY OTHER BEST PICTURE WINNERS NO GO ON BECOME HISTORICAL GREATS.

AND SOME DIDN'T AGE WELL 1 SECOND AFTER BEING ANNOUNCED

BUT THE BEST EXAMPLE OF “TANGIBLE DETAILS” THEORY ALWAYS THE BEST EDITING CATEGORY. EVERY YEAR IT GO TO “MOST EDITING” WHICH USUALLY SOME FILM WITH LOTS OF RAPID CUTS OR MULTIPLE STORYLINES. IT SAD REALLY. FIRST OFF, THE BEST EDITING COMPLETELY INVISIBLE. WHEN YOU NO NOTICE IT THEN IT ACTUALLY A PROBLEM UNLESS THERE SUPPOSED TO BE LITERAL THEMATIC DEDUCTION TO BE MAKE BY CUT (THINK THE BONE/SPACESHIP TRANSITION IN 2001). SO HOW HELL EVEN JUDGE EDITING? HULK THINK TOM TWYKER’S HEAVEN MIGHT BE BEST EDITED MOVIE EVER, BUT MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HULK EVEN TALKING ABOUT. YOU MAY THINK TWYKER’S RUN LOLA RUN MUCH BETTER EXAMPLE BUT THAT JUST A MOVIE WHERE THE EDITING/STYLE HYPER-TANGIBLE. MEANWHILE THOSE WHO SEEN HEAVEN SAY STUFF “IT SO SLOW AND BORING!” HULK PLEAD IF YOU EVER WATCH IT, PAY ATTENTION TO THE EDITING. IT KNOW EXACTLY HOW LONG HOLD A SILENCE. GREAT STUFF.

BUT THE EDITING ANALOGY TRUE EVEN WITH MAINSTREAM STUFF. HULK MENTIONED TITANIC EARLIER AND THINK IT ONE OF JAMES CAMERON’S SECRET WEAPONS. NO, HULK NOT TALKING ABOUT LENGTH OF MOVIE, BUT STYLE WITHIN SCENES. HULK GIVE CAMERON LOT OF CRAP FOR OTHER WELL-DESERVED REASONS, BUT HULK ACTUALLY THINK HIS INDIVIDUAL SCENES EDITED WONDERFULLY. HE THE ANTI-MICHAEL BAY IN THIS ARENA. HIS CUTS VERY DELIBERATE AND PACED. HE NEVER RELY ON TWO SHOTS WHEN ONE WILL DO. HIS CINEMATOGRAPHY ALWAYS HAVE GREAT SENSE GEOGRAPHY AND HIS EDITING CONFORM TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. HE NEVER RUIN IT BY CUTTING IN CLOSE TOO MUCH. BUT WHEN PUBLIC INSTEAD WHEN TALKING ABOUT WHY CAMERON’S ACTION SCENES GOOD MOST PEOPLE REFER TO THE “WHAT” HAPPEN, NOT THE SUBTLETIES OF HOW. IF ANYTHING THE “WHAT” OF CAMERON’S ACTION OFTEN 13-YEAR-OLD-ESQUE. “AND THE MECH WARRIOR THING CAN TAKE OUT THE BAYONET LIKE A KNIFE AND FIGHT THE THING!” AND SUCH. OR A DUMB CHARACTER BEING LIKE “I GOT A GUN TOO BITCH!” THAT STUFF INSIPID. HULK ARGUE WHAT THEY SUBCONSCIOUSLY RESPONDING TO REALLY WELL-EXECUTED ACTION MISE EN SCENE.

AND TRUTH = EVEN EXPERTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FREAKING IDEA WHO BEST EDITORS ARE. THERE BEEN SO MANY MOVIES SAVED IN EDITING ROOM BY PEOPLE WHO NOW JUST THANKLESS HEROES. READ PETER BISKIND’S “EASY RIDERS RAGING BULLS” WHICH FULL OF GREAT STUFF ABOUT THE EDITING DECISIONS BEHIND CLASSIC FILMS. THE MOST FAMOUS EXAMPLE WHEN MARCIA LUCAS CONVINCE GEORGE TO EDIT STAR WARS FOR PACE INSTEAD OF THE RHYTHMS OF THE ACTORS. IT CHANGE MOVIE FROM WHATEVER EVERYONE CALLED “A COMPLETE BORE” TO, WELL, ONE OF MOST ENTERTAINING MOVIES EVER. AND SHE CHANGED FUTURE OF EDITING IN PROCESS.

IMPORTANT NOTE AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS KIND OF CONVINCING POWER: GEORGE LUCAS DIVORCED HIS EDITOR/WIFE MARCIA IN 1983 AND PROMPTLY NEVER MADE ANYTHING GOOD AGAIN.

SHE LIKELY THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE STOP THIS!

FINE, HULK WILL DO THING. STAR WARS TANGENT! HULK ARGUE IT MAY BE MOST COSTLY DIVORCE IN HISTORY OF POPULAR CINEMA. IN NEARLY ACCOUNT OF WHY GEORGE LUCAS NOW SUCK IT ALL STUFF LIKE: HOW HE SURROUND SELF WITH YES MEN, HOW HE GOT OLDER/ISOLATED/OUT OF TOUCH, HOW HE REALLY NOT GOOD AT DIRECTING IN FIRST PLACE, HOW HE COME MORE INTERESTED IN THE TECH NOT THE STORY… THE ONE THING NO ONE EVER, EVER, EVER SEEM MENTION THAT HE LOST MOST IMPORTANT CREATIVE PARTNER ON PLANET. WHO ELSE COULD HAVE TOLD MOST POWERFUL/INDEPENDENT PERSON IN HOLLYWOOD, “NO.” NO ONE. AND IF ANYONE WANT CLUE AS TO WHAT KIND PRESENCE SHE HAVE SHE THE REAL INFLUENCE FOR LEIA: SMART, SASSY, DEFIANT, FUN. THIS EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE ANNOYING TANGIBLE DETAIL THINGS. ONLY IT NOT SUBCONSCIOUS TONE THING, BUT JUST RESEARCH BASED (AND GUESS HOW LITTLE RESEARCH GO ON BEFORE AN OPINION SHOUTED THESE DAYS). SO UNLESS READ UP ON HISTORY OF HER INVOLVEMENT OR UNDERSTAND A LOT ABOUT HOW CRUCIAL EDITING TO PROCESS TO THE FILMS THEN AVG. JOE STAR WARS FAN JUST WOULDN’T KNOW (AND NO HULK NOT GOING GET INTO SPECIFICS OF DIVORCE WHICH GEORGE TEND USE PAINT MARCIA IN BAD LIGHT, BUT IT MORE GRAY AREA THAN THAT). HULK ARGUE MOST STAR WARS NERDS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MARCIA LUCAS AND SHE PROBABLY ONE OF 3 MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH CREATING WHAT WE KNOW TO BE STAR WARS. HULK IMAGINE EVEN LOT OF FILM NERDS DISMISS HER EDITING ACUMEN AND THINK SHE JUST “THAT LADY GEORGE LET HELP.” HULK CALL BULLSHIT. IT IDEA FOSTERED BECAUSE SHE RETIRED FROM FILM AFTER THE DIVORCE SO IT JUST SEEM LIKE THAT. BUT BY ALL ACCOUNT SHE REALLY TALENTED. NOT JUST FROM STAR WARS ORIGINAL TRILOGY EDITING EITHER. HOW ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT WITH SCORSESE CLASSICS ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE AND FUCKING TAXI DRIVER? STARTING TO GET PICTURE NOW? END TANGENT!

OKAY. FORGET MOVIES. HOW BOUT THE MOST POPULAR FORM OF SOCIAL INTERACTION ON PLANET?

SPORTS!

YA HEAR THAT MOVIE NERDS? SPORTS!

FORTUNATELY, SPORTS HAVE STATISTICS WHICH HELP ILLUSTRATE CRITICAL ARGUMENTS, BUT MOST FANS NOT TAKE TIME DELVE INTO ACTUAL METRICS TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBTLETIES. THEY SIMPLY WATCH AND THINK “HE GOOD” OR “HE SUCKS” BASED ON OBVIOUS, TANGIBLE DETAILS. THAT WHY “BIG GAME” MOMENTS SO VALUABLE TO PLAYER’S ESTIMATED WORTH. IT JUST BECAUSE THEY THE MOMENTS WHERE THE MOST EYEBALLS SEEING WHAT REALLY JUST SMALL BITS EVIDENCE IN METRIC TERMS. BUT THOSE MOMENTS MAKE THINGS MEMORABLE AND SHAPE CONCLUSION, RATHER THAN THE 98% OF OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE CONTRARY. MOST OBVIOUS AND WIDELY USED EXAMPLE = JETER’S “GUTSY” PLAY AT SHORTSTOP; AN OPINION BASED ON FEW AMAZING PLAYS IN BIG GAMES. BUT ALL ADVANCED SABREMETRICS SHOW HIS RANGE ACTUALLY TERRIBLE. STILL, THE PUBLIC REVERT TO THE TANGIBLE DETAILS.

NO WORRY, HULK WONT GO ON WITH SPORTS TALK EVEN THOUGH THERE THOUSANDS GREAT EXAMPLES (HULK ADORE SPORTS METRICS). THE POINT =  NO MATTER WHAT ARENA OF CRITICISM THE MORE KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, SENSE OF HISTORY YOU HAVE THE BETTER YOU BE AT ACTUAL DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION.(1) WE ALL KNOW THIS TRUE OF CONCRETE + TANGIBLE THINGS LIKE BEING CAR MECHANIC OR DOCTOR. BUT FOR SOME REASON, WITH INTANGIBLE THINGS LIKE ART OR MOVIES AND OTHER THINGS IN SOCIAL EXPERIENCE, THE PUBLIC FORGET THIS OR EVEN OUTRIGHT DESPISE THE “EXPERTS.”

WHY?

SERIOUSLY, LET’S DO THIS. WHY DO SO MANY PUBLIC MOVIE GOERS RESENT CRITICS? WHY THEY THINK THEY “OUT OF TOUCH?” CRITICS SEE HUNDREDS MOVIES A YEAR. THEY MORE “IN TOUCH” WITH WHAT HAPPENING IN MOVIES THAN ANYONE ELSE ON PLANET. THEY SEE EVERYTHING! HULK NOT TRYING PRETEND THEY PERFECT HUMAN BEINGS. OF COURSE SOME CRITICS CAN BE PATRONIZING ASSHOLES. BUT THAT NOT HAVE ANYTHING DO WITH WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAYING ABOUT MOVIE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, BEING AN ASSHOLE NEVER THEIR MOTIVATION FOR WRITING SOMETHING ONE WAY OR OTHER. IT ONLY AFFECT STYLE. MEANING THE PROBLEM NOT ACTUALLY THEIR CRITICISM. WE ALL ADMIT ARMOND WHITE = RAGING ASSHOLE AND SEEMINGLY BACKWARD IN EVERY ESTIMATION, BUT WHEN LOOK CLOSE THE MAN HAVE METHOD TO HIS MADNESS.

HULK NOT JOKING

THAT WEIRD CONSUMERISM/INVERSE PRODUCTION VALUE TAKE = ACTUALLY HOW HE THINK. HE LOVE BRINGING IN RACIAL/SOCIO-ECONOMICAL NON-SEQUITUR INTO EQUATION. ABSURDISH? SURE. BUT IT NOT LIKE HE UNEDUCATED, HE SEEN EVERY FILM IMAGINABLE. AGAIN, IT JUST MEAN OUR PROBLEM NOT HIS CRITICISM, OR EVEN THAT HE TANGENTIAL WITH ARGUMENTS. IT JUST CAUSE HE AN ASSHOLE ABOUT IT. STILL, SO MANY PEOPLE CONFUSE THE TWO. THE BIGGEST ARGUMENT LOBBED AT CRITIC DISSENTERS THAT THEY JUST CONTRARIANS, OR HAVE AGENDA, OR JUST LIKE PISSING PEOPLE OF.

DOES ARMOND WHITE LIKE PISSING PEOPLE OF? YUP.

BUT HULK NO THINK THAT THE REASON HE GO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON MOVIE. IN FACT, HULK NEVER MET NOR READ A CRITIC WHO WRITE A PIECE ONE WAY OR OTHER FOR SOLE PURPOSE OF JUST TRYING GET RISE OUT OF PEOPLE. NOT FUCKING ONE. THERE CRITICS WHO MORE ANTAGONISTIC THAN OTHERS, BUT ANTAGONISM NEVER THE REASON FOR THAT OPINION IN FIRST PLACE. TRUST HULK. TO SIT DOWN AND ACTUALLY WRITE REVIEW THAT NOT ACTUALLY WHAT THINK… IT JUST IMPOSSIBLE. YET THE BELIEF THAT DISSENTING CRITICS NOTHING MORE THAN AGITATORS SO INCREDIBLY COMMON. HULK NO GET!

AND WHY EVEN GET ANGRY WITH CRITICS FOR DISSENTING OPINION?

IS IT CAUSE NO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAYING? NOT GET THE REFERENCE POINTS? CAN NO IMAGINE HOW SOMEONE ACTUALLY THINK LIKE THAT? HULK WANT KNOW WHY THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM WORTHLESS? TO TURN TABLES WITH FAMILIAR ANECDOTE, HULK SOMETIMES RESENT CAR MECHANICS (LOWER-CASE-R-RESENT. NOT SERIOUSLY) CAUSE HULK NOT GET LANGUAGE OF CARS AND WHAT THEY EXPLAINING TO HULK. HULK FEEL LOST. BUT HULK NO THINK THE MECHANIC USELESS AND “OUT OF TOUCH” WITH CARS, DO HULK? NOT AT ALL. HULK CAN NO GET ANGRY AND ASSUME THEY IDIOT THEY NOT KNOW ANYTHING. THEY AUTOMATICALLY KNOW MORE THAN HULK (AND GETTING “TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF” ANOTHER SITUATION BASED ON ECONOMICS. THIS PURELY CONVERSATION ABOUT KNOW-HOW SO THAT NO RELATED). SO WHY WE DO SAME WITH PROFESSIONAL EVALUATORS OF ART?

YOU ASSHOLE. YOU JUST HAVE AGENDA AGAINST AMERICAN-MADE CARBURETORS! ... HULK NOT EVEN KNOW IF THAT MAKE SENSE AS JOKE

ULTIMATELY, HULK REALLY ONLY FEEL TRULY QUALIFIED TALK ABOUT 7-8 TOPICS WITH ANY SORT OF CONFIDENCE. SAID TOPICS IN ORDER = MOVIES/MEDIA/LIT, COOKING, THE EDUCATION SYSTEM, BASKETBALL, HISTORY, SOCIOLOGY, OCEANOGRAPHY (HULK HAD ENCOMPASSING EDUCATIONAL PATH, OKAY? DEAL WITH IT), AND ARMCHAIR PSYCHOLOGY. NOW THERE STILL TONS OTHER SUBJECTS HULK INTERESTED IN, BUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE THOSE  7-8 AND HULK SORT OF TALKING OUT HULK BUTT. EVEN 7-8 SEEM LIKE LOT. AND OF THOSE HULK OFTEN GET IN MOST TROUBLE WITH PSYCHOLOGY (HENCE THE “ARMCHAIR” ACKNOWLEDGMENT). THERE MANY TIMES HULK SAY SOMETHING HULK THINK TRUE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THEN ACTUALLY QUALIFIED PERSON SAY “UH, ACTUALLY HULK, NO SMASH ME, BUT IT REALLY LIKE THIS.” AND THEN HULK EMBARRASSED AND STUFF AND SMASH SELF OUT OF SHAME.

HULK SUSPECT THE PROBLEM THAT EVERYONE SEE MOVIES. IT BIG SOCIAL COMMUNITY THING AND IMPORTANT ONE AT THAT. MEANWHILE, NOT EVERYONE SITTING AROUND TALKING ABOUT TRENDS IN OCEANOGRAPHY.(2) MEANWHILE ” EVERYONE” SAW AVATAR. PERHAPS IN MORE PROBLEMATIC FASHION, THEY GET SEE EXACT SAME MOVIE YOU DO. THIS MEAN FILM CRITICISM MORE DEPENDENT ON WHAT OTHER FILMS SEEN AND PROCESSED BEFORE IT AND HOW FAMILIAR CRITIC WITH FILMMAKERS. WHICH JUST MEAN ANY INTANGIBLE DETAILS IN MOVIE SEEM EVEN MORE IRRELEVANT TO CASUAL OUTSIDER. BUT OF COURSE SEEING TONS MOVIES = CRITICAL. IT ALLOW CONSTRUCT PERSPECTIVE. A SENSE OF FILMIC TRENDS. NARRATIVE. UNDERSTANDING. ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.

BUT EVEN IF THE “EXPERTS” = THE QUALIFIED ONES, EVERYONE STILL HAVE RIGHT THEIR OPINION ON MOVIES. IT ULTIMATELY JUST A CONVERSATION AFTER ALL. IT NOT LIKE OTHER ARENAS WITH TANGIBLE LIFE/DEATH THINGS WHERE ONLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE ALLOWED PARTICIPATE. YOU CAN NO PRACTICE ARMCHAIR HEART SURGERY. YOU CAN NO “SORT OF” BE DOCTOR…

THOUGH HULK KNOW A GUY

HONESTLY, HULK FEEL LIKE HULK JUST NOW STARTING GET COMFORTABLE WITH FILM CRITICISM. IT TOOK DECADES REALLY. IT HARD LEARN HOW DIGEST WHAT OFTEN EMOTIONAL REACTIONS. BUT EVEN CONCEPTUALLY, MANY YOUNG PEOPLE THINK JUST CAUSE STUDYING IT THAT MEAN THEY AT HEIGHT OF UNDERSTANDING. HULK WARNING ALL FILM STUDENTS OUT THERE. SORRY, IT TAKE LOT LONGER. TRUST HULK, WHO OFTEN LOOK BACK AT COLLEGE PAPERS AND GROAN. BUT EVERY YEAR HULK GET SHARPER IN ABILITY TO EXPLAIN IDEAS, THE VISCERAL REACTIONS, AND THE SUBCONSCIOUS FEELINGS THAT MOVIES ALWAYS ELICIT. THE EDUCATION NEVER STOP.

SO TAKE IT FROM HULK. WHEN DEALING WITH EVERYTHING OUTSIDE THOSE 7-8 TOPICS HULK KNOW ABOUT (OR WHATEVER CASE FOR YOU), IT AMAZING WHAT GOODWILL COME BY SIMPLY STARTING STATEMENT WITH “MAYBE HULK JUST TALKING OUT BUTT HERE, BUT [INSERT OPINION HERE]“

IN THE MEANTIME, SAME ADVICE ALWAYS:

SEE MORE MOVIES.

HAWKEYE CONVINCE HULK WATCH ROBIN HOOD... AGAIN

ENDNOTES:

(1) AND YES, THERE ALWAYS SOME ADDED AMOUNT POLITICAL OR PERSONAL MOTIVATION MIXED UP IN THIS. THEY EVEN MAY PROMOTE AGENDA (BUT THAT RARER THEN MOST THINK. UNLESS IT ACTUAL POLITICS IN WHICH CASE JUST GIVE UP). BUT HULK THINK THAT THE FOUNDATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE DEVOTED CHRISTIAN WATCHING MOVIE THEN THINGS THAT BECOME MOST OBVIOUS TANGIBLE DETAILS TO THEM = THE THINGS THAT DEAL WITH OR FLY IN FACE OF THEIR BELIEFS. AND THAT WHY THEY RESPOND TO THEM. IT THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLES OF WHAT “WRONG” WITH THE MOVIE, EVEN IF IT NOT THE LANGUAGE OF MOVIES BUT INSTEAD PERSONAL THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE.

(2) THIS THE CHIEF PROBLEM WITH POLITICS. POLITICS OFTEN CONCERN SO MANY THINGS THAT SUPER-INTERESTING BUT ACTUALLY HAVE NOTHING DO WITH POLITICS. THEY SEPARATE ARENAS THAT REQUIRE EXPERTISE. BUT BECAUSE SO MUCH AT STAKE IN POLITICS (READ: POWER), EVERYTHING BECOME POLITICIZED IN EFFORT “SIMPLIFY” FOR MASSES. BUT INSTEAD STRIVE FOR CLARITY, THEY GO FOR SIMPLICITY AND THOSE PESKY SUPER-OBVIOUS TANGIBLE DETAILS. LIKE WITH GLOBAL WARMING EVERY COLLOQUIAL CONVERSATION SEEM RELY ON SINGULAR EXAMPLES AS “PROOF” ONE WAY OR OTHER. WHILE EXAMPLES MAY BE “TRUE” IN + OF THEMSELVES, THEY NOT INCLUDE THE COMPLICATED-YET-STILL-COMPLETELY-FIGURED-OUT SYSTEMIC REALITY OF HOW WEATHER ACTUALLY WORK. IT ASININE… AND HULK WOULD SAY “HULK NOT WANT GET POLITICAL FOR FOLLOWING” BUT SCREW IT CAUSE THE FOLLOWING ACTUALLY NOT POLITICAL STATEMENT WHATSOEVER. WHEN TREATED IN PROPER TERMS OF SYSTEMIC SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION, GLOBAL WARMING = SCIENTIFICALLY UNDENIABLE. ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF “EVIDENCE” TO CONTRARY = PURE JUNK SCIENCE. THEY WILL SHOW SINGULAR EXAMPLE OF HOW WARMING TREND NOT HAPPENING IN SPECIFIC SPOT AS “PROOF,” BUT IF LOOKED AT FURTHER EVEN IN MOST CASUAL WAY THEY THEN REALIZE THAT THIS NON-WARMING TREND OCCURRING BECAUSE OF GEOGRAPHICALLY ADJACENT SPIKE IN WARMING TREND. FOR EXAMPLE AN OCEAN TEMPERATURE COOLING IN THIS LITTLE PART OF SEA NOT BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX, BUT BECAUSE THE WARMING TEMPERATURE MELTING THE GLACIER RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND SPILLING COLD WATER INTO THIS LITTLE PART OF SEA. AND IT NOT “EVENING THINGS OUT” BUT CAUSING MASSIVE DEVASTATION TO BOTH THE WARMING LAND AND THE COOLING SEA. AND THEN BOTH REACTIONS JUST MAKE THE CYCLE GROW STRONGER. IT OMISSION OF RELEVANT INFORMATION AND ANY SCIENTIST WORTH DAMN IGNORE IT.*

*HULK REALIZE THIS CRAZY TANGENT BUT IT JUST SO DAMN PERTINENT AND HULK SICK TO DEATH OF HEARING THAT THIS A “SCIENTIFIC DEBATE.” NOPE. IT A MANUFACTURED ONE. DON’T BELIEVE HULK? HULK WAS APPROACHED 30 TIMES BY VARIOUS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS MASKING OIL COMPANIES AND OFFERED CASH TO WRITE ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING PAPERS… STRAIGHT CASH… 30 FUCKING TIMES… AS COLLEGE STUDENT. GO WORK THAT ONE OUT FOR SELVES. THE POLITICIZATION OF A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE = JOKE.

HULK USUALLY NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT BOX OFFICE. HULK NOT SAYING CONVERSATION WITHOUT MERIT . JUST PROBABLY THAT THERE LOT A LOT PEOPLE MORE QUALIFIED TO ANALYZE. DAMON HOUX AT CHUD HAVE GREAT ONGOING COLUMN FOR ONE. BUT STILL, HULK FEEL HULK HAVE GOOD ARGUMENT FOR WHY BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE SUCH PREVALENT CONCERN FOR MOVIEGOERS.

WHEN FRAMING THE ARGUMENT FOR HOW PEOPLE RESPOND TO FILM’S SUCCESS/FAILURE AT BOX OFFICE, THERE ONE KEY USE OF LANGUAGE THAT EVERYBODY SEEM TO IGNORE (BESIDES VERB AND FIRST PERSON. HULK HAVE TROUBLE WITH THOSE)…. AND IT KIND OF HAVE TO DO WITH SPORTS…  BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE REALLY ABOUT “WINNERS” AND “LOSERS.”

IN SPORTS, THERE CLEAR/METHODICAL WINNERS AND LOSERS. THE RESULTS DETERMINED PURELY BY COMPARATIVE SCORES AND IT SO MUCH EASIER TO SAY WHICH ONE “BETTER” THAN OTHER. AND MORE OFTEN THEN NOT, A TEAM’S FINANCIAL SUCCESS DIRECTLY DEPENDENT ON THOSE RESULTS. WHEN A TEAM WIN, PEOPLE WANT TO WATCH IT. WHEN TEAM LOSE, PEOPLE STOP WATCHING. HULK KNOW THIS A SIMPLIFICATION, BUT IT PRETTY EVIDENT ONE.

AND WHAT BOX OFFICE STATISTICS FINALLY DO IS GIVE FILM A “SCORING SYSTEM.” AND PEOPLE’S RESPONSES AFTER THAT ONLY NATURAL. A MOVIE THAT PERFORM WELL SIMPLY A “WINNER.” PEOPLE WANT TO GO SEE THE “WINNER” JUST AS THEY WANT TO SEE A WINNING TEAM. THE SAME KIND OF THINKING APPLY TO “LOSERS.” NOBODY WANT GO WATCH A CRAPPY TEAM,  SO WHY THEY WANT TO WATCH A NON-SUCCESSFUL MOVIE?

THE LIONS = THE "THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH" OF FOOTBALL

OF COURSE THERE A MILLION REASONS THAT A MOVIE’S WORTH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DO WITH BOX OFFICE (SERIOUSLY, IT MOSTLY ABOUT MARKETING), BUT STILL THIS THE KIND OF THINKING THAT BECOME PREVALENT. THINK ABOUT ALL THE OVERLAPPING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN INTERNET-INCLINED MOVIE FANS AND SPORTS FANS. WHEN MOVIE (TEAM) YOU DON’T LIKE FOR SOME REASON DO POOR YOU TAKE COMFORT. SOME EVEN RELISH IN THE DEFEAT OF THE OPPOSING FANS BELOVED MOVIE (TEAM).  JUST IN THE SAME WAY, WHEN TRULY GREAT MOVIE NOT PERFORM AT BOX OFFICE, SOMETIMES AN AUDIENCE BECOMES MORE EMBLAZONED TO LOVING THEIR “UNDERDOG” PROPERTY. THEY LEARN EMBRACE THE “LOSER” STATUS AND MAKE IT PERSONALIZED. THEY ARE “HARDCORE FANS.” THEY WERE THERE “EVEN WHEN IT WAS BAD” (A FAVORITE A SPORT-DOM CRED CHECKS). THEY’RE NOT “BANDWAGON” FANS OF THE MOVIE.

THINK ABOUT THE RECENT BACKLASH AND BACKLASH-TO-THE-BACKLASH WITH EDGAR WRIGHT’S AMAZING “SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD.” DID THE PASSION OF PUBLIC RESPONSES REEK OF SIMILARITY TO THE RESPONSES OF SPORTS FANS? ON BOTH SIDES OF ARGUMENT? ABSOLUTELY IT DID. EVEN HULK GUILTY OF THIS.

HOW THIS NOT AWESOME?

OF COURSE, THIS REALLY NOT CONFINED TO SPORTS AND MOVIES. IT MORE HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN GENERAL. BUT THE REASON THIS ALL NEW TO MOVIES BECAUSE BOX OFFICE INFORMATION JUST NOW FINALLY BEING REPORTED IN LAST 15 YEARS. IT WASN’T THAT PEOPLE NOT INTERESTED IN DECADES BEFORE. IT JUST THAT THEY JUST DIDN’T KNOW. ALL THEY HAD WAS FOOTAGE OF LONG LINES OF MOVIE FANS WRAPPING AROUND THE BLOCK (HENCE TERM “BLOCKBUSTER”). AND THE PUBLIC WAS FASCINATED BY THAT STUFF.

IT JUST THAT WITHOUT THE ACTUAL BOX OFFICE INFORMATION, THE DIALOGUE OF MOVIES STAYED, WELL, A BIT MORE MEASURED. NATURALLY, AWARD SHOWS LIKE OSCARS BROUGHT OUT THE SPORTS-LIKE DIALOGUE, BUT REALLY IT WAS MOSTLY LIMITED TO THAT. FOR MOST PART, HULK WOULD SEE MOVIE AND IF HULK LIKED IT, HULK WOULD SHARE THAT WITH FRIENDS. THAT WAS THE DIALOGUE.

WHAT'S THIS MOVIE CALLED? SOUNDS STUPID.

BUT NOW BOX OFFICE INFORMATION HAVE CHANGE CONVERSATION.

PLEASE KNOW, THIS NOT INDICTMENT OF SPORTS EITHER. HULK ACTUALLY LOVE SPORTS VERY MUCH, BUT THE LINE OF THINKING AND TERMINOLOGY NOT SUITED FOR COMMENTARY ON ART AND COMMERCE (OR POLITICS EITHER, BUT THE EFFECTS OF SPORTS ON SOCIO-POLITICAL ARENAS A WHOLE OTHER AND MUCH MORE PROBLEMATIC DISCUSSION).

BOX OFFICE REALLY A FUNNY THING. HULK HAVE BENEFIT WORKING IN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AND CAN TELL YOU THAT ALMOST ALL MOVIES MAKE MONEY EVENTUALLY. YES, EVEN WITH HUGE ADVERTISING BUDGETS.

FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY STUDIO HAVE A COMPLICATED FORMULA FOR EACH OF THEIR MOVIES (ONE BASED ON PAST MODELS/TRACKING INFORMATION/RESTRUCTURING DEALS) WHERE AFTER JUST ONE DAY’S PERFORMANCE (FRIDAY NIGHT) THEY CAN GET A BALLPARK DOLLAR FIGURE FOR HOW MUCH MONEY THE MOVIE WILL EARN THE STUDIO. HULK NOT TALKING ABOUT FOR THEATRICAL RUN, BUT AFTER IT GO THROUGH ALL RENTALS/TELEVISION SALES/LICENSING AND USE. HULK TALKING ABOUT THE FINAL NUMBER YEARS DOWN THE LINE.

JUST IMAGINE ROOMS AND ROOMS LIKE THIS

THAT ORIGINALLY BLEW HULK’S MIND. HULK, LIKE MANY, MAY FORGET ABOUT A CERTAIN MOVIE , BUT THAT MOVIE HAVE LONG, LONG ECONOMIC TIMELINE. AND CLASSICS LIKE “BUTCH CASSIDY AND SUNDANCE KID” STILL RUMBLING AROUND MAKING LOTS OF EXTRA MONEY FOR WHICHEVER STUDIO OWNS RIGHTS. THAT WHY THEY MAKE THESE MOVIES YOU KNOW. BECAUSE ON LONG TIMELINE THEY ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD BET.

BUT YOU ASK HULK “WHY THERE SO MUCH DIALOGUE OUT THERE ABOUT THESE FILMS NOT EVEN MAKING THEIR PRODUCTION BUDGET BACK?”

THAT SIMPLE. THERE A TON OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE “PERCENTAGE POINTS” ON THE PROFIT OF ANY GIVEN MOVIE AND SO OF COURSE STUDIO NOT WANT SHARE OUT THE “ACTUAL” PROFITS TO THESE MOVIES. STUDIOS EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF VERY, VERY TALENTED PEOPLE TO WORK THE ACCOUNTING AND MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THESE MOVIES NOT MAKING MONEY (FOR PERCENTAGE PAYOUTS/TAX PURPOSES) BUT ALSO DOING WELL ENOUGH TO PLEASE STOCKHOLDERS. IT VERY TRICKY THING, BUT YOU BE AMAZED.

THE POINT OF ALL THIS DISCUSSION BEING WE ACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW MUCH A MOVIE ACTUALLY MAKING. WHICH MEAN BOX OFFICE FIGURES ALL THE MORE USELESS AND MAYBE NOT GIVE US “WINNERS” AND “LOSERS” WHATSOEVER. THERE SOME GREAT BUSINESS CONVERSATIONS TO BE HAVE, BUT THOSE OFTEN A VERY COMPLICATED NARRATIVE AND NEED HAVE LOTS OF INSIDE INFO.

SO, FOR MOST PART, JUST IGNORE THE BOX OFFICE.

JUST LIKE THE MOVIES YOU LIKE.

THEN TALK ABOUT IT WITH FRIEND.

IT THAT SIMPLE.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 815 other followers