Love and Philosophy: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Operating System

Why is it that when you say “I love you” to your mom, your friend, and your significant other, it can mean completely different things in each context? Why is it that some people say, “I love you, but not in that way…”? It’s because the concept of love is a very abstract and paradoxical one, even if we like to pretend it’s very simple. It can be both the antithesis of reason and reason itself.

 

Spike Jonze’s film Her creates a very authentic future. Not just in terms of the advancement of technology, but also what the future will feel like on a very personal and intimate level. He challenges our understanding of relationships, as well as the understanding of our own emotions. One way he does this is by asking a very simple question. However, it becomes more complicated as we peel back the layers:

“Is love possible between a person and an operating system?”

The truth is I don’t know the answer. What I do know is that it flooded my mind with so many philosophical questions that I felt like I was drowning in the ocean of my own thoughts. My goal is not to find answers, but rather to explore a couple of these questions and hopefully be provided with some insight by you lovely folks. So let’s use the context of Her as a boat, and explore the vast and murky ocean that is “love.”

*NOTE: there are absolutely NO plot spoilers in this article, so feel free to keep reading even if you haven’t seen the film!

 

1. How ‘real’ are our emotions?

“It makes me sad that you can’t handle real emotions”

“These are real emotions!”

This question crossed my mind once Samantha experienced a bit of existential dissonance, and said this to Theodore:

“I caught myself feeling proud of having my own feelings about the world. But then I had this terrible thought… are these feelings even real? Or are they just programming?”

At first, my automatic thought processes kicked in and I said that it is most definitely the result of programming. She is an operating system after all, and she was designed through scripts and logic. However, it really says something that Sam was aware enough to question her own entity, and have feelings about having feelings. Then, I started to question what emotion even is. In reality, emotion is no more than just chemical reactions in your brain. This is why we can prescribe anti-depressants for people suffering from depression. In fact, psychologist Stanley Schachter came up with a two factor model of how to explain emotion:

 Emotion= physiological arousal + cognitive label

We like to hold on to the idea of emotion being one of the major factors that separates us from machine. It is a trait that we define as making us human, which is actually funny when you think about how emotion is basically just a “cognitive script.” Well, you might say that real emotion is human emotion, and it is impossible for a computer to become sentient. However, perhaps I can flip the script on you, and provide you with an excerpt from a short science fiction story written by Terry Bisson. The story is more of a dialogue between two life forms having a conversation about humans:

They’re Made Out of Meat

“Meat. They’re made out of meat.”

“Meat?”

“There’s no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They’re completely meat.”

“Spare me. Okay, maybe they’re only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside.”

“Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They’re meat all the way through.”

“No brain?”

“Oh, there’s a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.”

“So … what does the thinking?”

“You’re not understanding, are you? You’re refusing to deal with what I’m telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat.”

“Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!”

“Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal!  Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?”

“Omigod. You’re serious then. They’re made out of meat.”

It really is baffling that all these advancements in thought and technology come from our gelatinous brains (hey! Meat has feelings too!). So what separates human emotion from artificial emotion? Does emotion have to have a physiological basis in order to be considered ‘real’ emotion? Is this where the idea of the soul comes in to play? What is a soul? Okay, now we’re treading metaphysical waters. So I’ll stop there before my hea-

2. Why is  ‘love’ ambiguous?

“Tonight after you were gone I thought a lot. About you and how you’ve been treating me and I thought… Why do I love you?”

If you were to ask me, “What is love?” I couldn’t tell you. Like I’ve said before, it’s a very abstract concept to put in to words, and it makes us all confused. I would say that it is an emotion, but when I compare it to other emotions, it doesn’t follow the same grammatical rules. For example, you can say, “I’m happy with you” and “I’m angry with you”, but you don’t say “I’m love with you”. You either say “I’m in love with you”, or “I love you”, and even then they don’t mean the same thing. It’s that idea of being in love that transcends this concept beyond just an emotion. Sure, you can say “I’m in frustration with you” or “I’m frustrated with you”, which does follow the same grammatical rules as the word ‘love’, but those two different sentences have a sense of congruence in their meaning. Love is a very fluid word.

Although, perhaps this confusion is due to the English language. I mentioned earlier that we can say “I love you” in different situations, and have it mean different things. The word ‘love’ does not have a universal definition. This is why the Greek language has different words for the different kinds of ‘love’:

— Eros (AIR-oss –Greek god of love) for “erotic” or sexual love.
— Philia (fie-LEE-ah — Greek word for “brother”) for brotherly or friendly love.
— Storge (stor-gay — Greek word for “affection”) the love of a parent for a child.
— Agapē (ah-GAH-pay — Koine Greek for for “Unconditional Love”. The Christians borrowed it to mean a special kind of love as shown in the poem (author unknown) in I Corinthians 13, and in the New Testament is refereed to as the ‘Love of God for humans’ and vice versa.

It’s kind of funny to think that the English language has so many words and synonyms for other words, yet we have only one word to describe a feeling that encompasses many different things. Well, I guess we have other words such as infatuation, lust, and camaraderie, but they don’t carry the same weight as the word ‘love’. In fact, I’m going to make up another word for the special case of Theodore and Samantha. Technogape. The love of technological entities for humans and vice versa, because damn it computers need love too!

3. What does love mean in a relationship?

 

“I don’t have an intellectual reason. I don’t need one. I trust my self, I trust my feelings. I’m not gonna try to be anything other than who I am anymore, and I hope you can accept that.”

As you can tell by now, I’m no love expert. Neither am I an expert in relationships. The only relationship I’ve been in is the one I am in now, which doesn’t exactly make me Dr. Nerdlove. However, one dilemma that I applaud Her for bringing up, is the idea that ‘love’ isn’t enough for a relationship to thrive on (This was explored in two different contexts, but there are no spoilers here so I’ll keep quiet). This dilemma is a very real one, but just like love, there are different reasons for this, and really is something that is hard to put in to words as to why it happens. We hear all the time that people who love each other profoundly, sometimes just can’t work in a relationship. It is something that I can understand, but can’t fully grasp. So I interviewed a friend of mine who has been through something like this:

“After I figured out what happened, I couldn’t trust him anymore. I was hurt and I felt betrayed. I still loved him, but it was hard for me to try and make the relationship work. It was like walking on a fragile glass floor to keep him in my life.” -S.M.

Her line about walking on fragile glass is perfect for the one, of many situations, where love isn’t enough for a relationship to work. It illustrates her desire to fully open up to him, yet anxiety and trepidation overpower that desire, since she was hurt on a very profound level. She felt that by trying to keep this person in her life, she was only causing herself pain.

However, this situation doesn’t have to be a sad and depressing one. It can also be a very bitter sweet one. Sometimes people change and evolve, and need to go out there and explore things for themselves. It isn’t that one person is holding the other back per say, but rather they are now two different people that have arrived at a fork in the road. They still love each other, but it is time for them to part ways and explore their newly found selves.

Honestly, I can go on and on about the ideas in Her, as well as the complexities of ‘love’ in the modern age, but in reality, it is kind of pointless for two reasons. (1.) I don’t have enough space in one article to do so. (2.) love is just love. Nothing more, and nothing less. It isn’t something that you can question or explain really, but rather it is something that you experience.

On behalf of OneofUs.net, I would like to say that we love all our followers, and the community we have created. We are so grateful to have such a passionate group of people here, and we hope to keep expanding and share the love! Hooray for Polyamory !

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Love,

Us

Sources:

Bisson, Terry. “They’re Made Out of Meat.” Terrybisson. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.

 “Greek Words for Love.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 02 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

My top four locations for ‘Fallout 4’

 War. War never changes. But the diversity of Fallout’s locations does. And with the dawn of the possibility of ‘Fallout 4’ the question to where is extremely relevant. 

When I was introduced to ‘Fallout’, I was absolutely uninterested. Slowly I was interested in the universe, but I found the game to be tedious and dull. After a couple hours of exploring the wasteland I came across something entirely benign but very striking. A small area beside a lake with a little lunchbox and teddy bear. I was taken emotionally by this small insignificant detail and from there I was hooked.

‘Fallout 3‘ for me is one the best games of this generation. Of course it’s limited by technical imperfections and ageing graphics but the art direction and unique gameplay make for an experience that’s simply unchallenged.

After the trauma of the survivor 2299 hoax we anxiously wait official news on the production of ‘Fallout 4’ I decided to take a look at my top four ideal locations for A new game. Now I’m aware that based on some speculation and evidence that the new location will likely be Boston and as much as it has much story potential there are some other locations I’d prefer to see and here they are.

los-angeles-2018

4. Los Angeles

When GTA V was revealed to be set in Los Angeles, I was skeptical. Too many games take place in both LA and the number 3 choice and I was hoping for something new. ‘Fallout’ however has much potential to use LA as a background. Think of how much fun they can draw from Hollywood, especially a Hollywood that remained stuck in a 50s and 60s era.

 

20411437

3. New York

New York is also something we have seen a lot in video games lately but, Fallout’s distinctive style and atmosphere could do wonders with it. A next generation ‘Fallout’ also allows for more density in the ruined landscape. Lots of large skyscraper ruins to explore, a focus on money with the Stock Exchange. A link to the political themes of ‘Fallout’ with the disbanded United Nations HQ. A possibility to delve into the lore of pre war.

 

20100218094729!Chinese_Propaganda_Poster

2. China

We haven’t seen much of the pre war enemy in ‘Fallout’ but we do know they were the primary rival of the US during the pre war era. Whilst ‘Fallout’ is very “American”, perhaps a shake up of location and characters is exactly what we need to propel an interesting story. Demonstrating China’s war torn cities and depicting its survivors as a combination of normal people trying to survive just like anyone else and unique villain opportunities such as ninja raiders.

 

article-2339765-1A435D74000005DC-821_964x564

1. London

Britain was an exciting time in the 60’s and this for me, could be incredibly exciting, if not the most exciting location for a ‘Fallout’ game. The few hints to the UK we’ve had in ‘Fallout’ imply a darker, more brutal place.  With soundtrack possibilities such as the Beatles (or Beatles inspired music), Monkee’s and Rolling Stones and such iconography as Westminster, the Palace and Shakespeare’s globe, London is certainly my number one pick. I wouldn’t mind a Doctor Who reference thrown in there too .

 

Honorable Mention: Anywhere in Pre War
Tranquility lane is one of my favorite quests and if there’s one thing I’d like to be explored more is the pre war society of Fallout’s world and I’d be happy with a spin off game, a DLC pack for a current game, novels, movies, anything that opens up the possibilities of this world.

Regardless of where we find ourselves, I hope ‘Fallout’ introduces new mechanics and bold new directions in terms of gameplay and story.

Agree or Disagree? Where would you like to see ‘Fallout 4’ go? Comment below.

Johnny Depp is basically SkyNet in the new ‘Transcendence’ trailer

Johnny Depp is well-known for his portrayals of  some strange and eccentric characters. However, his latest role is even more unorthodox than Captain Jack of the Pirates of the Caribbean series, the titular role of Rango, The Rum Diaries’ Paul Kemp, or even the vampire Barnabas Collins in Dark Shadows. In the upcoming sci-fi thriller Transcendence, Depp will play the role of what is essentially SkyNet from the Terminator films, minus Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Transcendence, the directorial debut of Oscar-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister, tells the story of Dr. Will Caster (Depp), who is working to create an sentient artificial intelligence. Caster is shot by people who oppose his work, but his fellow researchers manage to upload his consciousness into his machine before he dies. This decision proves to have dire consequences, as A.I. Caster soon plots to rid the world of humanity. You know, typical evil computer stuff. Check out the latest trailer for the movie below:

 
Admittedly this is just a trailer, but from what I can see, it seems like the movie might have some trouble with its tone(s). At the start of the video, it’s a science fiction drama that asks questions about what the future of artificial intelligence might mean for organic life and how people might react to sentient machines. Suddenly, all those intriguing questions are pushed aside in favor of explosions and machine gun fire, because apparently this is a Terminator-type action film now.

Of course, science fiction. drama, and action can co-exist in one film. District 9 is a great example of how to balance the three brilliantly. It is important to seamlessly merge the divergent elements of competing tones in a smart and compelling manner. Otherwise one might outweigh the others or all of them could become watered down drivel. For example, 2011’s In Time suffers from the fact that its science-fiction, drama, and action movie elements are all half-baked and underwhelming.

I hope that the action of this movie doesn’t overshadow the important questions it asks about where we could go with artificial intelligence research. We’ll see if Transcendence is capable of pulling off a skillful merger of different genres when it’s released on April 17th. If not, at least Kate Mara, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy will be there to ease the pain.

What do  you think the future of artificial intelligence holds for us? If you were a SkyNet-type entity, would you be a benevolent power that helped humanity or a tyrant bent on destroying the meat sacks on this planet? Share your plans in the comments!

Via Deadline

Digital Noise Episode 31: Battle School Dropouts

Hey there Digiphiles, we’ve got a great show for you this week and BOY do we cover a lot of ground. We do the full gamut of films. Good. Bad. I’m the guy with the pun. And let me apologize in advance for a few of those stinkers that crept their way into our dialogue this week.

But never fear, as you’ll only feel a slight sting that’s covered up by a pleasant dreamy sensation as we deliver the punesthetic of reviews for Million Dollar Baby, Ender’s Game, Dallas Buyers Club, Justice League: War and oh, so many more.

There, aren’t you feeling more relaxed now? I’m going to ask you to count backwards from ten and when you get to one, you’ll be deep in the dreaminess of this week’s episode of Digital Noise.

Empty Space

Thinking of purchasing any of the titles we discussed? Or anything from Amazon in general? Please access Amazon via our links to help support the site. We really appreciate it.

Escape Plan Blu-ray Review   Justice League Blu-ray Review   Dallas Buyer's Club Blu-ray Review

Empty Space

Burton and Taylor Blu-ray Review   Million Dollar Baby Blu-ray   Mother of George Blu-ray Review

Empty Space

Night of the Demons Blu-ray Review  Witchboard Blu-ray Review   The White Queen Blu-ray Review

Empty Space

Jungle Book Blu-ray Review   Cutie and the Boxer Blu-ray Review   Pussy Riot DVD Review

Empty Space

Case of You Blu-ray Review   Ender's Game Blu-ray Review

 

How To Win This Week’s Giveaway:

1.) Follow @OneOfUsNet on Twitter

2.) Tweet at us with your pick for the game on which the fate of humanity should ultimately hinge. Will we take on our alien invaders in a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos?

3.) Add hashtag #Endersgiveaway

4.) We will pick our favorite and that person will be contacted via Twitter. (Open to U.S. Residents Only)

 

Follow Digital Noise on Twitter and make sure to review us on iTunes.

Movie Review: ‘Robocop’

Robocop has been rebooted…or perhaps it’s more appropriate to say rebuilt. The Unusual Suspects gather in their industrial hideout like the Boddicker gang, and dig into the finite circuitry of Jose Padilha’s nouveau-Robo.


Their prime directives? To serve the movie-goer trust, protect the innocent (from potentially wasting ticket money), and to uphold their own convictions (warped though they may sometimes be). Could the studio make Robocop better than it was before? Stronger? Faster? More Explosion-er? Dead or alive, Chris, Brian, Ashley, and Beau are coming to a verdict on this.


Listen to this Highly Suspect Review or there will be…trouble. Thank you for your cooperation.

Why the ‘SWAT Kats’ Need To Come Back

In 1994, I was coming into my teens and still watching weekend cartoons. I was a little old for waking up early for this stuff, but I loved them enough and was awake anyway, so I  figured I might as well grab a bowl of cereal and see what was on TV. On a whim, I was channel surfing and hit upon TBS, which was broadcasting a show that blew my monkey mind. I had to keep checking the station identification as TBS wasn’t (and still isn’t) known for being that exciting or cutting edge.

The program I saw was a high-octane action show that had crazy sci-fi plots, aerial dog-fights, loads of destruction, military lingo, a thumpin’ metal soundtrack, and a beyond-brilliant voice cast of Jim Cummings, Charlie Adler, Barry Gordon, Tress MacNeille, Lori Alan, Frank Welker, Mark Hamill, and Gary Owens. Oh, and did I mention that all the characters on the show just happened to be anthropomorphic cats? Oh, well they were and it was AMAZING.

 

A Hanna-Barbera, production, SWAT Kats: The Radical Squadron  (got to love that name) was the brainchild of Christian and Yvon Tremblay. Under the guise of being simple mechanics, two ex-Enforcers (this universe’s militaristic police force), Chance “T-Bone” Furlong and Jake “Razor” Clawson, become masked vigilantes and spent their time and energy fighting to prevent their home, Megakat City, from being conquered or blown to hell every episode. The duo faced off against a number of threats, such as mutants, dinosaurs, robots, and a particularly nefarious wizard named Dark Kat. Of course, this being the 1990s, they did this from their super cool fighter jet. It was big, colorful, bombastic, and ambitious; it was like somebody had brought a comic book to life. For twenty-three episodes (and one clip show) it rocked so hard your face started melting…

and then it got canned.

In this era of remakes of remakes and continuations of series’ from the 80’s and 90’s, where the hell are the SWAT Kats? The likes of the freakin’ Biker Mice From Mars and Action Man have each had two series at this point, is a little more T-Bone and Razor too much to ask?If we’re going to continually mine the past for material, we might as well pull from some sources that are actually innovative. It isn’t like the fan base has went away. Despite only occasionally being shown in reruns and appearing on a DVD release that makes cheap bootlegs look good, the show remains popular. Everything about this show is interesting, including the rumor that Ted Turner himself pulled the plug on the show because he thought it was too violent. Even sadder is the fact that there were six unaired episodes, lost to those who wanted just a little more of their beloved crime-fighting feline duo.

I have a short list of dream projects in my life, a list of things that if I only to manage to accomplish one, I could die happy. With every ounce of sincerity, let me tell you that a relaunch of SWAT Kats is one of them. There is just so much potential for great stories to be told. In a world of knock-offs and rehashes, it really was its own animal (pun intended). If you’ve never checked them out, I seriously suggest going and giving them a try.

As always, we want to hear from you. Do you love and remember the SWAT Kats? What cartoons or other programs from your childhood would you want to see again? Let us know in the comments below!

UPDATED: Which Batman was the worst?

UPDATE 2/7/2014: Some of the people who have read this article on Reddit have mentioned that the members of the League of Shadows might also be aware of Bruce’s identity. First, this is an incredibly fair point and definitely something I overlooked. Still, please examine my counter-argument under the original post, where I explain why I think this isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker.

Second, thank you for coming to One of Us and reading this, I hope you stick around and check out the rest of our stuff! 

Additionally, one person in the comments reminded me that there were two other people in Batman Forever who knew Bruce’s identity (Two-Face’s henchwomen, Sugar and Spice), which brings the count to 12. 

Original post from 2/5/2014 follows:

Ever since Ben Affleck was announced as the next Batman, many misguided fans of the World’s Greatest Detective have proclaimed that his will be the worst portrayal of the Dark Knight ever. I object to this, both because Ben Affleck is probably the best thing that could have happened to Batman vs. Superman and because it will be difficult for him to play the role worse than Val Kilmer, who is quantifiably and undeniably the worst Batman to ever disgrace the silver screen.

What’s that you say? That’s a pretty hefty claim to make? I know, and that’s why I will try my damnedest to demonstrate, with some evidence, why Val Kilmer’s Batman was the worst Batman of all time. Shall we begin?

What is the singular factor that makes Batman who he is? Perhaps you think that above all else, Batman should be a master martial artist. While I agree that Batman’s fighting ability is important, I don’t believe it’s the sole aspect that defines him. The DC Universe is full of excellent hand-to-hand combatants who match or even exceed Batman’s abilities (such as Lady Shiva, Black Canary, and Deathstroke) and none of them have the same impact (in-universe or on our culture) that Batman does. While Batman is also known for his talents as a detective, not even these skills are what can truly define the Dark Knight.

The correct answer is Batman’s ability to be a symbol of both fear to the criminal world and of vengeance to the oppressed. After all, that is how he got the idea to run around dressed as an overgrown flying rat in the first place. Recall if you will these famous panels:

These three panels right here are at the core of who Batman is, across all the incarnations we’ve ever seen. No matter who is playing him on screen, the character of Bruce Wayne must realize that he can’t stop crime as he is, only this symbol of fear and terrible retribution can. A Batman who can’t deter criminals from terrorizing the public is no Batman at all.

Now what’s the fastest way to strip Batman of his status as a symbol? Simple, reveal his secret identity. If you know who the vigilante is, it is an easy matter to retaliate against and/or arrest him. The wonder and mythical nature of this horrible creature, who is sometimes rumored to be a monster, would just fade away if the people of Gotham found out he was just some crazy dude with way too much money and time.  The preservation of Batman’s identity is pivotal to his impact. Without it, there is no Dark Knight. The emperor has no clothes.

With this in mind, I propose that the operational definition of being a good Batman is as follows: the degree to which the individual can keep Batman separate from Bruce Wayne in the eyes of the people outside of the Bat-Family.

Using this operational definition, we can determine who the worst Batman is by going film by film and counting how many people find out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Not only do we want to know how many people know who Batman is, but we also need to analyze who these people are and their likelihood of spilling the beans. I’ll skip Adam West and Kevin Conroy (the perfect Batman, in my humble opinion) so that we can focus simply on the films instead of analyzing hundreds of TV episodes.

For the sake of this argument, I’m only going to count the people who are alive by the end of film. If you find out who Batman is but you’re dead soon after, you can’t really have a negative impact on Batman’s reputation. Obviously, this means there will be spoilers from here on out, so if you’re sensitive about spoilers about movies from between 2 and 25 years ago, proceed with caution.

Michael Keaton

Michael’s Keaton’s Batman didn’t tell too many people his secret, but he made bad choices about who he told. In 1989’s Batman, Vicki Vale was privy to this information, while Catwoman found out in Batman Returns. If you’re the infamous vigilante of your community, people you’ve dated/have been romantically involved with in the past are among the worst people you could let in on your secret nightlife. This is because every relationship ends until you’re in one that doesn’t, and more often than not, relationships end poorly. Batman’s relationship with Vicki Vale definitely came to an end. She doesn’t appear in the second movie and Bruce had already moved on to Selina Kyle by then anyway. His relationship with Catwoman ended with her appearing to sacrifice herself to save him, so she’s less likely to out him. However, she’s still a mentally unstable criminal at the end of the film. What’s to stop a bitter ex, especially one who is a journalist ever seeking the next big break or a deranged thief/murderer, from either exposing your identity or using it for nefarious purposes? Pretty bad, but not the worst.

George Clooney

Despite the fact that he is the Batman of what is universally cited as the worst Batman movie, George Clooney’s Bruce Wayne is somehow the best at keeping his identity a secret and preserving Batman’s symbolic nature.

I know, this revelation almost made me throw my findings out the window, but hear me out here.

When it comes to his true identity, Clooney’s Batman is incredibly tight-lipped about it. He doesn’t run his mouth to his romantic partners or unnecessarily out himself to his enemies. Barbara Gordon Wilson is the only person who figures out the Dark Knight’s identity and the likelihood of her revealing it to anyone is incredibly low. Not only is she sympathetic to his cause, she joins him as an accomplice, so she would be vulnerable to the same retribution, legal or otherwise, as Bruce and Dick. In terms of keeping the secret safe and making sure criminals and the public know to fear the Bat, Clooney’s Batman did a fine job.

Christian Bale

Several people found out Bruce Wayne’s identity in Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, but a good number of them were neutralized and the rest of them are allies. Bruce does tell Rachel Dawes and Lucius Fox in Batman Begins, but Rachel is killed in The Dark Knight and Lucius, like Alicia Silverstone’s Barbara, is culpable for Batman’s actions. Ra’s Al Ghul is aware of Bruce’s secret, but he’s dead before too long. A consultant for Wayne Enterprises also finds out who Batman is, but Lucius successfully threatens him into silence. In The Dark Knight Rises, Talia and Bane are in the know, but like Ra’s, they are both dead before the end of the movie. Bruce tells Selina and Jim Gordon himself, and Blake somehow divines the information out of nowhere. These three will certainly keep their mouths shut and even if they didn’t, Bruce is out of the game (or dead, if you’re one of THOSE people), so it’s basically irrelevant.

Which brings us to…

Val Kilmer

Val Kilmer’s Batman is the worst of the film portrayals because he is utterly incapable to keeping his identity a secret. A mere 37 minutes into the film, he screams out “Harvey! I’m Batman!” in order to prevent Two-Face from blowing up the circus he is attending. He didn’t even bother to lie or stall Two-Face, he blurted it out as loudly as he could in hopes that someone would hear. Only the chaotic scene that emerged after Two-Face announced his plan to blow up the big top kept Two-Face or any of his crew from finding out the truth. Personally, I find it hard to believe that not one person around him heard the proclamation, but I suppose it’s possible. Still, the fact that Kilmer’s character is so ready to give away his secret means calls into question the quality of his Batman.

Even if we let the circus incident slide, Batman’s identity is still known to at least 10 ADDITIONAL PEOPLE. Dick Grayson finds out, but he won’t say anything, so that’s all right. Bruce also informs Dr. Chase Meridian, the love interest of Batman Forever, which again is a terrible idea because if their romantic relationship sours, the secret is in danger of being revealed. Still, this is not why Val Kilmer Batman is the worst.

Late in the film, the Riddler uses his absurd mind-reading technology to find out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Since he is colluding with Two-Face (who dies at the end of the movie), he shares this information with him and the two villains lead a raid into the Wayne mansion, where they kidnap Meridian and destroy most of Batman’s tools and vehicles. Obviously, “a raid” implies that there were others with them, so just how many criminals, aside from these two, now know that Bruce Wayne is Batman? The answer is here in this picture of Two-Face and Riddler’s gang chasing Bruce and Chase.

That’s right, eight criminals, who have every reason to blab or exploit this important information, now know that Bruce and the Bat are one in the same.

So by the numbers, here’s a breakdown of how many living people know Batman’s identity in each movie. We’re not going to count Alfred because he’s a member of the Bat-Family and every movie starts with him knowing. Additionally, when a new member of the Bat-Family knows, we’ll count them once. Even if we generously discount every single person at the circus and assume the Riddler will never tell anyone in a moment of restored sanity, you can see that Kilmer is by far the worst numerically.

 

*not counting anyone at the circus who might have heard or the Riddler, because he is insane at the end of the film.
*not counting anyone at the circus who might have heard or the Riddler, since he is insane at the end of the film.

Not only is Kilmer the worst numerically, he is the worst in terms of the quality of the people who know. Christian Bale’s count is high too, but it consists mostly of allies. Kilmer’s is almost entirely made up of HARDENED CRIMINALS. Why WOULDN’T these guys tell every miscreant they know that they know that Batman’s secret identity and they took part in destroying his home? What’s to stop them from coming back with more guys or with lethal weapons? Maybe one or two or eight of them will wait until Bruce Wayne is in public and then shoot him in the face. These eight men could be key to Batman’s downfall, so you’d think that he would make sure to get rid of these guys or silence them in some way. Nope! We never see them again. For all we know, they got their money and scattered off to parts unknown. Kilmer’s Batman makes no attempt to find these guys and keep his secret safe, because as we have plainly seen, he simply doesn’t care all that much about operating covertly. This cavalier attitude is completely antithetical to the very core of what makes Batman who he is, which is why I submit to you that Val Kilmer’s Batman is the absolute worst.

So there you have it. Unless Ben Affleck’s Batman walks into a crowded shopping mall and yells out “I’M BATMAN!!!” for the world to hear, it will be pretty hard for his portrayal to be worse than Val Kilmer’s, so shut it and wait for the movie to come out in 2015.

Of course, any theory or research project has its vulnerabilities. Do you agree with my assessment or am I completely full of it? Let us know in the comments!

As I originally stated at the start of this analysis, the number of people who know about Bruce’s identity is not the only determining factor we should consider. We must also examine the type of people who know and their likelihood to reveal it. I believe the League of Shadows’ strict adherence to hierarchy and the chain of command, which is instrumental to its success, prevented those who knew from saying anything that would expose Batman’s identity.

It is incredibly likely that Ra’s Al Ghul informed the people who joined him when he burned down Bruce’s house. Like Kilmer’s Batman, Bale’s makes no effort to find any of these people lived after the events of that evening, which isn’t terribly smart. However, I would suggest that at least until the end of The Dark Knight Rises, the League’s members are compelled not to say anything. Talia and Bane begin formulating their revenge plot after the death of Ra’s, so it is likely that League members were instructed not to disrupt it in any way, which would almost certainly include keeping Bruce Wayne’s identity a secret under penalty of death. As we all know, the League is not shy about killing enemies and traitors and they are pretty good at doing it, so that would explain how the secret was preserved through the years between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises.

The perfect time to reveal the truth about Bruce and Batman would be during the League’s lockdown of Gotham/Bruce’s exile, but even then the secret is preserved. After that the League of Shadows loses its leaders and again we don’t know what happens to the rank and file. However, even if members did say anything after the invasion of Gotham, that’s not Bruce’s problem anymore. Regardless of whether you think he’s dead or alive, he’s not coming back to Gotham anytime soon. Bruce left Blake with all the tools he’d need to continue the legacy, so at this point, it is up to Blake to find a way to eliminate the threat posed by the League and preserve what the symbol of Batman means to the public. I’d love to get a movie where I can evaluate JGL’s Batman on the standard I developed, but that’s not going to happen, sadly.

All of this is to say that yes, Bale’s Batman may have a higher numerical count than Kilmer’s, but when we evaluate the types of people that know, Bale is in the stronger position. I’d much rather have disciplined members of an elite covert organization with a rock-solid hierarchy know about my secret identity than ten self-centered thugs who have no allegiance to anyone or anything, aside from the almighty dollar. I still hold that the people who know Kilmer’s secret are much more likely to reveal it than those who know Bale’s, which still makes Kilmer the worst Batman of all.

You Should Listen to More Hip Hop, Starting with Kendrick Lamar

Editor’s Note: This article was written by my good friend and former podcast co-host, Mr. Matt Hudson. Matt is an audio engineer and musician who has an unhealthy obsession with numerous genres of music, from pop to Swedish death metal to bebop and everything in between (except country, oddly enough). If you enjoy this section and would like to see more music posts on the site, please let us know!

— 

 

(Full disclosure: I’m a bearded white guy from the South.)

I was having a conversation with a friend recently, and I asked if he had heard Kendrick Lamar’s latest album, Good Kid: M.A.A.D City, to which he replied, “No. Ew. I don’t listen to rap.” I asked my friend if he had ever given hip hop an honest try and he said he hadn’t. I was a little taken aback, but I’m not really sure why. I understand that hip hop music isn’t for everyone, and there are people who might have legitimate reasons for not liking it. People like and dislike the things they do and there’s little we can do to change that.

The only thing I ever ask is that no matter what you may like, you should at least give an artist or a genre an honest chance before you cast judgment. I’ve noticed that hip hop is a particularly common target of people’s vitriol, despite the fact that many people have only heard a limited (read: bad) selection of the available offerings. Though everyone’s tastes do differ, it seems a lot of people have preconceived ideas about what hip hop is and what it isn’t. If you’re the kind of person who has an diverse taste in music and you haven’t given hip hop a fair shot, then I think it’s about damn time you did. Kendrick Lamar’s Good Kid: M.A.A.D City is a good place to start.

Did you see the Kendrick Lamar/Imagine Dragons performance on the Grammys? If not, I’ve posted the video down below for you. Needless to say, Kendrick KILLED it. I’d even go as far as to say that Imagine Dragons killed it as Kendrick’s band (sorry to any Imagine Dragons fans, but I don’t ever want to hear “Radioactive” again as long as I live, unless it’s the performance with Mr. Lamar from the Grammys). Kendrick has two full albums and a few mixtapes, but his biggest splash has been the aforementioned Good Kid: M.A.A.D City which is the one I’m most intimately familiar.

 

So what makes Kendrick worth listening to, you ask? Well, there are a few reasons, and one of them is his technical rapping abilities. I’d dare say that Mr. Lamar can hang with the likes of guys like Eminem. For the uninitiated, Eminem, despite his personal flaws and vices, is considered one of the best when it comes to technical ability among modern day artists. In fact, when I first heard the third verse of the song “Backseat Freestyle,” I thought that Eminem was making a guest appearance. Turns out, it was just Kendrick switching up his flow and rhyme scheme. The man has an undeniably fluid flow, a trait that shouldn’t be as rare as it is among mainstream hip hop artists.

That brings me to my next point: Kendrick isn’t afraid to get weird and mix it up when it comes to style, flow and perspective. In the first verse of the song “Sing about Me, I’m Dying of Thirst,” he raps from the perspective of the brother of a friend who had just been killed. In the next verse, he raps from the perspective of a sister of a friend who was a prostitute (it gets a little convoluted at times, but that’s what makes it fun). One of my favorite examples is when he raps from the perspective of his own conscience in the second verse of the song “Swimming Pools (Drank).” In this particular verse the vocals are slowly panned from right to left to give the verse a dream-like effect. Honestly, there are so many interesting elements concerning the production quality of this album that I could discuss it for days, but that might be for a different post.

One of the main reasons why this album is so good is the narrative that is somewhat buried within the album. At the beginning and end of certain songs there are skits where the listener hears people talking about various things. These skits, combined with the subject matter of the songs, create a narrative about a kid growing up in Compton, and eventually rejecting a life of crime. I know some of you are rolling your eyes at the idea of skits in a hip hop album. It seems skits were popular a few years ago among rappers, but most of them were really lame and distracted from the album. Luckily, the skits on Good Kid: M.A.A.D City are interesting and thought-provoking. The narrative, though, is difficult to piece together because the “story” doesn’t begin until the middle of the album, and the beginning of the album drops the listener into the middle of the narrative. If you’re willing to take the time to piece it together, the narrative of this album is definitely one that will move you.

What’s more impressive is that even though all these songs fit together to tell a story, they can easily be extracted from the album individually for radio-friendly hip hop songs. Upon first listen, “Swimming Pools (Drank)” appears to be another rap song about drinking and partying, but after actually reading the lyrics and listening in context of the album, it becomes clear that the song is actually about peer pressure and alcoholism. It has to be difficult, as an artist, to write a song that your label can play on the radio but also fits into your vision of an album. Usually, it seems that hip hop artists have to pick between the two.

 

I could go on and on about this album, but for your sake, I’ll let you figure the rest out for yourself. Obviously, there are many great hip hop artists worth listening to (mainstream and underground alike), but I was so impressed with this album that I felt compelled to share. Like I said before, hip hop isn’t for everyone. Still, I would encourage you to give the genre a shot, even if you have before and didn’t care for it, because as long as artists like Kendrick Lamar are working, music will continue to evolve.

If you’re now interested in giving Kendrick Lamar’s Good Kid: M.A.A.D City a listen, please consider using the link below to purchase it. By clicking the image below, One of Us will receive a cut of anything you purchase from Amazon, even if it’s not the album! Thank you for the support!

Movie Review: ‘The Monuments Men’

George Clooney returns to the director’s chair and, of course, that means you’re going to get something a little off-beat. In this case, it’s the true story of a bunch of art appreciators who were sent behind the lines of WWII to rescue and protect important works of art from the Nazis. And you thought your job was hard.

Clooney himself stars with Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Jean Dujardin, Hugh Bonneville, John Goodman, and Bob Baliban, an impressive collection of talent to be sure. But will it be an “Arty Dozen” or a just-going-through-the-“Motions Eleven”? That’s what your team of Unusual Suspects is here for.

Going deep into enemy territory with little hope of survival is their mission. This crack team of expert reviewers, Chris, Ashley, Elliott, and Beau, must get in, watch the movie, and get out with the secret review plans. God rest their souls.

Brands Upon The Brain: ‘LEGO Movie’ Proves Upside to Hollywood’s Lamest Trend

There are times when I believe that there are few dissimilarities between the heads of the major Hollywood film studios and The LEGO Movie‘s villainous President Business. As much as we all love movies, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that art and commerce share equal billing on the marquee.

The dogma of any successful business must include at least one commandment on branding. If your company offers a product or service similarly offered by another entity, the strategy becomes to develop a brand that customers will come to know and favor. Teams of advertising experts cast a series of psychological spells designed to create a favorable subconscious association between your company name/logo and positive affective experiences. And then wham, bam, thank you Pavlov…you’ve got yourself a recognizable brand.

Hypnotic Spinning Spiral Optical Illusion 1024X768
Side note: anybody else really want a Big Mac right now?

To a certain degree, Hollywood has always paid attention to this tenet of consumerism. Popular books have provided the basis of screenplays throughout the course of cinema history. However, the regard for branding wasn’t universal even in this practice as many of these filmic adaptations found themselves bearing titles independent of those of their literary antecedents. More adhesive to this conceit is the early studio practice of signing performers to multi-picture exclusive contracts. They were banking on selling the actors themselves as brands that were inextricably tied to their own.

Cut to the 1980s, the height of American capitalism in many ways. Did anyone really believe that Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees were surpassing third, fourth, and fifth sequels because there was a wealth of narrative depth in their struggle to murder every last teenager on Earth? Forget dream-logic curses, desecrated graves, or undead hillbilly rage, the real reason for the perpetual resurrection of these two slasher titans was the audience’s unwavering loyalty to those franchise brands.

Then the video games that were invented in the late 70s/early 80s began to enjoy adaptation to the big screen. This practice is all the more telling of Hollywood’s blind brand obsession, as the vast majority of movies based on video games send us angrily storming up to the box office afterward to demand our tokens back. Let the slashers simmer for a few years, and then new studios further cash in on the various horror brand-chises with remakes. But where this trend reaches critical mass (in that it massively chafes critics), is when the studio system’s developmental Eye of Sauron turns to the toy box.

The true exemplar of creative bankruptcy in Hollywood is their adapting of ACTUAL brands, specifically those of major toy manufacturers, into film. Sure, there were other woeful benchmarks; sequels were still a major currency, sequels sprouted like weeds, and young adult fiction was seemingly placed on an automatic conveyor belt from bookstores to film development without so much as a single exec actually reading them. But about the time G.I. Joe was fully posed into the shape of a summer tentpole movie, it was clear that originality had been shelved.

At one point, we came remarkably close to a turning of the tide. Universal loaded a boatload of money into adapting a popular board game, but to their chagrin, the poorly ballasted Battleship promptly sunk. In its wake, it appeared to drag to a watery death a few other in-development projects that similarly owed their creative roots to the hallowed aisles of Toys ‘r Us. Suddenly Tonka Trucks took a backseat and no longer was any one bending over backwards for Stretch Armstrong. For a shimmering moment, it looked like the trend had died.

God bless the poor, naive optimists.

I remember the distinct sting as my forehead struck the keyboard upon reading the news that there was going to be an honest-to-goodness LEGO Movie. A movie…about LEGOs. The trend hadn’t died, in fact it had filtered down from action figures and board games to building toys devoid of its own characters or even rules to work into the story. Who in the brick-blocky hell would want to take on that assignment? Is there anyone who could even…

And then, half-way through the knee-jerk, a quick scroll down the page revealed two names that immediately set my fears at ease: Phil Lord, Chris Miller.

By this point, having also seen The LEGO Movie, it seems abundantly clear that impossible adaptations are these guys’ forte. Let’s review. They took what was essentially a picture book, and made one of the best animated films of the last decade in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Then they were given a forgotten novelty of a late 80s teen crime drama and ripped our sides apart with the brilliant 21 Jump Street. These are two of the smartest and most talented creators in the industry, and The LEGO Movie is likely their best work to date (you can listen to our audio review for more details). These two are so adept in this regard, that they actually give cause for at least a moment’s pause when condemning Hollywood’s current obsession.

Lord and Miller are the sole byproduct of the brand recognition schema that justifies its existence. I’m not at all suggesting that Hollywood knew what it was doing when it took the first steps toward the artistic quagmire in which it currently finds itself, but if the work of Lord and Miller is the result, then I’m glad for every muddy misstep. I have a feeling that the uniformity of the projects they’ve accepted over the last few years is no accident. Sure, it could be a simple matter of their demonstrated authority in the area of unenviable property adaptation leading to subsequent projects in the same vein. However, perhaps instead the challenge itself is the spark necessary to light their creative fire.

It may seem a tired chestnut, but perhaps necessity really is the mother of their invention. The task of transforming a two-dimensional (creatively) property into a (literally) three-dimensional film, if it is to work, requires a substantial outside-the-box approach. Yet films with more standard bases, films the like of which we see over and over, are so entrenched in formula that the screenwriting process can become rote. By instantly having to attack a difficult roadblock right at the onset, Lord and Miller free themselves up to bend, break, or even change the rules. One such moment at the end of The LEGO Movie, wherein the origin of their established LEGO universe is revealed, is precisely the type of self-aware, highly-evolved imagination that is absent in films adapted from more conventional media.

It’s very much like the Lars Von Trier film The Five Obstructions. Hollywood is the Von Trier to Lord & Miller’s Jørgen Leth; constantly challenging them with apparently more and more impossible material to convert into a film, while they grow as artists in the process. That’s not to say that everyone operating under these constraints will inevitably figure out how to make effective use of them, but frankly, at this point, I want this otherwise uninspired studio trend to continue JUST to see what these two movie MacGyvers are able to next accomplish. Dunkin Donuts: The Movie. Go!

What’s entirely appropriate about Lord and Miller writing and directing The LEGO Movie is that product itself is microcosmic of their greatest strength as filmmakers. Much like a tabletop covered in an imposing sea of tiny building bricks, these guys can stare down any unideal subject for adaptation, step back from the table, and figure out exactly how all those pieces will fit together to construct something unique and wonderful. And like most true LEGO maniacs, these guys excel when the challenge is greatest; when there exists no set of instructions for step-by-step construction.

Not everything about the Hollywood obsession with brand recognition is awesome, but with luminaries like Phil Lord and Chris Miller continually creating innovative, intelligent, and thoroughly entertaining fare, maybe it’s not all bad either.