Wig out!

It's not just me, right? Like, Henry Cavill as Geralt of Rivia from the Witcher looks, and I mean this objectively, ridiculous?

Pictured: Henry Cavill cosplaying Vigo the Carpathian. 

Pictured: just some of the world's 38
million Poles who don't care what
I think about their language.

It's possible that you have no idea what I'm talking about, and if that's the case, I'd like to congratulate you on leading an active and social life. Here, let me explain. For reasons of synergy and branding, Netflix is turning The Witcher into a TV show. The Witcher, if you didn't know, is a series of short stories and novels by Polish fantasy novelist Andrzej Sopkowski about a monster hunter called Geralt who, you know, hunts monsters. And no, I don't know how Polish expects to get away with putting d-r-z right in a row like that.

Sort of like how no one cared about Harry
Potter until the GBA game came out.

(source: making things up)

Anyway, the books were written in the 90's but became super popular in the U.S. when they were adapted into a series of video games, particularly The Witcher III. And now, since everything has to be adapted into some other thing, Netflix is turning The Witcher into a TV series. While they're certainly going to be banking on the game's popularity, the series is supposedly based on the books, and I suppose that could explain why Cavil doesn't so much look like the Geralt most of us are familiar with, but holy shit, the wig. I mean, the wig...

Someone looked at this and said
"Let's do this, only terrible."

I've read a few of the Witcher books and played the game and they're all pretty great. And dubious as I am about TV series based on video games, or series that try to cash in on Games of Thrones' success (and of course it is) I'll probably even checkout the series. But I'm a casual enough fan that I'm not super invested in the character and don't really care how much the TV version of Gerald resembles the one in the game it's not really based on. I don't even have a strong opinion about Henry Cavill playing Geralt.

I do however have a strong opinion about things that are unintentionally hilarious and whoever put that thing on his head and then took a bunch of publicity photos should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, ashamed. 

Remember that time Cavill grew a mustache for Mission: Impossible, but was
contractually obligated not to shave it off when Justice League needed reshoots so they
just CG'd his upper lip? Well, this is no longer the most ridiculous Henry Cavil photo.

Today in this "Bomb" stuff:

I think it's important to take stock and remember the real victims of politically-motivated domestic terrorism: Republicans. Here, I'll let noted Twitter personality and technical President of the United States put things into perspective for us:

Wait, this "Bomb" stuff'? Does he mean the attempted
assassination of his political opponents by his number one fan? 

"What have we done? We call him out
on his bullshit, which is literally our job."

-Don Lemon, of the media

I think the story that gets lost here with all these bomb scares is how this might affect the chances of the party that ran a reality show host in the 2016 election. Sure, he spent his entire campaign and subsequent Presidency emboldening the white nationalists who are now mailing bombs and carrying out mass shootings, but what I think most of us want to know is what has the media done to bring people together? I mean, he's just the President-one that lost the popular vote by a wide margin-but the President, he shouldn't have to bring people together. He's got enough to do.

"What those lying shitheals on CNN
are talking about is how I'm bringing 
people together. Even those low-IQ
libtards who don't get how great I am."

-Trump, building bridges

Like whipping his hyper-partisan supporters into anti-media frenzies at the Kim Jong-Un-ian rallies he holds for himself. Here's what he had to say Wednesday in Wisconsin:

"As part of a lager national effort to bridge our divides and bring people together, the media also has a responsibility to set a civil tone and to stop the endless hostility and constant negative and oftentimes false attacks and stories...They've got to stop. Bring people together."

-President Trump, unaware of

the very concept of irony

Above: FBI agents hurriedly covering the
Donald Trump Party Wagon® the alleged
MAGA bomber was living in before
his arrest. Because optics. 

So yeah, let's not forget where the blame truly lies here: with the media. Sure, Donald Trump is routinely referring to them as the 'enemy of the people,' but it's the media that's telling us about it. And ever since the identity of the man arrested in the MAGA Bomber case has been made public, the media has been unfairly suggesting that he's a Trump supporter. But based on what evidence I ask you? His pro-Trump social media accounts full of photos of him at Trump rallies and rants and threats against the same people mailed bombs to? That's the liberal media for you, always trying to score points...

The President is up bright and early every day,
tweeting and going over poll numbers while
Hasselhoffing his morning cheeseburger.

Anyway, the important thing to keep in mind is that the President is trying to bring people together. To heal the divide the media has caused. I mean, look at that tweet again. You're probably wondering how hours before Cesar Sayoc was arrested, the President managed to have poll numbers indicating how media coverage of the mail bombs was damaging the GOP's momentum in the run up to the midterm. But that's just because you're brainwashed by the media. The President has his finger on the pulse.

The unsettling, accelerated pulse and accompanying dizziness right before a heart attack. So yes, he's right: 'Very unfortunate, what is going on." But just remember, by stoking partisan violence and hatred the President is just trying to bring people together.

Hey look, he is bring people together!

Today in way too little and far too late:

Pictured: Gianforte seen here at a
rally and not, strangely, in prison.

So in an unusual move, the President spoke out today against political violence. Which is kind of weird given that just days ago he was talking about how awesome it was that time Greg Gianforte body slammed a reporter and how he's Trump's guy. But today's remarks were a call for unity in response to pipe bombs that were sent to The Obamas, the Clintons, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, CNN, George Soros, you know basically everyone the GOP puts in mailers designed to frighten old people into voting for Republicans.

Above: the President, usually the source
of threats, seen here, calling for unity.

The President, or at least some kind of robot programmed to simulate outrage at the idea of pipe bombs being sent to Democrats:

"...I just want to tell you that in these times, we have to unify, we have to come together and send one, very clear, strong, unmistakeable message: that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America..."

-President Trump denouncing

threats of political viola-really?

Finally, the Administration can
demand an investigation of a crime
the President didn't commit himself.

Huh...does he not know that everything he's ever said and done publicly is on the internet? Anyway, he went on as though we didn't know who he was:

"This egregious conduct is abhorrent to everything we hold dear and sacred as Americans. We are extremely angry, upset, unhappy about what we witnessed the morning, and we will get to the bottom of it."

-President Trump, something of an
expert on things we find abhorrent

Huh...egregious conduct...acts or threats...I wonder why neither the President nor anyone else from the administration is referring to this as a thwarted terrorist attack? 

"The President is unwilling to characterize these acts as terrorism 
until we can determine whether or not those responsible are white."

-Sarah Huckabee Sanders

(actual quote)*

On the one hand he came out against
trying to murder Democrats...on the other
hand, what does he want a cookie?

Anyway, first of all, and understand I'm swallowing some bile here, yes, that is what a person should say in a situation like this. Cool, so now, that that's out of the way, when did he start using the royal 'we?' Also, angry upset and unhappy are kind of the same thing. But that aside, the other day, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska suggested that Trump was just being 'playful' when he praised Gianforte's assault of reporter Ben Jacobs, and maybe he was. The problem here is that a lot of people who support Trump are goons.

Just...goons. And I don't know if that's rude or unproductive to say but for real: an unacceptable number of people who support Donald Trump are actual white supremacists who attack people in the street. And I don't think it's divisive to call them violent, ignorant, racist goons. I think it's just observation.

What I'm suggesting is that if there are white supremacists
marching in the street in support of the guy you voted for,
it's probably time to take a long, hard look at your decisions.

If the MAGA hat fits, right guys?

Speaking of violent goons, Alex Jones and Ann Coulter have already started in with broad and unfounded assertions that the entire thing is a left-wing smear job to make Trump-fans look like the kind of rage-filled extremists who might resort to violence and I'm not sure that's fair. Sure, people on both sides have gone too far at times, but the left doesn't actively court neo-nazis and Obama never called the press an enemy of the people, so maybe they should shut up?

Look, it's not that I don't appreciate the call for unity and the strong (-ish) denouncement of these attempted attacks it's just that I wonder if maybe the time to speak out against political intimidation and terrorism would have been before the pipe-bombings and wandering gangs of Proud Boys?

The President today directed the FBI to thoroughly investigate these incidents
within the next couple of days and to not waste time talking to anyone who might
know anything about who might be responsible. Get it? Because of the Kavanaugh
thing? No? I guess it'd be funnier if he wasn't on the Supreme Court for life...

Here, let me ruin Batman for you:

Strong opinions about pop culture
expressed on the internet? How novel!

I realize that this is probably something of a non-sequitur, but Christian Bale's Batman is, objectively speaking, the worst Batman. I mention this because I've recently found myself involved in three unrelated conversations about which Batman is the best Batman and I-huh? Yes, these are the kind of conversations I have...Don't judge me. Anyway, I just want to clear this up. Oh, and to be clear, while I don't care about Christian Bale as an actor, this isn't about him, but rather about the dreary, kind of overrated Christopher Nolan trilogy.

If the Rogue's gallery spent half as much
time on their schemes as they did developing
their themes, they'd have won years ago.

Ok, so everyone knows how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. His parents get shot in an alley so young Bruce, filled with grief and justice trains for an amount of time to become a badass at the arts martial before dressing up and going out into the streets of Gotham to fight themed villains. Cool, so we see this origin story in Batman Begins for what seems like the three hundredth time, except that this time it's most of the movie. The movie is like seventy percent percent secret Tibetan ninja school, then Bale fights Liam Neeson's Ras al'Ghul who, for gritty reboot reasons is not magically immortal, but instead just some bloke with a beef against civilization. I guess he's pro hunter/gatherer or something.

Anyway, Batman wins and is then summoned to the roof of police HQ where Commissioner Gordon hands him a playing card in an evidence bag and tells him that there's a new villain on the loose. So to be continued. Ok.

Oh shit, I hope it's not Mr. Freeze...

It was the kind of explosion that burns
off half your face and makes you insane
 but leaves hair and eyebrows untouched.

That brings us to The Dark Knight, the second in the Nolan-tology. This film apparently picks up not long after the first as Heath Ledger's Joker is still a new threat in town. Anyway, after much hilarious murder, the Joker blows up the two people Bruce Wayne cares about who aren't his butler: his childhood friend/crush Rachel Dawes, who after suffering a brutal recasting, dies, and his pal/DA Harvey Dent who has half of his face blown off. Now a proper Batman villain with a theme and everything, he goes on a coin-toss based murder spree and Batman has to take him down.

Bummer, right? So much so that after apprehending the Joker, Batman and commissioner Gordon agree to blame all of Two-Face's crimes on Batman in order to keep the former D.A.'s reputation intact. Because justice. So Gordon smashes the Bat-signal and Batman, we learn in the next film, disappears...

On the other hand, it was really only useful if Commissioner
Gordon needed to contact Batman on a cloudy night.

"Mama mia! I know him! That's-a the
guy who cussed out the camera man!"

-Some Italian

...for eight goddamn years. Now we're at the last film, The Dark Knight Rises. Batman limps out of retirement to battle the incomprehensible Bane played by Tom Hardy along with Scarecrow and Talia al Ghul. Oh, and Catwoman's there...sort of. Batman defeats Bane and then fakes his own death while saving Gotham from a nuclear bomb. And then he moves to Italy. Leaving aside the conceit that Italy doesn't have access to TMZ and that the DC equivalent of Elon Musk can't just blend in, Christian Bale is now the Batman who retires to a Tuscan villa because being Batman is hard.

"I know I swore to avenge your deaths
by devoting my life to crime fighting,
but there's like, a lot of crime so..."

Batman's never-ending quest for justice, you know, the one he swore to undertake over his parent's graves? Well, in these movies that quest lasted eight years. It sounds like a lot, but if you do the math, he spends like six weeks actually being Batman, the rest of those years between Dark Knight and Dark Knight rises is spent sulking around Wayne manner because he had to kill Two-Face. Despite the critical and popular acclaim for the Nolan films, Bale's Batman is the briefest, emo-iest Batman who ever Batmaned.

Look, I'm not trying to yuck anyone's yum here, it's just that if we absolutely have to rank the Batmen, and we do-I mean, what is the internet if not a forum for nerds to construct and then endlessly debate meaningless lists? But if we are going to rank them, maybe we don't give first place to the whiney quitter. Yeah, you heard me: quuuuiiiteeerr.

Batman and Robin was an absolutely terrible movie and George Clooney is
basically just cashing a check in it, but he as an actor and it as a film understand
that Batman is about a billionaire who puts on tights and fights theme-crime. 

Survey says...

So according to this Economist/YouGov survey, people who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election feel that men, like as a group, face a fair amount to a great deal of discrimination. More than, according to this, women, the LGBTQ community and other racial and religious minorities. Wow, right? Misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, islamophobia are all just a thing of the past.

Hurray!

Pictured: the real victims here...I guess?

At least according to white men who voted for Donald Trump. Ok, that's not fair, not all respondents who described men as facing 'a great deal of discrimination' were not necessarily white men but...c'mon, most of them were totally white men. I mean, who else could possibly have the kind of cultural blindspot to think they were the underdogs? The survey isn't a gauge of actual discrimination, just perceived discrimination, something the GOP has been selling to white men for years now.

"Sure is!"

-incredibly wealthy people

And it's apparently a super easy sell, because well, here we are. And look, I'm not calling Trump voters stupid, but they did totally fall for it. And maybe they didn't vote for Trump because they're idiots, maybe they voted for Trump because they were sold an underdog narrative and it's easier to blame one's shitty socioeconomic status on immigrants and minorities than it is to take a long hard look at how you can't have representative democracy and unchecked capitalism because eventually the latter eats the former. But hey the economy's booming right?

Pictured: electoral college nonsense.

I don't know about you, but I'm not surprised by this survey. Just sort of bummed out that some of the respondents get to vote. And before you call me out for being an elitist liberal snob or whatever, remember that the Trump voters in this survey are the people who listened to the 'grab 'em by the pussy' tape, said 'that's our guy.' And also bear in mind that thanks to that electoral college nonsense, a lot of Trump voters' votes counted more than yours or mine.

The GOP was able to convince white conservative men that they're the victims of discrimination while at the same time exploiting their disproportionate influence on the electoral college. And since most Americans (who voted) voted for Hillary Clinton, I think we have a pretty solid reason to call bullshit on the notion that white male Trump voters are the ones being discriminated against.

Above: White men, some of America's most discriminated
against citizens, seen here being in charge of the entire government. 

Death Adder of a Salesman!

So theatre, if we're being honest, isn't...shall we say, everyone's go-to form of entertainment. Usually it seems to rank somewhere below staying home and watching reality shows about people who root through other people's storage units, but above say, going to bed early.

Storage Wars is a show that asks the
 question, 'Has it come to this, America?'

Did I just make you picture
milking Alfred? Sorry about that...

On the upside though, this usually insulates it from the popular trend of adapting things that probably shouldn't be made into other things. Like movies and tv for example. I mean, no one asked for a movie version of Venom, or a tv show about Batman's Butler, but filmmakers and tv producers are ravenous for source material and will milk whatever they have to milk to build their franchises and IP's. It's gross and fortunately something theatre, as an art form, hasn't had to deal with.

"I...I don't know what this is..."

-Raves the New York 

Times Theatre Review

I'm not fandom shaming here, I love theatre and in fact that's what my degree is in...and now I work in a bookstore. Huh, now that I think about it, I guess I haven't ever been terribly interested in making a livable wage. But, where was I? Right, theatre. It's not exactly the branch of the entertainment industry where one would find adaptations of things like comic books and video games. So I'm more than a little perplexed by the news that Golden Axe is being adapted for the stage. Yes, coming soon: Golden Axe: The Game: The Stage Play. It's enough to make you go 'Wait, really?'

Above: the well-oiled art of
Frank Fr-oh, Boris Vallejo. Huh.

That is if you know what Golden Axe is. Otherwise, you're probably wondering what nonsense am I going on about now. And that's a fair assessment, but for those unfamiliar, which I'm going to guess is anyone who didn't get the title of this post. If you did, you can skip this part. Golden Axe is a side-scrolling beat'em up action game from the late 80's. Like a lot of games from this period, it was under some sort of obligation to shamelessly rip off a popular movie, in this case Conan The Barbarian. After you insert coin, you're invited to select either a barbarian called Ax Battler, an amazon named Tyris Flare or a dwarf whose name is, preposterously, Gillius Thunderhead. Then you and a friend murder your way through six levels of Frank Franzetta art before taking on Death Adder, the evil bad guy who murdered your family or whatever.

It's a good game, but kind of a baffling choice to adapt as a play. A fact that is absolutely not going to stop Spiral Chariots, a theatre company in Tokyo. Check out the poster:

Just to be clear, there is an actor in Japan who
will be able to add 'originated the role of Gillius
Thunderhead' on their resume.

You know, if Willy Loman could
summon dragons to incinerate his foes.

Sure, there's not much in the way of plot, and the characters are just speechless cyphers, and they have no story beyond wanting to go kill Death Adder. And yes, playing through the game takes about thirty minutes, so the playwright's got their work cut out for them padding that out into ninety minutes of traffic of the stage, but who knows? Maybe this will be the next Death of A Salesman. Or maybe this will be a niche-y piece of otaku entertainment that disappears as quickly and as bizarrely as it came. Either way, I suspect you and I will never know. It's only running for four days, which is probably for the best.

This isn't me saying Japan is weird or anything, it's just that I get the impression that people are a little more free to fly their fandom flag in a country where Hello Kitty-themed bullet trains are things that exist.

Finally, the New York subway system is now the
world's second weirdest form of public transport. 

An unconstitutional Hadoken!

Is it me or is putting a candidate for Governor in charge of voter registration for the race in which they're running a little like letting Cookie Monster guard the cookies?

"Me can not help meself. Me have serious problem."

Pictured: voter registration
forms being put on hold.

In a completely 'how do these people sleep at night?' move, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has put tens of thousands of Georgia voters' registrations 'on hold' a month before an extremely tight election between himself and Democratic candidate Stacey Adams. He calls it voter roll maintenance and it works by rejecting a registration if the voter's name is in any way different from what the State or the Social Security Administration has on file. So if your name is say, Timothy, and you wrote Tim on your registration you're out.

Voter purging is the Republican
equivalent of the hadoken.

So you're probably wondering why in the name of shit is anyone ok with this? Well, racism mostly. According to this, while Georgia's population is 32% African American, 70% of the voters whose registrations are on hold are African-American. And sure, it's entirely possible that this is all a huge statistical coincidence and we should all give Kemp the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, Brian Kemp is...wait for it...a Republican and Republicans love to purge the rolls. It's like their super move and they're not going to stop using it. 

How come? Because eliminating thousands of people from the rolls in order to combat the zero cases of voter fraud has worked pretty well for them in the past. Also, I think that undermining the very foundation of representative democracy gives them sexual pleasure. 

"Love it. In fact, purging voter rolls
is the only way I can achieve orgasm."

-Brian Kemp (actual quote)

Boyish charm, irrational temper tantrums
worthy of a toddler. Six of one I guess...

On the one hand you have most people who know what they're talking about saying that voter fraud is incredibly rare. In fact, there are only four documented cases in the 2016 election. On the other hand, Donald Trump lost the popular election by three million votes and made up some bullshit about illegal voters providing exactly no evidence other than his insane and narcissistic conviction that Americans can't resist his boyish charm. The truth must be somewhere in the middle, except that it's not at all in the middle.

Five or six more elections like
this, and we might just get upset...

At all. This is goddamn cheating. The GOP strategy is and has been for awhile, to turn the bumpers on in their bowling lane and then brag about how good they are at bowling. Like, 'because black Georgians might for for the Stacey Adams' isn't really grounds to purge a voter. In fact, it's probably something that should be, you know, illegal. He was briefly forced to stop arbitrarily purging the rolls back in 2017, but then the Republican held legislature just made it legal again. You know, so they could win some more elections with the bumpers on.

While Kemp is getting his ass sued by a bunch of civil rights groups, and that's super, but shouldn't people just be able to, you know, vote? Like, without having to sue? There's no reason to believe that anything's going to change in time for this election, and if he comes out on top in this race, it might mean that this is just how it's going to be. So what I want to know is how do Kemp and his supporters convince themselves that they're in the right here? 

Oh right, by telling white people that their country is being
 taken over by not white people. And if there's one thing white
conservatives love to hear is that they're the victims here. 

Today in bald-faced retcons:

It's ok, everybody, you can relax: Klingons have hair again. Now I know this is probably low on your list of things to worry about given looming ecological disasters and our country's rapid decline into a petty dictatorship, but holy shit some people have very strong feelings about Klingons. I should probably explain and you should probably buckle the ol' nerd belt.

Above: future people taking my sound advice.

I'm not saying the producers weren't on
 cocaine. Just that they probably did less
 cocaine than they would do in the 70's.

The newest Star Trek series, Star Trek: Discovery, made some design changes to certain elements to established Trek canon including, most notably and most controversially, the Klingons. If you're just a casual nerd, you probably know Klingons as the lumpy-headed alien, ultra-violent Viking/Samurai people from Star Trek: The Next Generation. But Discovery, being a prequel, is set just before the original series. And on that show Klingons were just white dudes in problematic brown make-up and fu manchu mustaches. And this was the 60's, so you can't even blame cocaine.

Enter: the space orc.

Later, the Trek movies and TNG introduced the more familiar look with the forehead ridges, making them more alien and less racist. Well, slightly. At the insistence of then show runner Bryan Fuller, Disco (it's the abbreviation) took this redesign even further adding more detail and more varied, less human skin tones. It also took away the 80's metal band hair and made all the Klingons bald. What wasn't super-clear is whether or not the audience was supposed to interpret this as Klingons were always hairless or that these Klingons just shaved their heads.

Ok, mostly matured. I still think
Into Darkness was a shitty
Wrath of Khan knockoff.

Now, you're probably wondering who the shit would devote more than a half second of their life to pondering this mystery and the answer is fans. Reactions ranged from, 'hey cool new Klingons' to 'Bryan Fuller is basically Hitler.' Canon-violation is, as you know, a grave sin among trekkies. And I get this. I've certainly been guilty of this kind of obsessive fandom, but I think I've mellowed in my old age. I like the newer, balder look and don't really care if it's a visual reboot for the age of HD, or just all the rage on planet Qu'noS. I've matured.

But an olive branch, of sorts, has been offered in the trailer for Discovery season 2 in which the Klingons have hair again.

And there was a great rejoicing throughout the land
followed immediately by pedantic, knit-picky complaints
about all the other things that are wrong with the trailer.

You know what this scene needed?
More lore about Worf's haircut.

Glenn Hetrick, the show's make-up designer, even offered an in-universe rationale for why the Klingons look like KISS again explaining that they, as a species, all shaved their heads because Kahless or something, and that's cool. I mean, if there's one thing we Star Trek fans love it's needlessly complex lore to explain on-screen inconsistencies. I would have been satisfied with the idea that bald just went out of style, but I can also see why major, unexplained visual changes can annoy some fans and drive others to have irrational freak outs on the internet.

CBS All Access: the bitter, police-procedural
flavored pill Trek fans have had to swallow.

On the other hand, loosing one's mind over Bryan Fuller's decision to not trot out the Ming the Merciless mustaches and gold lamé uniforms of the original series is maybe not the healthiest thing to do. Anyway, the trailer looks fun and contains 100% less Lenny Kravitz music, so I can't wait to re-sign up for that CBS streaming service so I can watch this one thing and then cancel. Oh, and did I mention Spock?

Because Spock. Speaking of characters who are suddenly hairier than we remember, Spock, now played by Ethan Peck-remember? We talked about this. Anyway, Spock shows up in the trailer, shaggy and bearded although hopefully without a lot of screen time devoted to developing a backstory about his facial hair.

"A beard? But facial hair is a blatant violation of canon as established in
TOS episode 1: The Cage in which Spock of 2254 is shown clean shaven.
We're going to need at least a two-parter to explain this one."

-At least 15% of Star Trek fans