Just ... stop it

Up front: Admittedly, my tolerance for what I consider unimportant is at quite the low.

I'm excitedly and urgently growing my business in a ginormous way, which pretty much consumes me right now. My wife and I are painfully remembering and grieving departed loved ones, and that has us emotionally drained. And I seem to be recently surrounded by friends and acquaintances who are sadly, imminently going to lose family members, so I'm doing what I can physically and emotionally to be there for them, too.

So, there's all of this genuinely important stuff going on in people's lives.

And then there's irritating, destructive noise in my social feeds, where it's just people abusing other people.

Over stupid things.

Like the "debate" over evolution and creation.

Not important.

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not saying the topics aren't important and worth discussing. But this gross noise has not been about the topics. It's been about debating. And it's been about abuse.

So if it's not important, why am I coming out of semi-blog-hiatus to say anything?

Because that abuse is an important thing for us to talk about. And, corporately, to stop.

I look at these social feeds, and think, "Really? You're going to abuse people using broken social pipes as a way to push your world view onto them, and, what -- change them to your mindset?"

Actually, I would be OK with even that.

Except even that's not what's happening.

What is actually happening in is you're using broken social pipes as an avenue to try to appear superior and to abuse people.

You are an arrogant, horrible person.

I have been shocked at the base, intolerant vitriol that's been spewed by people over topics like this. In publicly, archive-able, searchable forms for when I'm considering working with, hiring, or having a beer with you.

Sickly ironically, this vitriol is usually from people that would consider themselves socially progressive intelligent people, and for whom tolerance is a stated cornerstone of their beliefs.

We all have our blind spots, and we smart people often think we're far more intelligent than we really are, and oh, we would like to think we're never intolerant.

Coming back to this recent debate and abuse over theories of how everything came to be, and limiting that to evolution and creationism theories, let me tell you what's true for me:

1. I am well-read and informed concerning these theories
2. I acknowledge both theories take a tremendous amount of faith
3. I have a strong, directed personal conviction on these topics
4. I don't put that personal conviction onto other people
5. I don't think less of them if they disagree (about this, or political views, or best movies)
6. As someone else said, depending on the direction you take, evolution and creation are inherently non-provable and/or non-falsifiable
7. I wasn't there, so I don't know how the whole "everything coming into being" thing went down

So, now you know where I stand. It's discussable.

It's not debatable.

This whole little rambling of mine is just a straw. It's just little contribution for goading maybe a few of us to take our viewpoints out of a non-directed cloud (and aiming it at a public figure with whom you don't have a personal relationship is the same thing as a non-directed cloud, plus maybe a little bit of cowardice).

And this is about taking accountability for our behavior.

Those that know me know I don't brook intolerant vitriolic hate spew. One of the things people like and hate about me is I hold people accountable. Even if I don't know them.

I'm a work in progress, and I certainly haven't arrived, but I work really hard to hold people accountable without penalizing them. I spend a lot of time thinking about it, practicing it, evaluating how I've done with it, and refining it.

So even though I know "I'm not there yet", I'm comfortable that I'm at least actively doing the hard work.

And regardless of your viewpoint, if you know me, do me favor: Take the comments you've been making about [those people] and [that obvious debate], and insert my name. Make it personal. Make it directed. Make it at me.

See if that still works for you.

And if it does, do us a mutual favor and unfriend and unfollow me.

And honestly, all of that intolerant vitriolic hate spew? Just ... stop it.

Straight Up Gate Poppin' ...

My dogs have started Gate Poppin'.

They lean on or head-butt their way past a safety gate or other barrier to get to things they want, but aren't supposed to have.

Things like access to a human's bed (because their muddy paws didn't get clean enough on the floor as they walked through the entire house).

They wait until I'm asleep. Or out of the house. Then they start poppin'.

I've decided, to minimize my rage at this recent behavior, at some point, I'm going to write a rap parody video, "Gate Poppin'", featuring my dogs.

(NSFW Warning. It will use the word "bitches". A lot.)

Here's a possible sample:

Walkin' my domain, my home where I'm the king
trying ta get to bed, but here's the thing
Gotta item blocking my reg'lar path
gotta knock it down -- It's gonna feel my wrath 

Put my head low, then hear some scritchin'
somewhere down south, I start to itchin'
Look up see a bitch on the other side
she don't look calm -- she looks ready to ride 

Heat drivin' me wild, like I'm a junkyard cur
Maybe it's the summer weather, or maybe it's just her
Put my head down with nothin' stoppin'
Me as I lunge forward and start ta poppin'....

[Refrain.]

Tha's right, it's time to get poppin' -- Straight up Gate Poppin' 

Poppin'. Puh-Puh-Puh-Pop-Poppin'

Poppin'. Pop-Pop-Pop-Poppin'

Poppin'. Pop-Pop-Pop-Poppin'

Pop-Pop-Pop. Pope-puh-pop-pop-pop-POP!

(Straight up Gate Poppin')

(Admittedly, it probably needs more than thirty seconds of workshopping to get the flow.)

Didn't get the gig? That's your fault.

My personal bias?

Resumes and candidates have gotten crappier across the board over the years.

(And, yes, I do mean "candidates have gotten crappier", not "candidates behavior has gotten crappier". The latter abstracts accountability from the infractor, and the former let's it land where it belongs -- Behavior doesn't define a person, but is a reflection of who that person already is.)



I've found all of this to be far, far worse in the acting and video game worlds.

So, while I don't agree with all of the points in this slide deck (some are distinctly legacy), there are some good tips here -- Even if you're not a recent college grad. And probably especially if you think none of this applies to you.

Part of the glut of sub-par submissions is an overall societal decline in personal accountability, and a correlative increase in a sense of entitlement & arrogance (which is invalid anyway, but especially for new entrants who haven't earned anything, and for long-time, experienced folks who who are lazy and don't bust their ass daily to stay relevant).


I know these industries -- I'm a professional actor and a video game studio owner.

At times, I get so blindingly frustrated with the amateur behavior of things like assistants to casting directors, agents, and managers who can't manage people or events to a clock, or non-experience folks who want to get into the game industry, but have done no research, or passionately chased their own development projects.

A while ago, I sat across the table from a guy who I'd coached for an entry level position interview at another company. He didn't get the gig, didn't do any of the things I suggested as prep, and he blamed not getting the job on "nepotism", "unfair bias", and "them not seeing how great I am".

"I see the problem," I said. "You're a lazy, self-absorbed jerk who doesn't want to contribute positively to people outside of yourself. That's on you."

(His response was I have unreasonable expectations for people. I really wish I could say this was a unique sit-down event.)

Anyway, as a bonus, these slides' retro-50s visual juxtaposition and tongue-in-cheekedness is fun, too.

http://theundercoverrecruiter.com/graduates-lose-out-jobs/

The Film Industry Needs the vFX Industry (and Everyone Else)

So, there's a recent current kerfluffle about the role of visual effects studios in successful films, problems with the viability of vFX studios due to hyper-competitiveness, and multiple other related and tangential issues.

I had planned to start (what I hoped was) a balanced, transparent discussion of just how complicated this thing really is, dig into the usury business model that contributes to it (not limited just to film), the pros and perils of unionizing, and so on.

But then I thought, "Well, this isn't just about visual effects -- We actually need everyone involved in making films."

Everyone.

(Remember the writer's strike? That was painful, and 6 years later, as just one side effect, we're still saddled with the overabundance of reality TV that is not reality, but is very much a bulk of our TV.)

Visual effects isn't just about Life of Pi or Star Trek. It's Amour and Lincoln (and Lincoln (and Lincoln)) and Django Unchained and Silver Linings Playbook and ...

... and ...

... and, well, all of them.

Visual effects are there in so many movies to more or less "obviousness", and outside of the "vFX CGI blockbusters" (and I'd argue, even within them), good effects are like good voice acting and good music and good acting and good everything that's solid and well-implemented and if you choose to step back and take the time you say, "That's amazing" but if you don't step back you don't notice their teh awesumz because well-done stuff doesn't get in the way.

But this is already going long, so to make the point, I offer you Exhibit A:

This was my attempt at an explosion. But it looks like a misshapen starfish. Or radiating sperm. Or an exploding misshapen starfish radiating sperm.

I need the professionals who do this ****. I don't want that art missing from The Art. (And I don't want untrained uninitiates like me breaking the fourth wall with our awful.)

Need more? I offer Exhibit B:

Zomigosh, I need vFX and wardrobe and makeup and writers and directors and grips and gaffers and composers and audio designers and editors and producers and DPs and ADs and casting agents and set decorators and storyboard artists and art directors and craft services and audiences and the dozens of other disciplines that are probably going to get a hold me for leaving them out of this knowingly abbreviated list.

Hey, despite my love of and belief and participation in independent film, that doesn't mean I'm ever out there solo without other passionate, talented folks who mesh with my passion and talent as we all drive to something greater than I can do by myself. In a vacuum. Without visual effects.

(You do not want that.)

Parenting and Accountability

People who know me know I'm pretty keen on personal accountability -- for myself, and for other people.

Those same folks know I don't have to know you to hold you accountable.

I'll be professional, I'll be constructive, but if you are doing something blatantly untoward in public, it's totally possible I'll chat with you about it. Society's arguably in a bit of a nosedive, and I'd argue societal character disorder is at least in part at play.

 My kids know this, too. Sometimes, that bites me.

Last night, I was helping my 4-year-old with something she really should be able to do on her own. I stopped what I was doing, briefly helped her, then went back to what I was doing.

"Daaaa-dy!"

"What, Hon?"

"You didn't do it right."

"Look, Sweetie, it's not my job to do this for you."

"Yeah, but it is your job to do the part you said you'd help me with right!"

(Dammit.)

She's totally right.

Note to self: Avoid transparent half-assery.

Can't change the past ...

There is no going back to the past, jacking with the timestream, stopping John Wilkes Booth, keeping Pa Kent from having a heart attack, or avoiding the Butterfly effect.

There's just dealing with what did happen, and doing something about it and your life from right now onward.

So if you're reading this now, sitting in the dark in you're underwear in your lame-ass wannabe version of the Batcave, put on your Big Boy pants, nut up, do what you already know needs to be done, and get past all the bull***t self-talk you've used to justify your flaccid inactivity.

Nothing you do defines your value, or adds or detracts one iota from who you are at the core.

How you react to what's done to you says volumes about your character, and who you really, really are.

How YOU can be successful

OK. I have concrete steps for how you (specifically, you) can be successful in life.

I don't care what you do. Or where you are. Averaged over your life, this will work for you.

1. Do the work you are supposed to be doing
2. Don't avoid the work you are supposed to be doing
3. Don't be an ass while doing the work you are supposed to be doing. (Actually, just don't be an ass.)
4. If you are not doing #1, but are doing #2, and/or #3, don't lie about any of it. We know. Everyone knows. And we tell each other. About you. (It's not gossip; it's consequence for your bad behavior.)

And yes, this is motivated by a handful of recent events with severely broken individuals operating at a shockingly bad sub-professional level, a brief personal historical assessment of similar folks, and admittedly my nigh pathological, idealistic desire to hold people accountable to do the right thing (I know, I know -- it's on them, but ...).

We all hold our reputations in our hands. I am amazed at the arrogance and character disorder of people who think that truth doesn't apply to them.

(You're welcome.)

The Red Skull is a Nazi

Art by David Aja (image from Marvel.com)

The Red Skull is a Nazi.

And you know what? Nazis are bad.

I don't mean "there's this jerk at work who doesn't do anything and spends all his time politicking because that's his only skill" bad, but "Genocide is a too-nice term for their actively killing massive amounts of men, women, and children because they didn't meet their ####-up standards of perfection" bad.

But I'm wondering -- not flippantly -- did Nazi's become a protected class at some point? Because in movies and comic books, it seems like you can't mention them, or show swastikas as a symbol of evil that we should not forget, and a pop-culture introduction to that horror might just be the gateway to more challenging dianoia.

I'm wicked stoked (and wicked nervous) about the upcoming Captain America: The First Avenger film. Excited, because a quality big-screen treatment is far overdue, I'm a lifetime franchise fan (Cap was my first comic book at 5 years old), and I think if director Joe Johnston can bring his Rocketeer and Young Indiana Jones Chronicles vibe to the Star-Spangled Avenger, it's a win. I'm nervous, because Captain America as a representative ideal means a lot to me.

I expect the film be a fun, mostly light-hearted romp, not necessarily prompting weighty discussions; but it is a launching point for them.

The Red Skull is going to be the main baddie in the film, but the film changes his origin in a significant way. Rather than portrayed as he is in the comic books as the goose-stepping protégé who eventually outstrips and frightens Hitler himself, he's couched instead within the clandestine, apolitical organization HYDRA (also from the comic books).

Now, I'm all for new expressions of franchise IPs (it allows me to be a Hasbro fan), and I totally get that for them to be successful in their non-generative medium, changes need to be made -- this smacks of commercialism with an unintentional bad social impact.

Allegedly, the Red Skull's affiliation was changed so the film would do well in overseas markets -- ostensibly Germany, where there's an understandable sensitivity to an ugly portion of that country's history.

Sure, there's an intelligent sensitivity aspect to this decision; though I doubt that's the driver. And the cost is potentially bigger.

I mean what I said earlier, where pop-culture can be a less-threatening entry to important concepts with which we should wrestle (there's an analog to edgy stand-up comedians making us laugh at things that would make us uncomfortable in intellectual-only situations). Hiding thorny things for marketing purposes is kind of the ... opposite of "Never Forget".

Interestingly, when Paramount Pictures (who is distributing the film overseas), was going to market the film in non-US markets, they balked at the planned idea of truncating the title to just "The First Avenger" -- arguing "Captain America" has too much brand recognition to remove from the film title. So they gave those various markets the choice between "Captain America: The First Avenger", or just the "The First Avenger".

Somewhat surprisingly, Ukraine, South Korea, and Russia are the only three having decided to date to go with just the truncated title; Germany is keeping "Captain America" intact. (China's still up in the air, since they only release south of two-dozen non-national theatrical releases per year, and it remains to be seen if Cap will be one of them, and what its marketing title will be. As a side note, it was also Paramount who chose to remove "A Real American Hero" from the G.I.Joe film title.)

So, at least for the most part (in this instance), brand recognition trumps, and the film gets to keep ... the name of the guy wearing a freaking giant American flag as his uniform.

Funny enough, the crew members-only poster (an excellent nod to 1940s art sensibilities) is a re-work of the cover of Captain America #1 from 1943 -- including Chris Evans punching Adolf Hitler (ah, but still no sign of swastikas; though Hitler's arm is cleverly obscured by a Luger P08).

"Captain America: The First Avenger" crew member poster (image from marvel.com)

Captain America #1, December 1940 - a year into WWII, but a year before the bombing of Pearl Harbor (image from coverbrowser.com)

Even in the comics, for some reason, the Red Skull's affiliation to the Nazis is being downplayed.

As an example, I'm looking forward to the Red Skull: Incarnate limited series, and I'm a David Aja fan (and these covers are fantastic). But notice this cover:

No swastikas.

Here we have Johann Schmidt doing the sieg heil, but the symbol of Nazi barbarism is missing.

From David Aja's blog:

"At last was decided not to show swastikas on covers, but we thought readers' brains would fill blanks ..."

Sure -- if readers know enough about some of the horrors of history needed to fill in these blanks.

(And to be clear, I'm not at all criticizing Mr. Aja in this, just raising my larger concern.)

I'm not trying to be alarmist or make something out of nothing, but I honestly feel there are truisms we shouldn't ignore. Truisms like Edmund Burke's "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it" (or George Santayana's more oft-quoted rephrasing, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it").

At some point, societally, I think we do forget things. That happens over time, and the death knell is at some defined, measurable point we either have to figure out reactively, or for which we should actively watch.

"Never forget" is a mantra for the horrors of World War II, so we don't forget the brutality of some people toward others, and we don't forget the tragedy and cost of lives lost to that brutality.

To be totally insular (but to make a point with doable math), if I just consider the U.S. Armed Forces WWII veterans, there are estimated to be fewer than 2 million surviving. Within 6-10 years at current projections, we may lose the last of our living links to this important part of our history (though organizations like The National WWII Museum are doing what they can to capture oral histories from veterans and survivors).

Now, encouragingly, there are other places in the Marvel comics where the history and horror of things represented by symbols like the swastika are still remembered.

The amazing Ed Brubaker, whose current run on Captain America is currently one of my all-time favorites -- has reintroduced Sin, the Red Skull's daughter, and kept her and her father firmly entrenched in their Nazi origins.

Even in the current "Fear Itself" cross-over story arc (largely led by writer Matt Fraction), Sin and her armies are razing the entire United States  -- including the Capitol -- in their "Blitzkrieg USA", with giant war machines blatantly festooned with swastikas. Various participating comic writers are subtly (but explicitly) calling out this symbol via characters, noting its horrid history, and its current use to intentionally strike fear into the populace.

Going back to the commercial reasons for losing the Swastika from films and comic books (and to somewhat complicate the issue further) there's a related, cultural sensitivity reason to exclude the symbol.

It's not like the National Socialist German Workers' Party (or the precursor Thule secret society) invented the swastika. It's originally a sanskrit symbol, ironically a one-time good-luck symbol, and it still has wide active use in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Since India is a large populace (and an important commercial audience for US films), removing the symbol probably makes a lot of sense. There's a bigger, more complicated discussion here about misappropriation of symbols, whether such misappropriation can irredeemably damage a symbol or trope, and cross-cultural isolationism. (Though, to be clear, the red/white/black Nazi expression of the symbol is unequivocally negatively iconic.)

Getting above the weeds a bit, commercial concerns by themselves are certainly valid -- films are so expensive, and if they don't do gangbusters in all markets, we fanboys aren't going to get big-budget treatments of our franchise favorites.

My concern is that in the service of the dollar, or cultural sensitivity, or "playing it safe", even in these "light-hearted" pop culture vehicles like the Captain America movie, we will lose focus on the importance of remembering key parts of our history -- and in so doing, forget the cost, and how to avoid similar horrors in the future.

(Flame on!)

UPDATED: I've seen the new Captain America movie, and read the first issue of the new Red Skull comic series.

My feelings on this topic from the movie are mixed. There are nods to swastikas in the film, though they are creatively covered, hidden, and otherwise kept from full view. And while in the film Hydra is positioned as a division of the Nazi war machine, that in some way deflects the history of the horror the Nazis caused.

My feelings on the Red Skull: Incarnate limited comic book series are far less mixed (and very positive). While I still wish the swastikas had not been removed from the cover art, they are portrayed prominently, accurately, and frighteningly in the interior art. Even more importantly, writer Greg Pak is making this series an opportunity to accurately portray how not just the Red Skull, but the Nazi party, came into power. He is painstakingly portraying the culture and global events of the time, with a stated hope that people will tackle the thorny subject of how this happened, and how we might prevent it from happening again. He's even providing bibilography and further reading in each issue.

I'm impressed and excited by this mission of Greg Pak's -- it's encouraging, and weightier than I expected (my semi-myopia, nothing on Mr. Pak, obviously).

(I wonder if some smart PoliSci and sociology profs should look at this material as a clever way to give this topic a fresh look among jaded students.)

The real heroes and villain of Snow White

I watched Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with my daughters (their first time) this weekend, and I was struck by a nearly two-decades old thought I realize I've probably never committed to paper.

And it's probably already been said -- but I haven't seen it.

Snow White may be the protagonist, but she isn't the hero. Neither is the prince, or the dwarfs.

And the queen isn't the real bad guy.

And because this isn't a grad-level academic paper, and I don't have 20 pages to faux fill, I'll get to it quickly.

The easy one first: The real heroes of Snow White are the animals.

The animals rescue Snow White from the forest when she's first lost. The animals judge her character as pure, and take immediately action to meet her needs for fellowship and physical comfort, leading her to the Dwarfs' cottage.

The animals sacrifice there free time, jump in, and help her clean her new-found home. It seems like a small thing, but as a modern analogy: I seem to be forced to move last-minute. A lot. And I have people who call themselves friends, and have never heeded a call for help (of any size); on the flip side, I have true friends who would help me move, I think even if they were in the middle of their own move.

Anyway, it is the animals -- again discerning true character -- who attack the wicked queen, disguised as an elderly hag, with no fear for "how that might look".

And failing that, it is the animals who immediately spring to action to forcibly gather the dwarfs to rescue Snow White.

They're the pure, action heroes of the film.

And the villain?

It's not the queen. She's so depraved and lost in her own narcissism and hatred and jealousy of the "not her" that she both knows exactly who she is, and (paradoxically) is blind to it (ever had an incompetent or sabotaging co-worker or boss? Life would be so much easier if they saw what you see, but there own character myopia likely deceives them into thinking someone else is the problem.)

No, the evil queen -- the "witch" -- isn't the villain.

The Huntsman who is the most reprehensible person in the film.

Who?

The Huntsman - that affable gent who is sent on a mission to kill Snow White.

"But ..." (I almost hear you say defensively) "... he doesn't kill her! He lets her go -- and he covers for her by tricking the queen with a pig's heart."

Sure, he doesn't kill her. Instead, he drives a young girl off into the deep woods, with no likelihood of surviving, were it not for story's artifice.

And, let's remember: he was sent to murder a young girl -- A charge he was set to execute until the last possible moment. And in his cowardice, he abandoned her to the wild, feigned compliance, and faded to obscurity.

Sure, from a relativistic perspective, that's maybe better than outright killing.

I don't know. I'm not a relativist.

What I see instead is someone compliant in a regime of witchcraft and murder, who didn't stand against the wrong, and fight for the right -- no matter the personal cost.

That wouldn't have made a great story (but maybe it would have made a great different one).

But this isn't a college paper, so (for me) it has a point, and an application.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Once I reached an age of understanding I've witnessed little injustices every day. I can't save the world, but if I don't try, if I don't say, "no" to unnecessary hostile exchanges, to office politics, to harassment of marginalized co-workers, of a waiter or a hotel clerk, if I don't defend the victim who protected himself from the bully (taking a policy cowardice route of "zero tolerance"), if I laugh at abhorrent jokes even if I'm secretly emotionally or physically ill about them, then I've failed.

And I've become the Huntsman, and the true villain in my own story.

The Muppets on the plight of the worker

Friday night, I had an unexpectedly brilliant conversation with a guy who wonderfully articulated his frustration with the dehumanization of the workforce, the abuse of individuals by corporations (or more accurately, the abuse by a broken subset of people high up in large corporations that use the container as an excuse to abuse the containees), and the wonderful, decade-old-but-still relevant book, The Cluetrain Manifesto.

What struck me about the conversation was the passionate, non-vitriolic, erudite but down-to-earth way he deconstructed all of the bad that happens when people higher up a food chain fool themselves into justifying their bad behavior and usury of people below them. It was a very non-Marxist, constructive discussion of where he thought things were broken, how they could be fixed, and -- most importantly -- his refusal to accept that it can not be fixed.

That conversation lived with me throughout the night and into Saturday, and probably made me more aware of this clever little commentary as I was reading issue #3 of the Muppet Sherlock Holmes comic book to my daughters.

For those not aware, BOOM! Studios and writer / artist Roger Langridge have (for me) almost single-handedly rejuvenated the brand, and done the nigh-impossible -- written a comic that works at the adult and kid level in the same way the original variety show did. And folks like Jesse Blaze Snider, Shelli Paroline, Tim Beedle, Armand Villavert Jr., Paul Benjamin, Patrick Storck, and Amy Mebberson (the latter two collaborated on the Sherlock Holmes miniseries, along with Braden Lamb, Deron Bennett, Christopher Burns, and Erika Terriquez), have carried the torch forward with excellent treatments of classics like this and Robin Hood.

But back the Muppets and the plight of the worker.

There's a witty little aside midway through the issue, taking place between the worker (Gonzo), and his boss (who longtime Muppet fans will recognize as the Phantom of the Muppet Theater, introduced waaaay back in season 1):

BOSS: I have my doubts about your ability to do this job.
GONZO: But none of us know what this job is.
BOSS: There's a whole world of folks out there working every day, not sure for what, or what they've accomplished, or what's expected of them. And they do it happily! Every day, for less than you're making!
GONZO: But why not do something you like, and get paid for that?
BOSS: No, no, that's what hobbies are for! You pay to do what you like, and get paid to spend time away from what you like!
GONZO: So I should be happy to be here being unhappy, because you pay me to be here, knowing my reward is having time off to have a little happy time?
BOSS: Exactly! That's how the real world works.
GONZO: Oh.

Understandably, this puts Gonzo into an almost irrevocable funk, and concerned co-workers Kermit and Fozzie suspect something is amiss:

FOZZIE: Oh, this isn't good. He's become a work zombie!
KERMIT: Maybe he hasn't had his usual dosage of coffee?
FOZZIE: Let me try something ...
FOZZIE (CONTINUED): Well at least it's payday!
GONZO: Another day another dollar!
FOZZIE: But, hey, the weekend's here!
GONZO: TGIF!
FOZZIE: How's it going?
GONZO: Ah, the usual ...
FOZZIE: WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT OF HERE!

And there it is -- unexpected cautionary parodic wisdom by way of the Muppets. Granted, I was probably a bit queued up for it given the previous night's conversation (and my own internal wiring), but that doesn't make it any less astute.

Actors, don't be putzes

This ticks me off.

Are you video game fan? Are you an actor (similar to me) who at least partially got into the voice acting side of the Biz to do video games?

Then don't be this guy -- someone who spills the unannounced beans on a video game sequel.

Hey, it's a brave new InterWeb 2.0 world, but that doesn't abdicate the actor's responsibility to protect a potential client's intellectual property. And I wouldn't be surprised if this violates the Breakdown Express terms of service (the audition notice service for which he's a subscriber).

If you're a client, wouldn't this make you think twice about posting your breakdowns? If you're Breakdown Express, wouldn't you be worried that this yutz could cost you business, because clients would inappropriately paint you with the same distrust brush?

Hey, I'm an actor, and a blogger, and a subscriber -- but I don't blab.

WGA strike

I'm bummed by the Writer's Guild of America (WGA) strike.

You can catch some good pithy insights and links to supportive and antagonistic thoughts on the strike on the DealFatigue blog (and Peter's an insightful, good guy).

But let me talk about why I'm bummed.

I'm bummed because, as a consumer, shows are being put on hold, indefinitely. First casualties were things like Leno, Letterman, Colbert, and Stewart. Shows like Rules of Engagement and Two and a Half Men followed suit. Heroes may go into early re-runs, which it will likely survive, with its rabid fan base. But my being bummed as a consumer is a wee bit selfish.

I'm more bummed because striking writers may be responsible for killing shows like "Friday Night Lights". Almost cancelled after its first season, it's seen new life in a second season on Friday nights. While many folks have cried foul on a time slot where "shows go to die", it was actually probably a strategic network decision -- with little ratings expectations for a Friday night time slot, "FNL" arguably only needs to marginally well to get moved to a better slot in the short term, or renewed for a third season in the medium term.

There are good folks on "FNL", and they're twiddling their thumbs and losing work and may need to go on to other things which will kill that show (if waning interest from early reruns doesn't do it first). And it's the one network show filmed in Austin, so if you pull that, you impact that acting and commercial community.

I'm bummed because this strike probably takes WGA out of the video game opportunity they've obviously been pursuing.

And, yes, I'm bummed that, as a working professional actor, I'm impacted by this strike. Projects I was up for are on hold -- TV, movies, advertising, voice over, and the like. Anything touched by WGA talent.

And I'm bummed, because -- not to be alarmist -- with a stoppage in writing work and slow down in ancillary work, shorting of advertising spend, an indeterminate strike period before being ended by a likely mutually unfulfilling compromise, followed by a return of writers to network slots populated in their absence by reality and game show TV not needing as many of their services, this strike could cause or exacerbate a nationwide recession.

I saw an interesting comment from one of Letterman's writers saying he though many of the strikers didn't realize how emotional the strike would be, because there are other people who are there friends, who are hurt, and "it isn't their fight."

I don't want to be disrespectful, but ... duh.

Peter's more measured about it:

"... a strike would seriously harm the overall health of the industry. Everybody
involved knows that."

And:

"... a strike is a lose-lose outcome for everyone in the business; the writers
in particular, regardless of any gains for the Guild at the negotiating table."

There are pros and cons to unions and strikes. I'm not the guy to debate that.

But should a group have this kind of potential impact on people outside of the group's affiliation?

Or am I overstating the impact?

iPhone madness ...

OK, I got sick of all of the 300 "This is madness!" parodies, too.

But I with the Friday iPhone launch craziness, the fact that I'm a thinking techie guy, and various headlines (ZDnet, etc.), I was inspired to create my own little 300-inspired riff.

Besides, I was feeling a little left out of the whole parody insanity.

Not that I'm wishing Apple any ill -- more power to innovation. It's just that they're not a handset manufacturer, this is their first foray, it has some initial hiccups ("Has variable call quality and lacks some basic features found in many cell phones"), and launching on Friday night, causing weekend activation hiccups to take longer and be more costly (stories range from 6-39 hours) wasn't the smartest thing I've seen done.

And I am miffed at their inarguably impressive ~75% market share for MP3 players -- and I'm miffed because their innovation has been overtaken by geek chic, and iRiver, Samsung, and others (arguably) have better, cheaper alternatives. And geek chic is pointless.

All that said, this is probably the sexiest U.S. phone out there, and once they get past the hiccups, watch out, world!

Video game blog heartburn ...

For those who follow my video game blog, I haven't been able to post, and don't know when I will be able to again.

Blogger.com (Google) forced an upgrade to their new version last night, and though I can't log into my old account, that's where my video game blog is. Not here. Where I'm typing.

I've opened a trouble ticket, but given how alive the Blogger/Google help boards are, it looks I am one of many, many screwed over people.

I'll give it until shortly after this weekend, and if it's not resolved, I'll look at moving to TypePad / Moveable Type / Habari / whatever isn't Blogger.

Networking for actors ...

I was going to post another "Acting Tools" type post about tech networking tools I use on the toy job front and how they can be used for acting, when I realized I should probably back up and talk about networking in general, first.

So, this is also a soapbox post. You've been warned.

Networking is a pretty harped-on skill set for any vertical market; acting is no exception. Networking helps me figure out what opportunities are out there. Networking creates opportunities for other people.

I used to be really good at networking. I mean, really good. A few years ago, on both the high tech and acting fronts, you would have been hard pressed to not find me everywhere. Sometimes, I was at different places at the same time. Seriously, I was that good.

But then I stopped doing it.

Why?

Because I honestly didn't like how good I was at networking. I got into situations and saw people doing the networking thing, and they weren't sincere. They were looking at opportunities for themselves, and didn't give a damn about the people they were meeting. They were superficial. They were exploiters. They were users.

I so didn't want to be them.

So I did sort of an over-correction. Scaled back. Took some time for me. Worked on the relationships I'd built, and the relationships I wanted to build. Met people through people I knew, and met some wicked cool folks. It nicely coincided with some life stuff and me being just generally tired.

It's not like I was working any less as an actor. On the contrary, I was working harder as I was still busting my tail (yes, I have a tail) on the marketing, training, craft, performance, and business side of the Biz.

And then, some time after my "over correction", I came to a realization that I wasn't "that guy", and I got back to focusing on networking that makes sense for me. Contrary to how that sounds, that's not selfish networking. I call it "mutually beneficial relationship building" (which should be redundant, but unfortunately isn't") -- networking that fits in with my personality and style and values.

Here's how it works for me.

I meet someone, and we talk. I find out what they do, what they'd like to do, and what makes their day worthwhile. And I talk about what I do, what I'd like to do, and what makes my day worthwhile. And we figure out if we've got stuff we want to do together that makes our days worthwhile together.

That's right, kids, we have a conversation.

And then, independent of whether we can do something together, I try to keep that person in mind when opportunities come up for them, even if there's no benefit to me.

And here's where it gets a little ... weird.

Just like I'm good at networking, I'm also good at recognizing opportunities. I was at a networking gig a couple of weeks ago, and as a room full of people talked about what they wanted professionally, little light bulbs were going off left and right (up and down?) in my brain, and I saw opportunities for them with relationships I'd built, and I got that information to those people, made introductions with other people, and so on.

Oddly, lately, people have been complaining about this.

Why? Because they're sure I have an "angle".

It got back to me recently that a group of folks had made me the topic of conversation as they were trying to figure out how I benefited from the things I'd tried to facilitate for them individually.

How sad.

I mean, I guess it is a little weird.

I had a company approach me recently for a job. I then met someone who was looking for the same kind of job for which I'd been sought out, and I pointed him to the company, told him to research them, and if he was interested, I'd get him in touch with my contact. In essence, I was bringing a competitor in for a job I had a shot at.

But you need to understand where my heads at. I genuinely like helping people. I like solving problems, and seeing opportunities and synergies and acting on those is solving a problem, with better bennies (helping people). And I don't care about competition, because my competition (professionally or acting or running or whatever) is me. No one else.

And I feel convicted that knowingly keeping someone from a gig of any kind is tantamount to fixing a game or throwing a fight -- it's not a legitimate win.

Now I'm rambling.

The net-net is I think networking -- really effective networking -- shouldn't be exploitative "what can you do for me" usury. It should be relationship building. It should be mutually beneficial. And when it's not mutually beneficial, it should be beneficial for the other person.

If everyone had that mentality, what kind of cool world would this be?

Hmph. Time for me to go hug a seal.

I warned you this would be a soapbox.

Maybe tomorrow I'll do the tools post ...

Dumbest business moves ...

Not really related to acting, per se, but there are definitely lessons in here that apply to it.

Over at CNN, they're running a story on the 101 Dumbest Moments in Business.

There are some doozies -- seriously, they thought they could get away with giving shares of stock to a corpse (#48).

But #77 is my favorite:

"After Bank of America announces plans to outsource 100 tech support jobs from the San Francisco Bay Area to India, the American workers are told that they must train their own replacements in order to receive their severance payments."

Wow, that is pretty dumb...

When "Idealism" means something else ...

"Adam, you're very idealistic."

Lately, I'm much more aware of people and what they mean -- as opposed to what they say.

My epiphany today is people usually aren't being positive when they say this. It's kind of like saying "thank you", but not meaning "thank you" (watch the edited-for-television version of Goodfellas, if you need help with that concept).

At best, they mean,

"Adam, you're being naive."

Or the slightly more derogatory,

"Adam, I think that's very Pollyanna."

The wake up I had, though, is it's usually a bigger deal than this. When someone uses this phrase with me (particularly at BigHugeCorp), it's when I'm taking an ethical stand.

For example, OneWhoHasPower at BigHugeCorp once sat me down to say, "Your doing the right thing is much admired. However, 'Doing the right' thing can be a little subjective." (Note: It wasn't at this little sit-down.)

So, assuming I am in the right, they're not praising me for my idealism -- they're marginalizing my stance to justify their lack of one (or to justify their stance on the "wrong" side).

Put bluntly, if I'm doing right, and they don't want to invest the effort or burn the political capital, they minimize my stance as being "idealistic" -- and implicitly unrealistic, and therefore not valid.

Well, thank you ...

The day I took the low road ...

I know someday will by my last day at BigHugeCorp.

Maybe I'll get to choose it; maybe I won't. Maybe I'll work there until I die. Maybe I'll die prematurely.

Usually, I have delusions of grandeur about may last day, where I'll do something big and important and elevated that means something and changes that soulless entity to a bastion of employee kindness.

And, sometimes, like this week, I have a really, really bad series of days where I lose faith that there are thinking individuals worthy of trust in the world, and I think, "Maybe I'll just wear one of these shirts on what will become my last day of work" (Not safe for work; or those easily offended):

• My wardrobe for my last day of work

Maybe the hoodie. And the thong (so I feel pretty). And I'd drink coffee from the mug. And if I still had Loki, I'd bring her to the office and have her wear the doggie tee (even though I'm opposed to dogs being dressed up). That's a picture.

Damn, I miss that dog ...

Yesterday at BigHugeCorp sucked

I sent and received about 200 Emails yesterday.

In a 10 hour day, that's an average of 3 minutes to per message. Are we really receiving, comprehending, evaluating, and delivering considered responses in 3-6 minutes?

Of course, 3 minutes assumes that all I'm doing is Email. Which I wasn't.

Looking at my IM log, I had like 27 separate IM conversations, and there were 4 scheduled conference calls, multiple other ad hoc calls, hallway meetings, and personal interactions.

Sure, many of these happend concurrently; but that doesn't make this whole problem better.

We are so broken ... Gotta think about how to fix it ...

I'm stuck.

I'm emotionally constipated...