Psychiatric help: 5 cents

My introduction to Peanuts was more than likely a worn Fawcett paperback; I seem to recall reading and rereading it until the pages fell apart. I wasn't aware that they were taken from newspaper daily strips until later. Peanuts (along with Calvin and Hobbes and a host of others) made perusing the daily and weekend comics a wonderful experience, discovering the latest shenanigans of such rich, funny, and sophisticated characters.

I remember fondly (and still try to watch annually) the Charlie Brown animated specials. My favorite was the Christmas cartoon; Charlie Brown's struggle to find meaning in the holiday amidst cynical commercialism resonated with me, as well as his dour outlook on life. His victory by the end always warms my heart, although it seems he had fewer of those in the newspaper comics.

I guess I felt a bit of an outsider like good ol' Charlie Brown. Unlike him, I've always tried to keep a positive outlook, but the weight of the world can be difficult to bear; reading about this charming fictional character (I was never really a big Snoopy or Woodstock fan) facing similar struggles was a source of comfort . 

Recently I read an essay of how Shultz came up with Peanuts, dealt with success, and produced his daily comic strip; it was enlightening, and once again I found similarities with my own approach to the creative process. It's a shame that Charles isn't alive to produce any additional Peanuts, but the wealth of material that remains his legacy is amazing and highly inspiring.

Peanuts was an important part of my youth, simpler times which seem to be painter with richer colors by my memory. I'm grateful to have been introduced to the Peanuts gang, and hope to someday create a character or story that might speak to a young kid in today's world.

Star Trek musings

I recently heard about the online rating of Star Trek: Into Darkness as one of the worst Star Trek movies ever. Of course, there was a significant and vocal backlash, including that wonderful argument of how ST:ID made oodles of money, and therefore must be good. Box Office success is no indication of quality; unfortunately, it seems the movie going public will drop their hard earned cash on just about anything these days.

I've already reviewed the movie, but wasn't quite sure what to make of the online furor. Recently, I watched an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation which reminded me how amazing the franchise can be, and clarified for me why I disliked ST:ID. The episode in question is 'Yesterday's Enterprise', possibly one of the finest Trek episodes ever.

The story is simple; a fluke causes an Enterprise from a doomed battle in the past to jut ahead years into the future, altering the timeline. Ultimately, the crew of the time-displaced ship return to their past, setting everything right by sacrificing themselves valiantly.

THIS is what Star Trek is all about. Characters are well defined, and the viewer can identify why they make certain decisions or act a specific way; dialogue serves to move the plot forward, and is heart-felt and poignant. Paths are chosen with selfless and heroic motivations, with the good of the many more important than those of the few. Violence isn't glorified; as a matter of fact, scenes with violence stir up feelings of horror and dread.

Into Darkness isn't concerned with revealing dialogue, or characters that use their brains to solve conflict. It's more concerned with running, jumping, constant movement ensuring a tiny attention span might not wander. Characters toss aside annoying quips, while their motivations are mostly unknown; they act as they must in order to get the complicated plot from A to B.

Star Trek is a concept that embraces peace over war, wisdom and intelligence over brute might. Into Darkness is hated by ST fans because (IMO), it strays far from these concepts. For me, it's a generic sci-fi action thriller, but doesn't jibe with my version of Roddenberry's fine creation.

Man of Tin

My wife and I checked out Man of Steel this past weekend. I'm a huge fan of the Donner classic, but was well aware that this new version was a completely different beast.

I left the cinema with mixed emotions.

Superman is at heart a simple story; an orphan from a doomed planet is brought up by a kindly couple and chooses to help folk with his wonderful powers. Man of Steel heaps a whole lot of convoluted back story atop this premise. 

Unnecessarily complicated sums up the whole experience. After mulling quite a bit, I think I've put my finger on what troubled me about MOS: it's not that it's a bad movie, but it seems to suffer from the 'too many cooks' syndrome. Everything is over-designed, over thought out, and outrageously over-the-top, while not enough time is spent crafting characters I wanted to cheer for, facing peril I actually cared about.

The result is a 'realistic' take on a morally conflicted, navel-gazing Superman that revels in mind-numbing violence with lovingly-rendered shattered real estate. One of my favorite moments featured the Jor-El hologram, which is ironic and appropriate, since the living characters didn't appeal much to me at all.

The 'shocking' end to the conflict didn't bother me as much as other purists; I realize this 'vision' of Superman is tailored to today's cynical, morality-impaired society, and a clever hero who solves dilemma's without resorting to justified (?) 'murder' isn't very hip. Simply put, it's not 'my' Superman, so I took what was presented at face value. 

It's perplexing to me that Hollywood can't present a version of Superman that is inspiring while being entertaining. Instead of worrying why he wears a 'super suit' or how exactly his powers 'work', why not focus on showcasing an appealing character having interesting adventures? The folk behind MOS got lost in the fine details, and forgot who they were dealing with: a kind god amongst mortals, doing the right thing just because it's the right thing to do.

Where's Perry?

Last year, we spent the week before Christmas at Disney World. Our room at the Contemporary Resort was lovely, and morning routine involved my sleepy-eyed kids watching Disney XD while I made a pre-coffee run to the cafeteria for breakfast goodies. They quickly discovered what would soon became a favorite show of ours:
Phineas and Ferb.

The stories are wacky and fun, celebrating unbridled creativity and fantastic ways to carpe diem; the side adventures of brave, stoic Perry against his slightly neurotic nemesis (with back stories aplenty) always elicit a chuckle. The two boys (with a gaggle of neighborhood sidekicks) are forever optimistic, seeking clever (and usually over-the-top) solutions to any problem, no matter how mundane; Candace continues her never-ending quest to 'bust them', with little success, bless her heart.

This show is another example of all-ages fare that any adult can enjoy; there are plenty of jokes appealing to any age group, quipped during wild situations bursting with vivid imagination. It's wonderful to have a show extolling the virtues of creativity, and the various character interactions are priceless. Once again, the creative team behind the show is top notch, crafting entertaining and thought-provoking material of the highest quality.

I'm grateful to have discovered Phineas, Ferb, Candace, Perry and the rest of the gang. The show has always put a smile on my face, as well as those of my girls. If I could tap into my own creative potential like the boys do every episode, well, my Summers (and the rest of the time) would be pretty interesting indeed.

C'mon grab your friends

I'm not quite sure when we 'discovered' Adventure Time; I'd guess I was channel surfing, and caught glimpses of it while landing on Teletoon. There was a great write-up about the show in a recent Entertainment Weekly, and I decided to give it a shot, since my kids (and I) are always on the look out for interesting cartoons to pass a bit of time in that nebulous period before bedtime. 

So, we tried one....

And were hooked. Big time.

The thing is, I can't really explain why. The animation is simple (love those noodle limbs) and the stories brief. But this weird cartoon achieves what most media today simply can't:

I care about the characters.

Finn. Jake. Bubblegum Princess. Even LPS.

I love these guys!

Their cool wit makes me laugh out loud (no abbreviation here), and their antics are fun and often thought-provoking. The relationships between characters feel 'real' to me, which doesn't make a lot of sense considering the fantastic basis of their world (and is a testament to the amazing creative team behind the show). I love that AT is bright and vibrant (both in tone and design), and hopeful.

I guess the main thing I love about the show is that it has heart; it's obvious to me that each episode is a labor of love, painted with bold swatches of color for viewers of any age. Wild creativity prevails, from bears partying within the tummy of a monster, to a lovelorn and quite misunderstood Ice King searching for happiness. 

Cartoons were an oasis for me as a child; they provided an escape from the terror and sadness of day-to-day life, and I will always be grateful for the wonderful gift of imagination they helped foster in me. As an 'old' man, I still haven't outgrown cartoons, although many produced today lack the innocent magic of ones from my youth. 

Adventure Time is an incredibly special show, and one that I am grateful is on the air to share with my girls.

Star Trek:Into Darkness

I'll admit that I remember fondly watching Star Trek as a youngster Sunday mornings before shuffling off to church (I'd miss the last 15 minutes resolution of any episode, which was quite frustrating). I remain charmed by the spirit of that show, and maybe it colors my outlook on Hollywood's latest spectacular.

As the movie progressed, I chuckled at some fun bits, stared in shock at others (although I knew Khan was the villain, it was still a 'holey shit' moment for me), and felt numb by the relentless 'action'. As the credits rolled, I couldn't figure out if I actually liked the movie.

Mulling it over, I find that Star Trek: Into Darkness is a typical 'modern' blockbuster, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the viewer relentlessly. Larger than life characters! Do-or-die situations! Over-the-top villainy! 

Interesting story with characters I care about?

Not so much.

It's probably just me. Maybe I'm dumb, but I didn't get the whole story. It seemed that things happened just to prod the plot conveniently forward. Stuff was mentioned that probably should've been shown to dramatic effect; and time was spent on scenes that missed the mark for me. 

Characters spouted off lines, but I just didn't believe them, nor did I really care.

The Kirk I 'know' is brash, arrogant, and takes calculated gambles to defy the odds; Pine's version is frantic, reckless, and doesn't seem to deserve the rank he's been given (as he himself states). His dynamic with Quinto seems like a hollow echo of the Shatner/Nimoy banter, and the entire movie's mirroring of Wrath of Khan only serves to demonstrate how superior that latter film actually is to it.

Consider: WOK uses pace to incredible effect; events happen gradually, leading to a dramatic crescendo. ID is loud, explosive scenes threaded together haphazardly. The former film has a clear theme with intense emotional pay-off by its climax; the latter seems unfocused and weighed down by too many ideas crammed into it. Of course, critics feel that flawed characters doing questionable things makes them 'believable', but I found the ethics lesson distracted from the pulpy adventure.

I did enjoy Cumberbatch, although I wish he'd displayed actual 'brilliance' in addition to suave menace. I guess that's my main complaint overall, now that I mention it: I wish the plot would've depended on 'smart' folk making clever, strategic decisions to save the day, rather than attractive characters punching and kicking their way to a fireworks resolution.

Comparing this hyperactive action movie to those low-budget episodes filled with heart just serves to remind me: less can indeed be more.