I really, really, really didn’t want to end up having anything to say about the school massacre in Connecticutt beyond “this is terrible and I feel terrible;” but I happened to have the news on this morning and wound up “angry tweeting” about what I was seeing, so now I probably ought to flesh that out a bit.

What I was reacting to was this now-ubiquitious monologue by former Republican congressman turned MSNBC host Joe Scarborough saying that he now feels his earlier positions against any and all gun regulations (he was highly-rated by the NRA, and you don’t get that by taking nuanced positions.) I don’t doubt the sincerity and emotion behind what he said, and I admire a public person effectively saying “I’ve been wrong” on a national broadcast in principle. My “issue” was that he subsequently “moves on” from talking about guns (and mental-health access) to talking about “violent” movies, video games, etc… and yeah, I’ve gotta be that guy who goes “hold up a minute” on that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

The thing is, I respect that people have emotional “just do something to make me feel less powerless!” reactions to horrible tragedies. I have them myself, and frankly I’m not of the opinion that such reactions are always bad for us – emotion can overwhelm logic, yes, but it can also overwhelm timidity. To cut right to the chase (because I really, really don’t want to dwell on this) I’d say that “Fuck this. Enough is enough, we need to finally do something about this country’s bullshit approach to gun laws!” is a POSITIVE emotion-driven reaction to this event… whereas “Culture of Violence! Delay the violent movies! Ban the violent video-games!” is decidedly NOT.

I’m aware that this opens me up to accusations of “hypocrisy,” i.e. “Oh, so the stuff YOU don’t care about can get banned, but leave the stuff you LIKE alone?;” but quite frankly the equivalency just isn’t there as far as I’m concerned.

As I’ve said before, my politics are 99% pragmatic – I don’t have some all-or-nothing “ideal” when it comes to things like regulation, I simply hold that things should be regulated to the degree that they require it. While I’m in favor of so-called “gun-rights” – and really, truly HATE seeing good, responsible firearm-owners among my friends (of which there are many) being demonized along with the genuine “gun nuts” in these instances – the fact is guns are incredibly dangerous and their sole purpose is to be lethal; so, YES – they should be subject to regulations and much greater regulations than they currently are. “Banned?” No. But controlled, monitored, tracked, limited, restricted, etc? Absolutely.

However, when it comes to “violent” media, the “requires regulation” part is simply nowhere close to comparable. “Violent” movies and video games are NOT designed to be lethal or to inflict harm, they are NOT in and of themselves dangerous. Furthermore, there has never been a provable, direct, cause-and-effect link between watching violent movies or playing violent video games and actual acts of violence. With guns there IS because what guns ARE is a tool for lethal force.

Yes, it can’t just be about gun laws. There is a broader conversation that needs to be had, both about access to mental health care and the “culture of violence;” but art, music, movies, games etc. do not have a prominent or even noteworthy place IN that conversation – rather, they serve as a distraction (and, as is often the case, a diversion) from the real issues. The “culture of violence” in America is a real, serious problem, but the “culture of violence” is NOT Call of Duty, “Django Unchained,” etc. America’s Culture of Violence is the culture of a vague yet potent sense of existential, media-driven panic: “SOMETHING is coming to get me and I require a military-grade arsenal with no background check, waiting period or meaningful limitation of any kind to protect myself from… well, I don’t know what from but FoxNews, talk-radio and Infowars SWEAR they’re on the way and if you say otherwise you’re one of them and that’s why you want to take my guns away!” 

Are you kidding me?


Put another way? America’s Culture of Violence is that the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle that the CT shooter used to kill 20 kindergarteners is marketed with the catchphrase: “CONSIDER YOUR MAN CARD REISSUED.”

Cute.

Obviously, just about everyone’s attention is focused elsewhere today, but in any case this week’s column was called “Let’s ‘Watch The Man of Steel’ Trailer.”

Mostly posting because I’d never heard the children’s choir version of “Nothing Else Matters” they’re using here before – is this new for this movie?

One day early, because “Hobbit.”

NOTE: This does not, unfortunately, mean that there will be a different episode on Friday. However, “Intermission” will still debut new on that day.

Latino Review – who’ve picked up the “rogue nerd-gossip” slack in a major way now that AICN etc have gone a little more legit – have been the go-to guys for scoops on Warner Bros. haphazard scramble to get “Justice League” onscreen, most recently outing Darkseid as the film’s apparent (and really kind-of anticlimactic) heavy. Now they’ve got a new piece of (possible) news: Will Beale’s screenplay for the film might be based on a three-issue JLA story-arc from 1980, “Crisis on New Genesis,” which involved the League and the Earth-2 Justice Society meeting up with Jack Kirby’s “New Gods” characters, of which Darkseid was the main antagonist.

Prior to “Crisis on Infinite Earths” uniting the DC Multiverse, the Justice League books would do annual crossovers with JSA which would typically involve the discovery of more new worlds and characters, which would always be called “Crisis on ______.” JLA 183 – 185’s story was one of those, essentially serving as a “welcome to officially hanging around on our margins!” to the New Gods (while published by DC and technically taking place in the DCU, Kirby’s New Gods books were kept mostly at arm’s length from the rest of things prior to this.)

Some sites find this a lot more exciting than I can manage to. With all congrats to LR for landing another scoop, that the screenwriter of a comic adaptation might be starting out with a story featuring the goodies and baddies he’s been given to work with isn’t exactly Watergate. The idea that, since this was a Multiverse story, it might indicate that Warners might be looking to play that card to get out of continuity hiccups (re: the JLA movie’s Superman, Batman, etc. all coming from different universes instead of just not having run into eachother before) is interesting… but I can’t really see them going there.

A brief glimpse of Christian Bale, Brandon Routh etc flashing by on a monitor while someone monologues about a Multiverse as a wink/nudge throwaway gag? Sure, that I can picture (be pretty cool, too.) Or maybe this would be the way to get Joseph Gordon Levitt’s Detective Officer John Robin Mary-Sue Blake Esquire into the movie for a bit (“On my world, Batman died!”) thus establishing some obligatory link with the “Nolanverse” while still having a Bruce Wayne Batman in this one. That I could get behind, absolutely – great way to move on from that series without having to “overwrite” it.

But, really… Occam’s Razor pretty-much says that they’re gonna fight Darkseid because he’s the most recognizable League-level threat from the animated series and WB has told everyone to start name-checking “Crisis on New Genesis” because they figure “don’t worry, we’re reading the material!” will mollify worrisome fans. We’ll see.

I unfortunately had to miss this big group sit-down of the Boston Online Film Critics Association with the Post-Movie Podcast, but fortunately for you there’s a lot of funny people on here that you probably don’t  hear from all the time. ENJOY!

UPDATE: I will happily report that I was one of the reasons (probably the primary reason, I’d wager, or one of them) that the film that came in at #11 got so close to coming in at #10 – the prospect of which some of the membership found so terrifying. Much as I would’ve liked to see it land there, I can’t say that Sean isn’t right: If that had made the list of a “big debut” for a critics association with “online” in it’s name people would be jumping all over that (because in their minds it conforms to this or that stereotype) instead Jeff Wells innexplicably dubbing us “Beefalos.”

http://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/2155677/height/300/width/570/direction/no/autoplay/no/autonext/no/thumbnail/yes/preload/no/no_addthis/no/

Holy mother of God…

“G.I. Joe: Retaliation” was supposed to have already come and gone from theaters, but was very publically delayed at the last minute – officially to be re-fitted into 3D, unofficially to exempt Channing Tatum from the “kill everyone from the first one except Snake Eyes so The Rock can be the star” mandate after he surprisingly jumped from beefcake B-lister to bro-comedy icon (“21 Jump Street”) and cougar-crowd sex symbol (“Magic Mike”) mid-production.

Now, with the film getting (slightly) closer to a release, there’s a new trailer (yes, in shitty Yahoo format – sorry) more-or-less dedicated to “Yes, Duke is back.”

http://movies.yahoo.com/video/g-joe-retaliation-trailer-3-163139765.html?format=embed

I’ll say this much: If this is really the plot – the good guys have to protect the rest of the world from a gone-rogue U.S. government – that’s pretty ballsy for a jokey, merch-driven nostalgia property.

And we’re done here.