These are the manic ramblings that go through my head at all hours of the day or night.

 

Thank you Bill Mahar. Thank you for at least copping to the fact that you’re just another rich Hollywood fuckhead who is huffy about the fact that all the sudden the market can’t support an inferior product. I’m not going to say “You should have made a better movie,”or made a movie with a broader audience. Your movie made less money than you think it should. Every movie is making less money, but the big boys are still making bank and us specialty acts (that means you and your mean-spirited “Punk’d featuring religious nutjobs” schtick) need to find different ways to monetize. You out of touch, close minded (GASP! A close-minded liberal???) fuck.

Fuck you and your “moral” take on this issue. You know who hides behind the moral imperative to rationalize their greed? The religious, conservative right. Enjoy that. 

The issue with citing the “moral imperative not to steal” is that as a society, the paradigm has changed due to technology. I know a lot of people argue that without really defining it and it gets into sticky territory, but let me try and explain it as I see it: until very recently, the idea of “stealing” something was pretty clearly defined. You take something from a store, someone’s wallet, a neighbors house. It is a physical, mechanical act. Intellectual property theft has been less clearly defined, but generally can be considered taking an idea that someone else can legally prove they generated in it’s entirety (or close to it), and using it in a work of your own to your own profit.

Now, let’s examine “Online Piracy.” This seems to not mach either description of theft. And yes yes, go ahead and insist “it’s like stealing money from you.” The rub is, YOU WERE NEVER ENTITLED TO THAT MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU ENTITLED FUCK. All you were entitled to venture the risk, to release your film/song/writing via the traditional modes of distribution, cross your fingers, and hope it makes the amount of money you had decided (based on precedent) that it should make. 

Now, here comes the tricky part: whereas before, the traditional modes of distribution were pretty unimpeachable and uncircumventable, technology has changed the game. You put a film into theaters in 1992, and that is literally the only way for a person to SEE it. They pay their 7 bucks, maybe buy a popcorn, and you get what has been the traditional pay out for a theatrically released film. The internet and the pirates have changed this, reformatted distribution and dissemination not just of film, BUT OF EVERYTHING! All information and art is now available to all, equal and free and democratic and socialist. 

This change doesn’t inherently bode for any change in moral climate. Technology is pure in it’s intention. Doctor Frankenstein used the same methods to assemble his shambling affront to God that he might save someone’s life. But when we’ve had industries  built on a specific mode of distribution that (barring nuclear holocaust) WILL NEVER EXIST AGAIN, that’s when we get the “moral crusaders” trying to litigate the universe back into a form they understand and can manage.

Does it make me sad that, as a contemporary artist, if I release a work nowadays, I’m 100% less likely to make money off of it via CD sales? Yes, of course it does. But my sadness at the world having changed to no longer accommodate my expectations and entitlement does NOT justify my railing against the technology that also affords more people the ability to see/hear my work. You have NO RIGHT to inflict your anachronistic mores on the whole cloth of technology, just because some kid can turn it into a cardigan you don’t like. 

Also, “Causcasian looting”? What kind of racist shit is that? I’m sorry, were you unfamiliar with the looting and riots in England hat happened, oh, a month or so ago? You know, the ACTUAL looting? Lots of us white folks involved in that. Good job. The implication that people of color both a) are the only ones uncivilized enough to actually physically loot and b) aren’t smart or tech-savvy enough to download your stupid films. 

My Thought's on this Whole "Donal Glover as Spiderman" thing:

Quick Rundown: there was kind of a joke twitter campaign to have Community’s Donald Glover play Spiderman in the upcoming reboot. The issue? Donald Glover looks like this:

and Peter Parker, up until this point, has been drawn to look pretty much like this:

Cue nerds FLIPPING THEIR SHIT.  

I love this whole thing so much. It’s kind of great see people, mopping the proverbial sweat off their brow, trying to defend their covert racism by insisting that their issue is that the character wouldn’t be followed “faithfully” if he was black.

Hey, racists: IT’S A TOTALLY ARBITRARY LINE. What is being “faithful” to the character? What defines Spiderman? Is it him wearing glasses? Is it him having an aunt named May? Is it him wearing the same exact silly vest that Steve Ditko drew on him back in the 60s? It is him talking about how much he loves Aunt May’s wheatcakes?

The fact of the matter is, there are all sorts of things done to update or revise or reinterpret a character, issue to issue, year to year, and maybe 90% of them go unobjected to because they are all seen as honoring the core sensibility of what we perceive “Spiderman” to be. The character of Spiderman/Peter Parker is not EXACTLY the same character that appeared in Amazing Fantasy 15, for better or for worse. Things change, big things. He got married. He got unmarried. He AGED. 

Why aren’t we up in arms that he’s being played by ANYONE, not say animated, or even just left alone as a comic? Sure this is not a dramatic leap (you can argue that comics are a representational media and meant to represent reality in some way), but baggage may have shifted during the flight.

And every comic fan who cares enough about the character to have opinions about his interpretation at some point draws a line in the sand and says, “These are things I think are important about Spiderman. Change them, and I don’t consider it, at heart, Spiderman.”

I’m not trying to get people back down. I just want them to admit that their understanding of the character is that Spiderman MUST BE WHITE and that this is what makes them uncomfortable about the whole Donald Glover thing.  It is because a black man would play a character they feel MUST BE WHITE. 

Donald Glover said a great thing about the whole incident. I’m paraphrasing, but it was along the lines of, “Spiderman’s a kid growing up poor, in Queens, no parents, taken care of by a sickly aunt, an’t he’s supposed to be WHITE? That’s kind of ridiculous.” He’s 100% right. All of those things (to this humble fanboy) ARE the essence of the character, and NONE of them are white exclusive. 

What he touches on, in fact, is more interesting: whether we like it or not, all of those things are actually more believable as part of the BLACK experience (at least from a modern perspective). As a former NYC native, I can attest to the fact that Queens has changed quite a bit since Stan Lee’s day (if it was ever that way at all, and not just the product of media whitewashing) and seeing a black (or latino, or korean) take on the character is, frankly, more believable from a modern perspective. 

Then again, this is all assuming that the consensus is that him being young, poor, in Queens, no parents, taken care of by a sickly aunt are what defines him. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe it’s just about a kid slinging webs. Maybe it’s the costume. Maybe it’s the storyline “Kraven’s Last Hunt.”

The point i’m making is that IT’S ALL SO INCREDIBLY ARBITRARY. We can argue until judgment day, but it’s all subjective. And that subjectivity, if leading you to a conclusion that, indeed, SPIDERMAN MUST BE WHITE (because so-and-so drew him that way, because he’s “always” been white) that is, indisputably, a RACIST and arbitrary assertion. So yeah. Enjoy that.