Greetings Semantinkers!

Technology can be a beautiful thing. Just think about all we can do today that wasn’t possible just ten years ago; we can check our email on our phones, we have robots that can perform surgery, ugly people can be made pretty in Photoshop. Yes, technology is wonderful, but, there is a downside to all these modern miracles, and nowhere is this more evident then in the world of comics.

Once upon a time, comics were filled with human villains plotting bank heists and world domination. Sure, these baddies were often ugly people, but at least they were people. Sadly, as technology has advanced, computers have gotten involved in super-crime, and now we have reached the point where robots and their kind are not just evil, but UGLY.

The prime example of this terrifying trend of robotic repulsiveness would have to be Marvel Comics’ M.O.D.O.K. Behold the terror of technology gone awry!

M.O.D.O.K. or the Mental Organism Designed Only for Killing, was created by the dirty bastards at A.I.M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics), probably because of a drunken wager. If you are a clandestine organization hell-bent on ruling the world and you want to mutate a dude into a crazy floating cyborg, that’s your prerogative, but why does he have to look like a midget with a failed face-lift?

Yup, that octopus has tank treads.

M.O.D.O.K. is not the only instance in comics where technology has progressed to a state of ugliness. The field of cybernetics also has created monstrosities. Behold Heavy Metal!

This menagerie of hideous cyborg animals shows the dangers of trying to improve upon nature. Just look at the octopus on tank treads, or the vulture with a steel mohawk. You can’t see it in this picture, but that menacing purple shark has legs. Cybernetics is a field of science rife with possibilities, but seeing a gorilla dressed up like a cross between Robo-cop and an S&M fetishist shows just how hideous the future could be.

Bio-engineering is another field that comics have shown us can progress to a state of ugliness. I know what you are thinking, ” Bio-engineering? that’s why we get such nice produce in the supermarket, how could that be a bad thing?” My answer to that is Three Willied Seth from THE AUTHORITY. Ewww.

If this guy was touching my head, I’d cry too.

Willy was given over one hundred super powers by the American government, one of which was poop-vision. Apparently none of those powers was the ability to look like anything like a human being. And while we are on the subject of bio-engineering, let me show you another example of how this branch of science go go horribly wrong: The Alpha Lanterns!

Super-powers in exchange for your face? No deal!

Green Lanterns are pretty awesome, they can do basically anything with those neat little rings. So, to be an Alpha Green Lantern (basically a super green lantern), you get bio-engineered to have a gaping hole in your chest and a face that lifts up to reveal a gasmask when s#!t is afoot. This isn’t right, and moreover, it isn’t pretty. Shame on you scientists for allowing things like this to happen!

So, I suppose my point here is that while technological advances have largely made our lives better, there can be pit falls, and they will not be pretty, in fact they could be downright fugly. Watch out for technology getting unpretty on you, otherwise you could wind up with a real life M.O.D.O.K. living down the street from you.

On a serious note, keep an eye out for THE UNDERGROUNDS #3 coming out tomorrow, as well the latest issue of MYTHOI, MYTHOI Birth: TAROS! Both are free and can be found on semantink.com.

I’m going to prep this post by saying, I will be venting. I apologize if I offend anybody by saying my true feelings about this film. If I do offend you…your taste in movies are questionable.

Well to be honest, I was completely shocked when I saw the video below. I will wait for you to watch this horrendous pile of putrid vomit. Enjoy. Find me below.

Well, lets start with the obvious. I love musicals and I love film. I love the combination of the film medium infused together with song and dance.

I love the movie Fight Club and I think it is one of the greatest movies of all time. Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helen Bonham Carter are all top-notch in their roles in this film.

Now having said that…. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears when I came across this “remake”. The first thing I wanted to do was club a baby seal and then set my hair on fire.

This might be one of the worst ideas to ever be imagined. To be honest, remakes are becoming more and more trendy with older films that “need to be updated” and I can live with that. Is Fight Club even out dated? I don’t think so

Please, post your comments below, would love to know your initial reactions about this hideous piece of work.

Also, hold your breath, they are also working on a Bollywood musical of Back to the Future. Ugh….

–Eo

Extra-Sensory Perception. The term itself is somewhat questionable and offers some troubling connotations. A simple glance for synonyms on the internet yields the following busload of equally troubling terms: clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, insight, mind-reading, parapsychology, premonition, presentiment, second sight, sixth sense, spiritualism, telepathic transmission, telesthesia, and thought transference. Some of these terms offer nothing in the way of clarity, but there are some words and phrases there that offer an opening for understanding.

A workable definition for perception from the Princeton Online Dictionary defines it as “the ability to become aware of something via the senses.” The most relevant part of this definition is the final phrase: “via the senses.” People are created almost identical in terms of genetic, but they are far from alike in terms of ability. Some people are born without a sense of sight. Some people are born without a sense of hearing. Some people have a limited sense of smell. Some people can not feel even their own limbs. Some people can cognate faster than others. The simple fact is that some people are gifted with senses that are beyond the usual scope of humankind. These people, by definition of the average human with average senses, would possess extrasensory perception.

In searching for a better definition, I encountered that which was presented in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED): “Of perception: made by other means than those of the known sense-organs, e.g. by telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.; hence, received by such means; of or pertaining to the study of such perception. (extra-sensory perception is often abbreviated to E.S.P., ESP.).” Accompanying this definition, are some examples of usage that appeared in text; J. B. Rhine coined the phrase in this passage, “J. B. RHINE Extra-Sensory Perception (1935) p. xxx, Let us merely say..‘perception by means that are outside of the recognized senses’, and indicate this meaning by ‘Extra-Sensory Perception’ or E.S.P.” J.B. Rhine is a prominent figure to check out when discussing the paranormal in any detail. More information will follow in a separate blog post about this particularly interesting fellow. But the term extra-sensory perception is still quite a modern term (as you can see from above, the initial date and usage of the phrase is 1935). I think it is worth the time and trouble to see if we can find a definition that goes back a little further than that. The term that I will focus on for this post will be clairvoyance.

Clairvoyance is an older term, but still retains a pretty modern meaning. One of the definitions from the OED that I find particularly interesting states, “Keenness of mental perception, clearness of insight; insight into things beyond the range of ordinary perception.” This is completely synonymous with the definition presented above for extra-sensory perception. Here is an interesting example of the usage of clairvoyance: “1884 SYMONDS Shaks. Predec. ii. §19. 79 What may be called..clairvoyance in dramatic matters. Ibid. 81 This clairvoyance gave them insight into things beyond their own experience. Shakespeare painted much that he had never seen.” I believe that Symonds offers a very touching interpretation of what clairvoyance can be taken to stand for in the harsh world of the social norm that we find ourselves in.

In popular culture, there are all sorts of characters that have specially designed powers that are based on the criteria stated above. A few that come to mind are Daredevil, Spiderman, Master-Chief, and Wonder-Woman. But other than thinking that extra-sensory perception is just related to fiction, I feel that Symonds offers us a way to look into our world today and note those that are able to capture expressions that others miss. Essentially, I feel that the above delving into the word “extra-sensory perception” (which, mind, I know is a very shallow delve), offers us to see ESP as an appreciation of something that is often missed. In an artistic sense, this discussion should give you a reason to appreciate any time a person gives an insight that most of us would have otherwise missed, through any medium. But, I think we can also think of ways in which technology can give us a boost with perception.

The most recognizable form of extra-sensory perception that people in this generation would recognize is night-vision goggles. These goggles do exactly what the information above describes; they give a person the ability to have a perception that is beyond the norm. How do night vision goggles work? You can check this link out for the specifics, or you can trust me when I say that night-vision has amazing properties. Essentially there are two major forms of night vision: image enhancement which uses light, even lower portions of the infrared light spectrum, or thermal imaging which detects the upper portion of the infrared spectrum and displays the natural heat emitted by objects. But that is precisely what the issue is here. These magic goggles can let you see in the dark with amazing clarity. They let you perceive what was otherwise un-perceivable. Obviously, this power can put you at great advantage in a combat situation, but are there other purposes to this kind of perception? Can we expect cars to have light amplification night-driving modes in the future? Lightweight versions that fit like sunglasses and can be fitted into common frames for outdoor use? Or is this power to great for common people to posses? Is it something that we need to perceive for our armed elite?

In this example, you can see that the military uses night vision to both find their enemy more effectively, but also to avoid certain targets that otherwise would have been covered with an insane amount of lead and explosives. I don’t want to mislead anyone though, misdirection is another trick that is often employed when people have superior technologies. Since the time of the Trojan War, people have been duping other people with superior technology. Here is a picture of a wooden German tank during World War II that was meant to waste allied munitions, gasoline, and supplies in general in pursuing their destruction. This reminds me of an old Chinese proverb, “he who knows his heart mistrusts his eyes.” Other ways of extra-sensory perception can be devices that we don’t necessarily consider extrodinary anymore, but they do enhance our natural senses. An obvious device that enhances our speech is a microphone. It’s not unusual anymore, but think of the implications that this device had with it when it was first introduced. The ability to amplify the human voice so that it carried to the ears of thousands instead of hundreds. There are probably hundreds of examples, but I feel that these are a few of the places you can justly defend calling “extra-sensory perceptions.”

Over the last few weeks I have been bombarded with overwhelming amounts of fucktardery that, while normally get shoved down my throat and choked into silent submission, have been regurgitated into the spotlight of my mind based on the abnormally slow week in real entertainment news.  Corey Haim died; Christopher Nolan announced that he, David Goyer and [yet-to-announced Director] will be working on the next Superman Movie (also in this article: no Mr. Freeze in the next Batman); a ten second Twilight: Eclipse trailer was released that makes my balls tremble with rage; and, the new TRON: LEGACY trailer came out, which is full of fantastic.  But none of that is really “Rant” worthy…yet.

So, what am I left with?  Well, three particular tales of tomfoolery that have been simmering in my cerebellum involving stupid people doing/saying stupid things that I just can’t abide by.  So, without further adieu I give you: Mr. Wolff’s Moronic Countdown.

3.  Taking Caulk in the Ass

According to NJ.com, “Six women from the Essex County area who wanted fuller bottoms ended up in hospitals after receiving buttocks-enhancement injections containing the same material contractors use to caulk bathtubs.”  I’m going to stop here and ask that you read that again.

Now I understand the need to pinch pennies in this economy, I’ve had to settle for several store-brand products over the last few months, including painkillers, gin and coffee, but there are just certain things you don’t skimp on!  You don’t go cheap when you’re buying hookers, guns, children or ass implants!

2.  Lohan v. E-Trade

Please watch this.  It’s important to our discussion.

Apparently, at some point in that video, E-Trade was poking fun at Lindsay Lohan, at least that’s what she claims.  “Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit,” Lohan’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, said in a statement to the New York Post. “They’re using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn’t they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody’s talking about it and saying it’s Lindsay Lohan.”

No, Miss Ovadia, nobody thinks that, or at least they didn’t before now.  I know that Lindsay is a pretty popular idiot actress person (??), but I think she may be over reaching here.  Check out this site.  At the bottom right you can put in the name Lindsay and find out just how popular a name it is (for example, in 1986, the year Lindsay was born, it was the 46th most popular name in the United States).  I guess “Lindsay” isn’t such a unique name, huh Lohan?  Besides, the Grey Group, which produced the “Milkaholic” commercial has already said they, “just used a popular baby name that happened to be the name of someone on the account team.”

Ms. Lohan, I would call you an idiot, but I think you may sue me, so let me just say this: I know a moron named Lindsay, but I’m not telling anybody which Lindsay…

1.  Wolfman Ripped Off Twilight.

Do you know who Kayla Patterson is?  You shouldn’t.  She wrote this:

To whom this may concern:

This movie was a complete waste and I feel that it offends ALL Twilight Fans around the world, that including myself. For one, it was a COMPLETE remaking of the Wolf Pack from the Twilight Saga: New Moon. It gives the werewolves a bad name and makes them look like some deformed mutation of a rabid dog. I actually started to like werewolves after seeing Jacob Black and all his awesomeness on the big screen at the movies. That was until I saw your crappy remake of what you call to be a “were wolf”. I don’t see how you live with yourself for making it the way you did. If I made this movie, I would be ashamed to even admit that I owned it. How can a werewolf be killed with a silver bullet? Better yet, have you saw the transformation of the man that is “supposed” to be the wolf? He sits in some chair and his entire body turns in to some mutated freak. If you would watch the transformation of Jacob Black, (Taylor Lautner) he doesn’t come close to looking as fake, cheap and or mutated as the wolf man.  You tell me, who looks to be the better werewolf. Your stupid Wolf Movie didn’t even make the top Movie for the charts; Valentines Day WITH TAYLOR Lautner! Get that this is MY oppinion and I felt I wanted to express it because I saw that your email was on your site. I wanted to let you know this is what i thought of the wolf man that sucks.
FREAKIN LAUTNER DID!

Ms. Patterson, this is a werewolf:

This isn’t even a wolf, much less a werewolf (I think it’s a dog):

And you are my #1 moron.

Grats.

Until next time,

Mr. Wolff

Back to Semantink

Hey kids! It’s Wednesday, and that means it’s time for a Book Report. I realized, rather belatedly, that I didn’t have an Author Spotlight last month, and so I shall do my best to make up for it now.

Today I want to focus on one of my favorite authors. When asked by Barbara Walters what he would do if he had six months to live, he responded, “Type faster.”

The term “robotics” was coined in 1941. In 1920, the word “robot” was introduced to the public via Czech playwright Karel Čapek in his play Rossum’s Universal Robots. While Čapek’s play presents the basic idea of man-made machines replacing the human laborer, much of what we now consider robotic and robotic behavior stems from the author who coined the term “robotics” (in a science-fiction short story, of all places): Isaac Asimov.

Born in Russia in 1920 (though his family moved to Brooklyn when he was three; he never learned to speak Russian, his parents always spoke to him in English and Yiddish), by the time of his death in 1992 Asimov had become one of the most prolific authors of all time, having some hand in the writing or editing of nearly 500 books and over 9000 letters or postcards (postcards being his favored way to respond to fan mail). His works have appeared in nine of the ten major categories of The Dewey Decimal System, the sole exception being the 100s: philosophy and psychology (which I actually find to be a bit strange, since his work has helped to define, almost entirely, our psychological and philosophical conception of robotics).

Asimov studied—and eventually earned a Ph.D in—biochemistry, and although he was a tenured professor in biochemistry at Boston College, he actually made more money writing than he did teaching. Asimov loved science, and firmly believed that science-fiction would help direct the discoveries of science-fact.
In “My Own View” published in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1978) he writes,

“Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today — but the core of science fiction, its essence, the concept around which it revolves, has become crucial to our salvation if we are to be saved at all…It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be …This, in turn, means that our statesmen, our businessmen, our everyman must take on a science fictional way of thinking.”

Also, in “How Easy to See the Future” published in Natural History magazine (1975) he writes, “Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.”

Possessing an amazing intelligence (he did get a Ph.D in biochemistry, after all), he was was a reluctant vice-President of Mensa International, calling certain members of the organization “brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs”. Of course, he also stated that the only men he would admit to being less intelligent than were Marvin Minsky and Carl Sagan.

Asimov’s contributions to literature are astounding and expansive. He was the first author to combine science-fiction and mystery, advocating that science-fiction was a merely a flavor that could be added to any genre and not a genre limited to itself. He coined the term “social science-fiction” to describe a new trend in the 1940s of science-fiction authors (following the trail blazed by Asimov and Robert Heinlein) writing less about space opera and gadgets and more about the human condition.
He was friends with Kurt Vonnegut, who once asked him, “How does it feel to know everything?” (To which Asimov replied that he only had the reputation of knowing everything, which made him very uneasy)
He also was a friend to Arthur C. Clarke, and during a cab ride along Park Avenue in New York, they formulated the “Asimov-Clarke Treaty of Park Avenure”, where Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science-fiction writer in the world (reserving second place for himself) and Clarke was required to insist Asimov was the best science writer in the world (reserving second place for himself). In Clarke’s book The Report on Planet Three (1972), the dedication reads, “In accordance with the terms of the Clarke-Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer.“

The Three Laws
One of the most enduring marks Asimov made on the world was his view on robotics (and his invention of the word). In 1950, Gnome Press released I, Robot, a collection of short stories Asimov wrote between 1940 and 1950 that had originally been published in the magazines Super Science Stories and Astounding Science Fiction. The majority of these stories contained an invention of his: The Three Laws of Robotics, which dictate all robotic behavior.
Law 1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Law 2: A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Law 3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Formation of these Laws enabled Asimov to write robot stories that differed from the trend of most authors to conclude their robot story with a Frankenstein ending.

…one of the stock plots of science fiction was… robots were created and destroyed by their creator. Knowledge has its dangers, yes, but is the response to be a retreat from knowledge? Or is knowledge to be used as itself a barrier to the dangers it brings? With all this in mind I began, in 1940, to write robot stories of my own — but robot stories of a new variety. Never, never, was one of my robots to turn stupidly on his creator for no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of Faust. (1964, in his Introduction to The Rest of the Robots)

Much of Asimov’s writing concerning robots from then on dealt with ways it may be possible—or seem possible— to break the Three Laws. Indeed, in some of his final books, there is the implication that some of the most long-lasting harm came from robots following the laws too perfectly.
Today, most scientists working on artificial intelligence view the Three Laws as incredibly idealistic, more suitable for literature than actual applied science. On the other hand, most of those scientists would also admit that without the three laws (and a fourth, the Zeroth Law, added in a later novel: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm”), their sense of direction in applied robotic science would not be nearly as clear.

Foundation
The Foundation Series might be for Asimov what The Dark Tower was for Stephen King: A vast storyline that ends up tying together, in one way or another, most of the science fiction he wrote. In 1966, the series won a special, one-time-only Hugo Award for “Best All-Time Series”. Asimov wrote that when he first heard about the award, he assumed it would be going to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.
Originally, the books were a collection of short stories, like I, Robot. Asimov wrote the stories as a sort of science-fiction retelling of Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gradually, Asimov began to tie in references to other work, including his Robot novels, as well as his Empire series (which begins with A Pebble in the Sky, the first novel Asimov published that didn’t have an origin in a magazine). By the time of his death, the timeline for the Greater Foundation series spanned 20,000 years and one and a half million words.
Other writers have also contributed to Asimov’s fictional vision of the future. Orson Scott Card, Harry Turtledove, Greg Bear, and David Brin, among others, have all contributed stories in long and short form concerning the Foundation.

Other Work
Among the many hundreds of works that Asimov contributed to, Nightfall is one of the more interesting to me. The short story appeared in Astounding Science Fiction when Asimov was 21. It was his 32nd published story. In 1968, the Science Fiction Writers of America agreed that it was the best science-fiction story ever written up to that point.
The story’s genesis comes from a discussion Asimov had with his editor over a line from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s poem, Nature.

If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God!

From that discussion came the story of a planet, similar to Earth in every way save one: Instead of only one sun, this planet had six, the result being the people on this planet had never been in darkness. Until there comes a day where darkness falls.
Towards the end of his life, Asimov took the short story and expanded it into a full length novel with Robert Silverberg. In addition to the very interesting concept of a planet experiencing darkness for the first time, the story delves into the social, scientific, psychological, and historical ramifications of such an event, providing a very interesting examination of the human psyche in the process.

Two other novels I find incredibly interesting are his Guides.
In 1981, Asimov released his Guide to the Bible (his Guide to the Old Testament was originally published in 1967, and the New Testament was published in 1969; the version released in 1981 just combined them). Beginning in Genesis and going in order, Asimov analyzes the historical, geographical, and political setting of each book, adding biographical information about the main characters. Rather than being an analysis of the spiritual quality of the mythological aspects of the book, Asimov examines the secular aspects of each book with intellectual commentary.
In 1970, Asimov published his Guide to Shakespeare, in two parts. Applying the same rigorous research to the Bard as he did to the Bible, Asimov’s guide examines every play Shakespeare wrote or co-wrote (that hasn’t been lost, anyway) as well as the two epic poems The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis. Asimov divides his guide into sections based on the setting for each play, either Greek, Roman, Italian, or English (with Hamlet getting lumped into the English section so there didn’t have to be a one-play Danish section), and then organizes the plays in each section chronologically, making allowances for plays not based on actual events or people. Then he makes note in each play of how much is real history, how much is anachronistic, and offers short biographies of the original versions of characters, where applicable.
Asimov’s Guides serve to widen the readers comprehension of the material, which allows for a greater appreciation of it. I strongly recommend giving either a read if you are interested in classical or religious literature.

Until next time,
Still paddlin’ the old knew…
_-Akatzen-_

Sgt. Angle Reporting for Duty!

The Oscar telecast is over, which means it’s time for people to remark freely on all things Hurt Locker and Avatar for the next few minutes, and hopefully a Basterd or two will appear.….

Got that out of your system? Good. As your Sgt., I feel it is my duty to brief you on the telecast. There’s so much to discuss, but I’ll break my report into two sections: 1) The Awards — the worthy and the shocking; 2) The production — the useless and the touching. Sometimes, they blend.

AWARDS:

(By the way, I turned out to be spot-on with my predictions, even with Cinematography(Avatar?) )

• HURT LOCKER MADNESS: Not a lot of surprises in the main categories. The Hurt Locker picked up SIX awards out of nine nominations, a strong haul for a film that barely made it into 600 theaters in America and was made for 1/250th (give or take) the budget of Avatar. Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. I don’t have a problem with most of these awards, but the editing of the intertwined storytelling in District 9 should have emerged victorious, and Inglourious Basterds showcased better writing than any film in recent memory. The Hurt Locker had the momentum of winning nearly every major award this season, and the “David” angle in the “David vs. Goliath” scenario that Avatar created. Happy or not, like it or not, The Hurt Locker is the victor. (Screenplay?!)

(*Note: I’ve gone on and read some other pundits and reporters write-ups who say that Hurt Locker will be forgotten ten, twenty years from now, but that Avatar will be the one film remembered. To them I say…okay. When Annie Hall beat Star Wars in the 70s, people were saying the same thing; when Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, people, again, were saying the same thing. And look how well the “losers” have withstood the test of time. But we’re not talking about twenty years from now, we’re talking about NOW — or, to be more specific, last year.*)

On to other awards and items of interest…

All acting awards were predictable and mostly worthy. Kudos to Sandra Bullock, who won for a mediocre role in a less than mediocre movie, but who gains “classy points” because she picked up her Razzy Award the night before the Oscars (the Golden Razzies, for those uninitiated, are handed out every year for the “worst in film.”) It’s her sense of humor…that’s why they like her.

Fisher Stevens has an Oscar. Let that marinate.

Fisher’s Oscar: 20 years in the making.

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire surprisingly beat Up in the Air for longest unnecessary title Best Screenplay. Also defeated:  District 9. I like how Geoffrey Fletcher’s reaction was honest-to-God shock. That’s how you accept an award.

Someone needs to explain, and I mean right now, how Avatar wins for Best Cinematography.…I’ll wait.

It’s a shame that District 9’s visual effects achievements got overshadowed by Avatar, but what can you do?

THE PRODUCTION:

• Hosts: Twice the hosts, twice the fun. You’re producing the Oscars, you decide to have TWO hosts this year: Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. What do you do? Give them a semi-comical monologue and then pull out the magician’s hat and make them disappear for the rest of the show. Seriously, were it not for an occasional quip by Martin when introducing a presenter, I wouldn’t have known the show had a host this year, let alone two of them.

(Watch their monologue here.)

Angle’s Angle: More screen time for any host, one or two!

• CONSTANT CONTACT: Meryl Streep and George Clooney were the two major cutaways all evening, a fact recognized by Clooney when he waved the camera away at one point.

Angle’s Angle: I appreciate the cutaway to an audience member as much as the next person, but give us some variety, give us some change. I don’t want to see Clooney wave us away, but I also don’t want to watch him watching the show for three hours.

• JOHN HUGHES TRIBUTE: The class of the simple introduction by Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick became lopsided and dull when, after the montage of Hughes’ classic scenes, members of the Brat Pack appeared on stage to say one thing each…and then walk away awkwardly like high school kids at a dance.

Angle’s Angle: Bring out the Pack first, then the clip reel. Move it right along.

• VISUALS: Best Cinematography Award is presented…without images or clips of the nominees. Best Actor/Actress awards are presented as follows: a brief montage of all nominees’ performances, five other actors talk up each nominee for not only acting well but being great people, then the presenter comes out, the presenter lists the nominees, the winner comes up and gives a speech which absolutely obliterates the :45 second rule. Total time to present Best Actress: ten minutes. Total for Best Actor: ten minutes. Total time wasted: eight minutes.

Angle’s Angle: SHOW A PIECE OF THE FILM’S NOMINATED. In an awards show dedicated to the visual medium, WHERE WERE THE VISUALS?? The chat-party that was featured last night did many things, all of them negative: Wasted time, deflated the energy in the latter half of an already body-less show, disrespected actors in the supporting categories by not giving them the same treatment earlier, and disrespected the audience at home who tuned in to WATCH a show, not listen to people TALK about how great things were last year. Also disrespected Cinematographers, who GIVE US THE IMAGES that later become iconic.

• BEST SONG: Perhaps one of the wisest decisions in this year’s Oscarcast, the show did away with live performances for each nominated song, instead crumbling the category into a simple presentation, featuring a ten-second clip of each song in the context of the movies they were in.

Angle’s Angle: Good choice.

• BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Nothing tops the appearance of Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman at the Academy Awards in 2001, playing themes from all nominees. Lasted five minutes, and was very moving. This year, as in a few years past, we got to sit through dancers interpreting all of the scores, no doubt from the mind of choreographer and co-producer of this year’s telecast Adam Shankman. Dances were okay, the music was moving.

Angle’s Angle: Shorten the dancing, lengthen the clips and celebrate the music. Itzhak returned four years ago for a solo run at this idea, but it wasn’t the same without Yo-Yo.…

That’s all for this year’s Oscar Telecast! Despite my disagreements with the way the producers produced, and the way the awards are awarded…I will still tune in next year, and the year after that, and I’ll continue to watch the films, the winners and the “happy just to be nominated.” Because that’s a Sgt.‘s duty.

Permission to speak freely in the comments below: Granted.

Sgt. Angle

Greetings readers! If you have been checking out our site this week, you might have noticed that we have begun running our blogs in a slightly different manner. I know that change can be scary, so I just wanted to give you a run down of what you can be expecting from us here at Semantink every week:

Every Monday you will get to read the newest strip in our web-comic, THE UNDERGROUNDS. You can also find an archive of all posted UNDERGROUNDS strips at the-undergrounds.com.

Tuesdays still give you Sgt. Angle and his weekly Cinegasms column, dealing with all things movie.

On Wednesdays Akatzen regails you with his weekly Book Report delving into the world of books that don’t have pretty pictures.

Mr. Wolff still owns Thursday with his Hump Day Rant.

Friday sees new Semantink blogger Dr. Cellus delve into all things paranormal on his blog Cognitive Alchemy.

Saturday gives you Admiral Eo’s Soft Shoe Diaries, wherein the good Admiral looks into the world of theater.

Sunday, you will be stuck with me as I talk comics in my weekly Comicopea column.

Not a bad line up right? Well our new blog schedule is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of news here at Semantink. Over the next few months, our site will be getting a bit of a face lift courtesy of the fine gentlemen at SanBox Inc. All of the content that you love will still be here, but the whole place will be prettier and easier to navigate.

For our MYTHOI lovers, I have some great news, our latest issue of the MYTHOI Birth series, TAROS will be out this week. Here is the cover art to the upcoming issue to whet your appetite:

April is going to see the last issue of MYTHOI Births, TOUCH, hit the internet. As always, MYTHOI will be brought to by the electrifying team of James Ninness and Jed Soriano.

The MYTHOI Birth series coming to a close means two things, 1) MYTHOI proper will pick up again in June with issue #2, and 2)the MYTHOI Birth graphic novel will be available around the same time. All of our MYTHOI issues are available for digital download, but this graphic novel will be the only place you can find the whole Birth series collected in in one place. The GN will be chock full of original content as well, so make sure you pick up a copy when it comes out!

This fall we will be launching two new series, THE HEAVEN’S and SIM-I. THE HEAVEN’S will be written by James Ninness and illustrated by spectacular newcomer Turbo Qualls! THE HEAVEN’S is a steampunk power struggle set on the alien desert world of Terra. Joe Pezzula will be writing SIMI-I, the madcap tale of a super intelligent monkey trying to evade vaporization. I will have more information and pretty picture-tude on these soon.

Next month is also the start of convention season for us here at Semantink. We will be at WonderCon and Wizard World Anaheim in April, The Phoenix Comicon in May, the world famous San Diego Comic Con in July, and the Alternative Press Expo and Long Beach Comic con in October.

So, to make a long story short (too late), 2010 is an exciting year for us here at Semantink, and I just want to say thank you for being a part of it. Keep an eye out here for more details on our upcoming projects, and if you have any questions you can always drop me a line.

Benjamin Glibert

My name is Admiral Eo and this is the “Soft-shoe Diaries”.

Our first bit of news, as you may have already guessed, is all about the new Broadway musical, SPIDER-MAN. That’s right, Spider-man is now being developed as a full stage musical adaptation with a nice little budget reported to be around $47,000,000. I’ll give you a second to let you recount the zero’s.

Now most of you are probably thinking, “this is the worst idea ever known to man, Spider-man doesn’t dance!” Well, you couldn’t be more wrong. He does indeed fly now, so get past yourself and accept it. Lets take a deeper look into this new musical world as I believe it will help you understand better where my calmness is coming from.

Spider-man will be singing and dancing to the music of Bono under the direction of Julie Taymore. Julie Taymore is brilliant when given the chance to direct for the stage. (SIDE NOTE: Go see Disney’s The Lion King on Broadway. It’s incredible.) As long as The Green Goblin isn’t a puppet I think this has every chance in the world to be successful and blow all of our minds.

I think Julie Taymore has some great ideas and great grasp of what a Spider-man Musical should be. Lets wait to see what she can bring to the table. Remember, nothing could be worse than this.

Ouch,

Admiral-Eo