Depending on your level of investment in interwed-outrage memes, you may either have forgotten or never been aware of the “#NotRightForAlyssa” incident of a few weeks ago. In which case, Long Version HERE; Short Version: Gizmodo tossed up an altogether-poor article in which an intern publically-humiliated (by name) a guy she’d met on an online dating site because he was a professionall “Magic: The Gathering” player (or, to use her words, “champion dweeb.”) Subsequently, the author was made to endure an Internet piling-on that was – at least in the initial moments, more or less well-deserved from my perspective.

Of course, since The Internet tends to accelerate “justifiable irritation” up into “reign-of-terror-level-overreaction” almost overnight; eventually some late-comers to the “event” had to go and take things too far – which means it’s now time for the “backlash against the backlash” articles…

Geordie Tait has used the “Alyssa” story as the jumping-off point for a lengthy and overally rather worthwhile (with HUGE caveats that will be dealt with in a moment) article for Star City Games – in the form of an “apology letter” to his own hypothetical future daughter – about the thorny problem of misogyny in gaming culture; primarily focused on the way sexual/romantic “entitlement” often manifests within a culture that paradoxically considers itself to be an oppressed and/or disregarded minority (i.e. the “Women prefer assholes over Nice Guys like me… THOSE BITCHES!!!” mentality.) It’s a long piece with a fair amount of rambling, unnecessary digression and cutsie-poo self-deprecation, but I reccomend everyone give it a read – especially if you plan on reading the rest of this.

Seriously. Read it and come back. I’ll wait.

…

All set? Okay, then…

For about half of the piece, I was mainly feeling sad for Tait. See, I’m very much in agreement with his overally point: For all the pride geek-culture has in itself as a “haven” where a certain segement of overlooked-outsiders can find a community of shared-interest… it tends to have REAL serious problem accepting any perspective on the content of said interests that doesn’t come from (or isn’t willing to conform-to) a white/male/heterosexual/western viewpoint. Too often geeks/gamers are raging against their own ostracization from mainstream society/culture… while in the same breath delcaring that anyone who offers a “feminist” or “race-conscious” criticism of a given game, movie, comic etc. needs to “shut up” and fall into line. So, on that level, I think that the discussion Tait wants to have is vital, necessary and long, long, LONG overdue…

…but, because he chose to “ground” it in what amounts to a defense of fairly indefensible behavior re: Alyssa Bereznak; his otherwise VERY worthwhile points were going to go unheard. When your trying to make a bigger point via a specific example, it’s HUGELY important to pick the right example: The fact that O.J. Simpson was made the poster-child for racist-persecution by the  probably did more to ensure that the LAPD’s massive institutional-racism and corruption remained in place than anything else possibly could have.

But, yeah… up to that point I was reading and thinking “This is SUCH an important, thoughtful piece… WHY did he have to throw away it’s chances of being heard by making it a ‘Leave Alyssa Alone’ thing?” So imagine my surprise when, about halfway through the piece, Tait opts to simply blow his own point completely to smithereens…

In Part C of Section 4 (it’s a loooong article), Tait ascribes a portion of the blame for the “overreaction” to “Internalized Misogyny;” helpfully-explained by a quotation about “House Negros” from Malcom X. Here, Tait criticizes the female voices in geek/gamer culture who wrote/spoke against the article for – as he sees it – attempting curry favor with the overwhelmingly male demographic through their condemnation. Or, as he puts it:

“[Tait] is very interested in integrating the gaming industry and is always ready to encourage any budding Jacqueline Robinsons. However, it is hard for girls to be taken seriously in gaming when dozens of wannabe FragDolls are tap-dancing on top of the dugout and offering opposing players “a shine.””

He goes on to single-out Gizmodo Australia’s Elly Hart, who wrote a response-piece to the original Gizmodo (U.S.) article. Tait psychoanalyzes Hart thusly:

“She’s a female writer for a tech website, and that is a very, very difficult job. In order to fit in, she has had to internalize all the ways that boys in her industry treat girls poorly and take them for granted.”

The level of presumption and condescension here would make for hillarious irony if it weren’t so shocking to find in the midst of an article that not only tries to be studiously even-handed otherwise but is also largely dedicated to telling it’s readers NOT to engage in the kind of  misogynist or inflammatory language he is now employing – right down to refering to Hart’s article as “shucking and jiving” to “appease the multitudinous, nerd-raging masses.”

“In her defense, master’s house was on fire, and there was a warm corner in the attic waiting for her if she was able to dump some water on the blaze.”

Holy crap. I mean… what do you eve SAY to something like that?

Don’t get me wrong – I understand the genesis of where he’s coming from: The fact that the “gamer girls” most often focused upon by the media are those willing/able/eager to don a catchphrased baby-tee and/or revealing cosplay outfit as walking embodiments of “sexy nerd” fetish-iconography isn’t 100% “helpful” to the problem of intrinsic nerd-misogyny – agreed.

But the idea that Tait can’t percieve ANY woman disagreeing with him on this issue other than by assuming that they are lying, kowtowing or suffering some sort of Stockholm Syndrome is the height of arrogance – and the language he uses (“Wannabe Frag Dolls”) and the condescending “oh, those poor foolish little girls” tone come perilously close to what actual feminists often call “Slut Shaming.” Agree or disagree with their point, but pieces like Emily Hart’s condemnation of the Gizmodo article or even the “Apology on Behalf of Ladies of Nerdland” spearheaded by Susan Arendt (the Escapist editor responsible for me look like I know what I’m doing every week) or Skepchick’s Rebecca Watson do not strike me as anything deserving of the snide “Wannabe Frag Dolls” moniker that Tait blanketly ascribes to any woman on the “other side” of this incident.

This is the point where it all becomes utterly perplexing to me – clearly, Tait has a solid and well-reasoned grasp on what the problems and solutions to the misogyny he’s talking about in his own culture are… so what could possess him to go and drop a misogynistic mini-rant of his own right into the middle of it? I don’t know that it completely invalidates the bigger picture – Tait’s overall call for male gamers with what could politely be called “issues” in dealing with the opposite sex to grow the fuck up is needed and well-taken, in the end. But still – why taint the point with this AND the unnecessary (and bound to make people miss-the-point) defense of Bereznak; especially when it turns out what really spurred him to action was an entirely-unrelated Todd Anderson article.

So… that happened.

An 8-minute “sizzle reel” of David Fincher’s adaptation of “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” was shown to critics and audiences at various screenings throughout the U.S. this past week. I was at one of them, here’s what I saw:

It’s already a given that this movie is going to be the stuff of a three-way public spat between film geeks for whom David Fincher can do no wrong, fans of the book who will resent any changes and OTHER film geeks annoyed that this is being made at all when it was already turned into a wholly-decent movie in it’s native country. Now, as before, I remain comfortably in Fincher’s camp – everything about this material is comfortably in his wheelhouse, and he’s assembled a hell of a team.

The footage itself wasn’t “in order,” it was more of a very long trailer explaining the basic plot and who the two main characters are. From the looks of things, it appears a certain amount of tinkering has gone on with the structure of the story in terms of streamlining the complicated process of events it takes for the two heroes’ stories to intersect; but people who were worried things are going to be “toned down” should chill – the ‘iffy’ stuff (Salander’s bisexuality, the ‘payback’ sequence, the murders) seems to have made the transition more than intact.

The interesting thing will be to see how Fincher chooses to “play” the material. The odd thing about the series (book and film) is that they’re that strange mix of very-silly and very-serious that often informs pop-phenomenon bestsellers, “The DaVinci Code” being the best recent example. Storywise it’s a giant grab-bag of lurid pulp: A crusading activist/journalist teams up with sexy goth/punk/biker/computer-hacker girl to root out the culprit in a decades-spanning series of unsolved Biblically-themed murders from among a wealthy family of decadent ex-Nazis; but all that kitchen-sink oddness is actually there as lead-in to mini-polemics about misogyny and political-corruption.

So… how does he play it? Do you trim down on the “silly” and aim for the ‘serious’ movie that it’s bestselller-stature would be assumed to demand, or do you keep all the wacky business and go for broke? The footage shown seems to be looking at the second option, which strikes me as the better option.

You think YOU hate the end of Summer? I’ve got to keep reviewing “dump it in early-fall” nobody-cares movies like THIS…

“Intermission” shows you some of the more unusual stuff you can see on Netflix Instant RIGHT NOW.

Here’s the trailer for Cameron Crowe’s “comeback” movie. I’ll give him credit for going with that title, since Variety is now just itching to write that “Crowe’s ‘Zoo’ Bought The Farm” boxoffice-failure headline… but ye gods, could this look any more like a PARODY of the very genre/style it’s trying to be sincere about?

There are no words…

The great hope for “Breaking Dawn” to be the first “Twilight” movie that – while not concievably GOOD on any level – is at least entertaining goes something like this: It’s the part of the series that most of the fanbase seems to like the LEAST for the very reasons I liked it BEST… namely, that the various characters stop staring longingly into eachother’s eyes and get down to the business of making baby daywalkers, having monster-battles and assembling big international vampire armies. It doesn’t LAST, of course, thanks to an ending that screws up the landing so massively even Stephen King must’ve been impressed.

Which is why I like that Bill Condon is taking a (well-deserved) paycheck-job to finish up the series; as Condon very definitely gets “camp;” and “camp” – or, at least, a willingness to embrace the fact that the material really, really sucks and having fun with it – is what “Twilight” has always DESPERATELY needed:

It’s certainly “broad” enough, and the sound-alike of “Journey to the Line” (or is that ACTUALLY “Journey to the Line!?”) underscoring the wedding/honeymoon buildup bullshit is probably an accurate representation of how “Twilight’s” audience FEELS (as opposed to ‘reads’) it.

In which I risk incurring the wrath of die-hard “South Park fans.”

ALSO! The Game OverThinker episodes are back up on ScrewAttack!

Below the jump, everything you need to know about what’s left of American conservatives…

I’m not what you would call a great humanitarian. On my better days, any extended amount of time in traffic or in crowded public transit makes me want to know why anyone thinks abortion-on-demand and over-the-counter birth-control are bad things. I’m on record that my own personal solution to the overly high costs associated with healthcare would be to let morons die if their injuries are the result of their own idiocy. Example: Meth-heads ODing? Oh yeah, let `em. It’s not like we’re talking about the Spotted Owl – human beings, especially useless ones, are not something we’re in danger of running out of.

I lay those cards out so that it’s understood that my reaction to the following clip from tonight’s GOP/TeaParty debate; which at times resembled a race to see which candidate could be the most gleefully dismissive/callous toward the “others” (read: anyone not white, rural-American, Christian or willing to lionize white rural-American Christianity as the highest possible tier of human civilization) the Tea Party believes is responsible for their problems and/or recieving all the precious, precious tax money Uncle Sam is “stealing” from The Real Americans.

In the clip, Wolf Blitzer asks Ron Paul (who, if nothing else, is probably the only person on the stage at this point who ISN’T an unbelievable asshole) what his doctrinaire-libertarian view on healthcare has to say about a (hypothetical) healthy 30 year-old who gets into a car accident without insurance. Dr. Paul goes on to once again invalidate himself from winning any American elections by giving a measured, thoughtful and nuance response – granted, it’s a nuanced response predicated on the existance of the kind of Little House on The Prairie human-to-human community kindness that idealist libertarians like Paul can’t accept simply not EXISTING anymore, but it’s thoughtful all the same – so Blitzer gets down to brass tacks: Do you just let him die? Paul, of course, says “NO” and attempts to re-explain his carefully-reasoned position… but he’s cut-off by the audience, who are APPLAUDING at the words “Let him die.”

WHY DOES ANY INTELLIGENT PERSON VOTE REPUBLICAN THIS POINT?

I mean this 100% seriously. I understand why the brutes cheering for “Let him die!” here or giving Perry a big “yee-haaaaaw!” for the Death Penalty at the last debate go for it. It’s only logical – the Republicans are giving them what they most want. Same deal with pro-lifers, climate-change deniers, creationists and other backward-looking flat-earth dolts, That all makes complete sense – the GOP (claims to) believe what they believe. Hell, I’m even willing to grant that it makes a certain amount of sense that the “eternal vigilance” crowd still convinced that a Cold War-sized military machine is a huge necessity sticks with them.

But what about everyone else? I know for a FACT that there are intelligent, thoughtful, not-overly-religious, not-paranoid people who are also Republicans. Teachers. Students. Doctors. Lawyers. Engineers. Scientists. You get the picture. I need to ask these people… why? What are intelligent people getting out of supporting a nakedly anti-intelligence (oh, I’m sorry – “intellectual”) political party? I know what the Holy Rollers get out of it. I know what the 2nd Ammendment fetishists get out of it. What is the GOP giving YOU, the nominally-intelligent Republican voter, to stick with them?

A tax cut? Is that REALLY it? A tax cut is worth letting people PROUDLY ignorant of proven scientific facts set public policy? A tax cut is worth having schoolchildren being taught about talking snakes and magic apples in science class? A tax cut is worth unbreathable air and undrinkable water? A tax cut is worth letting policymakers attempt to rewind the tide of social-progress back to an era that wasn’t even really THAT nice for the white christian males who had the ONLY power in it?

Cause, I gotta tell ya… I’m a pretty selfish bastard when you get right down to it, but DAMN!

No, of course he isn’t.

I’d feel worse about running grossly-misleading traffic-bait headlines, but this IS basically Disney/Marvel’s whole promotion-strategy at this juncture, so really I’m just playing the game…

I wonder… have “Firefly” fans accepted yet that Nathan Fillion is now “Castle” to about 98% of people who actually know who he is now? (Oh, but don’t worry kids – that Trek-level syndication-juggernaut-followed-by-massive-pop-cultural-revival is still toooootally just around the corner. Totally.)

In any case, here’s the “story”: A month or so back, ABC Network president Paul Lee teased a “secret” about a “marvel superhero character” being somehow related to an episode of the series’ upcoming third season, which most people figured was a jokey reference to the title character putting on a Halloween costume (he went “as” Mal Reynolds in Season 2, so there’s some precedence for this.) Now, comicbookmovie.com – your #1 source for bizzarely-tantilizing non-news – thinks they’ve figured it out… and WHAT they think they’ve figured out is that it’s not just a reference but a full-fledged ‘real’ character(s?)-cameo that would add “Castle” to “The Avengers”-continuity.

The “evidence”: Lyle Lovett (seriously?) is listed on the IMDB as playing an “Agent Westfield” (“of S.H.I.E.L.D,” presumably) in “Avengers,” which is also the name of a vaugely S.H.I.E.L.D./Men-In-Black-esque agent character he played on an episode of “Castle” that involved a UFO/spy coverup.

FWIW, there’s a certain amount of precedent for this: It’s an ABC show, which puts it under the requisite Disney umbrella, and the series is big on “metafiction” – Fillion’s title-character is supposed to be a mystery-novelist who teams-up with actual cops to solve murders (it’s that kind of show) and ghostwritten ‘real’ versions of the books attributed to him are actually sold.

About to Netflix this – wonder how it is?

Y’know, it only just now occurs to me: American trailers generally go “up-tempo-pop-music, dialogue-montage-establish-basic-plot-conflict, swelling-dramatic-action-music;” and Japanese trailers do the exact reverse…