Parts of Vermont

Photos from a recent day trip to Vermont. Something funny, something creepy, great VT vistas all round!

And now...the Oatmeal

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/coffee

As much as I generally revile the whole internet-generated fad of coffee worship, this Oatmeal post was both informative and hilarious. Another great coffee related post on his site (he’s quite the coffee fiend, even his donation link mentions that all money goes towards keeping him caffienated) is The 5 Phases of Caffeine Intake. Also, by “coffee worship fad”, I mean when someone (read: many people) will make a smarmy joke about how they “need their coffee fix” or “need to fuel up on coffee to get the ol’ motor started in the morning” and make that their “thing”. Whether their analogy du jour is that coffee/caffeine is akin to a drug, a carbon-based fuel, or an ill-conceived religion, you’ve met your variation of the resident “Caffeine monster”. They time their Tweets to coincide with coffee intake. They pretend to be “cracked out” if they haven’t had coffee in a few hours and sometimes even make a bit of a fuss over the fact (typically online). Your experience may vary.


Not as annoying as the coffee Snob per se, but still. I know I’ve been guilty of this too, as well as a few close friends of mine. Why? Because coffee is delicious and we all like to be constantly wired like there is no tomorrow! I suppose self-awareness is the best way to balance out the smarminess.

Rob Faymckinstry's photos

http://picasaweb.google.com/faymckinstry

My buddy Rob has recently updated his Picasa web gallery with some new shots. All his photography is absolutely stellar, so you should check them out. He does all sorts of shots (people, places, inanimate objects) to drawn commissioned art. Give them a look, and if you're signed in on Google, show him some Like love. Is that an awkward phrasing? Yes it is. He's available in the western MA area for photos and freelance art and charges a pretty competitive rate.

Enjoy.

Questions left unanswered at the end of Superman II

Yep, it's a Superman post. Get comfortable and settle in.

"I said RELAX."

So for those of you who don't know: there are actually two versions of the 1980 movie Superman II, so to speak. The version most people are familiar with is the "theatrical cut", as directed by Richard Lester, who replaced Richard Donner after the latter was unceremoniously fired by the producers. The "second" version is the Richard Donner cut, which puts back lots of footage that he originally shot that were not included in the theatrical cut. The story, pacing and tone vary from slightly different to almost being a different movie entirely. For the purpose of this post, I'll mostly be referring to the way events play out in the theatrical cut, with a few references to the Donner cut here and there. Refer to yonder Wiki page for some of the juicy details on this movie's troubled production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_II#Controversy_and_cult_status

Regardless of which cut of the movie you watch, Superman disposes of a bomb in space which releases the three Kryptonian criminals from their floating Phantom Zone prison. Which brings me to question the first:

Why is the Phantom Zone "floater" susceptible to a nuclear explosion?
Jor-El, Kal-El's dad, is said to have "discovered" the Phantom Zone. This is basically a limbo-style dimension where Krypton's prisoners are exiled. According to the comics, it's a place where you never grow old or die, you just live on and on. Since Superman II was released after the peak period of the Silver Age of comics, you'd bet your ass wonky physics-meets-full-on-magic was involved with the concept of the Phantom Zone. Still, it's a neat concept. In theory.

When we see the Phantom Zone "floater" - this thing right here:

"Jor-El! Forgive us! Also, Non's elbow is totally touching my side of the Phantom Zone!"

it's a bit unclear what it does exactly. From the looks of it, the three villains are simply encased in a rhombus (paralellogram perhaps?) of doom like so much tuna. They're banging on the surface and look horribly cramped. Perhaps each set of villains get their own "floater" that will travel the cosmos forever, with them crying out for at least a parole hearing by the time they hit the horsehead nebula. Or Zone prisons are doubling or tripling up and Krypton has never established a basic civil rights movement.

So it's either a place or an object, tailored for each prisoner, that defies physics as we know it and just keeps them vacuum wrapped and forgotten like Christmas sweaters. But why just send each prison floater wandering space aimlessly? It seems like a whimsical sentence, really. Beause if there's one thing Jor-El seems to have completely forgotten, it's that space:

IS FULL OF EXPLOSIONS

I'd question Jor-El's logic of sending an interdimensional coffeetable top that can be destroyed by one atomic explosion, hurtling through a place like freaking SPACE, where a stray Martian fart can cause a supernova. Then again, this is the man who refused to spring for an interstellar SUV to cart his entire family to safety from his exploding planet. What did he think was going to happen, the Kryptonian council would stop him? When shit got real, he'd just have to fire up the ol' crystal Winnebago and hightail it to Earth. But I digress.

Shouldn't Jor-El have made these floating prisons nigh-on indestructible? Especially if he's chucking them all into the explosion-filled gaping vagina that is space? I shudder to think of the motley gang of Kryptonian criminals still out there who may have been set free while traipsing through an asteroid belt. Hell, that might make for an interesting new Superman film, seeing as the current franchise (as of this writing) has ground to a halt.

Did Superman fix all the damage caused by the villains?

Here's another case of the story depending on which cut you're watching: in the theatrical cut, the villains wreak havoc all over the world, beat the crap out of Superman, make a deal with Lex Luthor, ordered 50 pizzas care of the Batcave, so on. At the end, Superman deals with them, then returns the missing top from the White House back to where it belongs, makes a solemn promise to the President to never leave Earth high and dry again (and promptly fucking does) and then flies off. We don't really see him do any cleanup, and it's not like we can say "well he didn't cause the damage, so whatevs". The damage caused by the villains is on such a massive scale (the movie originally had an epic "villains rule the world" montage scripted where they go about marauding international landmarks), it would take years for humans to rebuild. I know Superman's hardly a handy contractor whom humans can just call up at their whim to lay down some foundation or fetch a hairball out of a pipe, but still: this is destruction that you could argue is partly his fault.

At the end of the Richard Donner cut, Superman turns back time to counter all the events that happened, which is a huge cop-out if I've ever heard one. The reason this ending was used was because it was never meant to be the ending of the first Superman movie; that one was supposed to end on a cliffhanger with Superman trying to stop Luthor's missiles. Somehow, this also makes it so that the villains are never released from their prison (there's a quick shot to show the floater un-shattering).

But that at least explains, in a weird way, how Superman compensated for the destruction and loss created by the villains. What happens at the end of the regular cut? He beats the crap out of a bar bully in Alaska, in front of witnesses, who couldn't have done anything but suspect that the guy who just shoved a grown man all the way down the counter onto a pinball machine, was probably Superman. Just a hunch. Then again, it was the state with Palin as governor, so maybe they let a lot of things slide up there.

How did Clark and Lois make it back from the Fortress?
This always bugged me, even while watching the movie as a kid, and when a kid can point out a plot hole, that's no good. Clark sacrifices his powers to be with Lois (which makes physiological sense, since the Donner cut has Clark be powered before he does the dirty deed with her - I wonder if any of those Fortress crystals had some kinky information on how to bang humans without tearing them apart, as tempting as it may be) and it's all quite touching. But they flew to the Fortress. Every other time we see people approaching the Fortress, it's either by flying, jetski or a long arduous walk. We see a depowered Clark walking all the way back to the Fortress, which raises even more questions, since this would mark the first time he's done that while non-powered. If you recall, in the first movie, he was an 18 year old who was already feeling the effects of super powers. The whole walk to the Fortress for Clark in Superman II is a redemptive act.

So how the hell did Clark and Lois make it back there without freezing and starving to death? There's no convenient explanation that they used Kryptonian technology. They're just suddenly driving down Alaska in a scene not long after the de-powering. I doubt Zipcar has a location in the northpole; plus the fact that they have no single-trip rentals would make the whole experience even more of a bitch. It's already explained that Superman's aura kinda keeps Lois from turning into a human popsicle, so what happens when his powers are gone? Even when we see Clark walking back, he's just in a Members Only jacket, chowing on snow now and then (hopefully avoiding the yellow kind) - no parka, skis, goggles. It's not freaking New England, people! It's the north pole!

I'm sure Lois was already questioning whether this relationship would be headed in a good direction, given that her first date with the "real" guy ends in a hike through frozen tundra and an embarassing bar fight. Plus the no-powers thing. It's like dating a guy for his sweet guitar-playing skills and then having his arms fall off.

What really happens to the villains in the end?

The Donner cut has a hilarious deleted scene that was deemed too ridiculous even for this movie.

"Why do you even carry guns?"
"So we know we can die."

In this deleted scene, we have the three villains and Luthor being unceremoniously escorted off to prison by what is probably the most bored police team ever, the Arctic Patrol. I'd bet money they're basically Superman's private security guards, kept on retainer in case anyone tries to break into the Fortress and steal his awesome silver sheets.

In both cuts of the movie, though, we see the villains fall into this...foggy abyss (05:42 onwards). It's never really explained what happens to them. Is it to their deaths? They are de-powered, after all. Do they somehow get transported back into the Phantom Zone? Even Lois decks Ursa and she plummets into the icy nothing that awaits. We all know Superman has a strict rule against killing, which is probably why he's never simply cracked Luthor's neck in the past. The world would simply whistle nonchalantly and walk the other way, I'm sure. But these are now de-powered beings, whom he could take down by simply tapping them on the head. Supes must have figured he'd turn back time eventually so maybe their deaths didn't count?

This doesn't happen in the regular cut, though. The villains fall presumably to their deaths, and they stay dead. Luthor gets carted off to prison, we assume, and probably gets to post bail because Superman always forgets about due process. This is similar to how he forgets that punches are supposed to hurt and gets punked out by the bully in the diner. Superman only makes one person forget about all that happened, in a moment that is as poignant as it is moronic: he gives Lois the "magic kiss" that erases her memory to a selective point. Everyone else's lives go on as normal (or for the villains, not at all), unless Clark went around kissing about 4 billion people. There's never a shot to show the villains somehow imprisoned somewhere, so man...Superman just murdered them cold. Which I am in complete favor of: it belies the "overgrown boy scout" image and shows villains that he'll take you out, in the sneakiest and most violent way possible. By making you infinitely weaker than him and then throwing you into a fucking hole in the North Pole. The only way Superman could have made the moment sweeter would be to internationally broadcast killing the villains as a message to every other bad guy, playing a guitar solo with ZZ Top, then rodgering Lois hardcore on the air.

"Did I say 'kneel before Zod'? I meant 'deal before Zod'! Zod likes to play a little blackjack! Ha ha! I am in tremendous pain!"

Mistakes, plot holes, divergent directing styles aside, Superman II is still one of my favorite movies, growing up and at present. It's silly and campy at times, but it's still the template for so many other superhero movies that followed. Spider-Man 2 had Peter losing his powers and trying to win over his lady love. The Dark Knight had Bruce trying to give up being Batman (but not his superpower of being richer than god) to be with Rachel. Dames, man. We give up so much for them, and all we get in return are mixed signals or being blown up by the Joker.

Supernova photo courtesy of http://jcconwell.wordpress.com/

Flaky is the new flirty

What is with flaky girls these days?

I'm not saying this as another "guy who considers himself a 'nice guy' and is getting all woe-is-me when women seem to pass him up all the time". Far from it, I know my faults and I'm quite aware of stuff I do wrong on dates or when flirting with women. The whole "nice guy" thing is a little overrated - there are definitely a lot of guys out there who try to use the "but I'm a nice guy" bit to justify laying a guilt trip on a girl if she doesn't - gasp - think they're a good match! A spark isn't always guaranteed, I'm well aware of that. It's what happens after there is a spark (at least with me, I don't know if this happens with other guys as well), which irks me.

Over the past 2 years, I've been on several dates, which ranged from awesome to forgettable. I made a few mistakes, so did they, so at least we all pass the Voight-Kampff test of humanity, so no issues there. More often than not, however, I've seen that whenever there is a true spark - and I'm talking a mutual, reciprocated feeling of a connection that both parties share while meeting - invariably, the girl completely flakes after a few days. These are far from disastrous dates, if anything: they were the epitome of pleasant first encounters. I'm not a big fan of the "wait three days" rule, but I do let a respectable amount of time go by (no more than a day, at the most two) to show that I'm interested in meeting again. Whenever I do, however, I either get a few more positive signs that she's interested as well, and then the quick brushoff/dropoff in communication, OR, breezy resolved silence on the other end. No returned calls, or texts, or emails. I'm no creep, so I can take the hint. I usually send out one feeler email or text (voicemail if I'm feeling especially encouraged by her positive signals from the date) and wait for a response. If there is no response, I let my feeler email percolate for a little while (5 or 6 days) before I send a quick text saying nothing more than "hey there". Just to see if perhaps she's had a busy week and hasn't had time to think about meeting again.

Every time though - no response. I've grown to accept rejection a lot better than I did when I first started dating after becoming single, 2 years ago. I've learned to laugh it off, learn where I could improve my game, so to speak, and most importantly move on. However, throughout my dating experience these couple of years, I've come across the same scenario over and over again. I've read blog/journal posts from both sides of this conversation: guys who say that women should at least say as much that they're simply not interested, and women rebutting that even if they do so, there are jerks out there who make it into a federal case. I wholeheartedly agree, it's whiny, clingy weirdos out there who think arguing their way into acceptance from a woman is the way to go, and they're ruining it for the rest of us.

Having said that, I just don't think there should be any excuse for rudeness, or for that matter, flakiness, leading someone on, creating false hope. When all signs during a meeting are quite positive (and not just interpreted as positive), at least one person is going to assume things will progress to at least a second date. That first blind date is so contrived and nerve wracking (first impressions and whatnot - which is bullshit by the way, no one is ever really themselves on a first date), one wants that second meeting to let their guard down a little. I guess I'm just tired of constantly meeting women who say/indicate one thing, then go on and do something else.

I think I've just met women who aren't really looking to date, but simply to test the waters. They may be testing to see if they've got what it takes to get a guy, to see what the market looks like, get over an ex quickly, or perhaps even exploring several simultaneous avenues. I had a date recently where we seemed to get along fine, but just three days after the date, she let me know that she had just gotten serious with someone else. Three days is barely enough time to "get serious", no matter how pants-splittingly awesome someone is. Either that was just an excuse to make sure I never contacted her again (all we did was have coffee and polite conversation - it's not like I threw the coffee in her face and humped the table - so it wasn't like it was a horrible experience for either of us) or she was already seeing this guy and just wanted to see what her other options were. The first girl I actually went out on a date with since becoming single gave me every positive sign in the book - including a very meaningful kiss (and we were both sober). She responded to my simple email asking if she'd like to get lunch some time with "let's just stay platonic". Ouch. We hung out a few times for sure, and every time it was just blatantly obvious that we connected incredibly well. I had developed a crush on this girl, but she kept me at bay.

As a result of several similar scenarios playing out, I've grown quite paranoid of relationships, to be quite honest. One of the (myriad) reasons things didn't work out with my last girlfriend was because she was phasing me out of her life, slowly but surely. She would ignore a lot of my messages or keep phone calls short (we were doing the long distance thing for a while and I was doing my best to make the distance seem shorter), and only call me if she wanted to vent about something. I was basically an acquaintance by the end, not a boyfriend or even close friend. Whenever I see someone I have a connection with shut me out, it just brings back bad memories. I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

If women complain about men only looking for hookups online (not every one of us, trust me; if anything, I think most of us are looking for someone trustworthy and to be a great companion, in and out of the bedroom), then I think guys reserve the right to complain about a lot of women out there putting up dating profiles and meeting on dates, only to pull a disappearing act days later - in other words, not actually looking to date or having standards higher than a hippy on April 20th.

I'm sure I'll get flak for saying that - perhaps along the lines of "have you ever considered that you're just not their type and they're letting you off easy by just not getting back to you?" I can see that. I'm not the perfect guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I know that I'm a pretty cool person - if I'm taking the time to get back to you and show that you had an effect on me, the least you can do is let me know, or better yet, keep overt, positive signs till a later date if you're actually interested.