First things first: The last week has been crazy and I want to thank you guys for putting up with it. I feel bad about there not being a comic on Monday and, frankly, I should have tried to work ahead. I don’t really have the latitude to screw around with the update schedule now that I’m down to one comic a week.
I dunno. I guess I’m just paranoid that if I give you guys an excuse to stop reading the comic, you’re going to take it. But after 8 years in the game, I think Theater Hopper is at a point where the people who love it kind of love it no matter what. I’m a little long in the tooth to be attracting new readers.
That doesn’t give me the right to abuse your patience. I’m just saying maybe it’s time I stop abusing myself, too.
Anyway, THANK YOU for being patient! Now that we’re moved into the new house, hopefully we’ll be settling into a routine soon. I got my office set up earlier in the week and there’s enough room in there that I was able to drag out my old drawing table.
I’ve probably had this drawing table for close to 20 years. It was given to me by my Dad’s cousin, who used to draft topographical maps for the Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards. He gave it to me when I was in high school and I spent a lot of time with my chair pulled up to it drawing comic book characters and large-scale compositions.
When I went to college, the drawing board stayed behind in my room. I’d use it every now and again over the summers, but not like I used to.
I think we moved the drawing table to our first apartment after Cami and I got married and I used it for about a year there, but this was probably a year before Theater Hopper. We had moved to a new house in that time and there was never a good place for the drawing table. So it went into storage.
Anyway, the drawing table is back. It sits right next to my desk in my new office and I LOVE IT. Drawing on it again felt like I was reconnecting with a prolific period of my artistic past. It felt like coming home. It was SO much easier to draw on that table than it has been drawing on kitchen table and portable laptop desks over the years. My back wasn’t hurting and it was much easier to concentrate on what I was doing! I’m really looking forward to doing more work in this new environment.
Enough about my fabulous drawing table! Can we talk about The Social Network for a minute?
Reviews for this thing are through the roof (Armond White excluded) and frankly, I’m chomping at the bit to see it.
Normally, I take reviews with a grain of salt. But consensus on this thing seems to be so strong, it’s hard to ignore.
I’m not particularly interested in Mark Zuckerberg’s story. Although I am an avid Facebook user, I find him to be a detestable human being and the worst kind of hypocrite. That’s not entirely his fault. But an introvert shouldn’t be leading the charge on the largest wave of social interaction in the 21st century.
That said, I don’t think it’s important that Zuckerberg be a likable or even a relatable character for the movie to be successful. It just seems like a revolutionary concept because American audiences have been conditioned to expect clear heroes and villains in their mainstream entertainment. If anyone can subvert that notion, it’s director David Fincher.
The pedigree behind The Social Network reads like a laundry list of Things I Love. David Fincher? Check. Script from Aaron Sorkin? Check. Score by Trent Reznor? Check. Jesse Eisenberg? Ehhhh… well, three out of four ain’t bad.
All I know is that I think The Social Network looks great and I can wait to see it. Fingers crossed that my in-laws can watch the kids tomorrow so Cami and I can see it together. After living among boxes for the last week, sorting out the collected flotsam of a decade shared together (plus kids!), we could use a reprieve.
What does everyone else thing about The Social Network? Are you planning on seeing it this weekend? Are you excited? What’s the main draw for you? Fincher’s direction? Sorkin’s script? The secret origins of Facebook? Leave your comments below!
Oh, and expect a new comic on Monday. I promise!
The title for this comic could also be “Mark Zuckerberg’s Punch-Out.”
Cami and I saw The Social Network on Saturday night and loved it. It’s always a good sign when you wake up the next morning still thinking about it. Much like Facebook itself, The Social Network worms its way into your head and doesn’t quite let go.
Stylistically, this movie has the stamp of professionals. David Fincher’s moody and dimly lit lens work make Harvard look like Hogwarts for Douchebags and Aaron Sorkin’s script pops with electricity.
You wouldn’t think that a film told largely in flashback with jump cuts to the present inside dueling depositions would be all that interesting – some might call it “talky” – but I was riveted for it’s entire 2-hour run time.
Of course, then again, no one talks like Aaron Sorkin writes and that’s half the fun of it.
I thought everyone gave great performances. Jesse Eisenberg has the easiest job portraying Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and maybe plays up Zuckerberg’s inability to pick up social cues a little too much. But in Eisenberg’s hands, Zuckerberg is a motor-mouth genius that is operating on a level he doesn’t want you to know about. Zuckerberg never shows his cards unless he has to.
Andrew Garfield does an excellent job of playing Facebook co-founder and general punching bag Eduardo Saverin and Justin Timberlake practically dominates the last two third’s of the movie as Napster co-founder and Facebook investor Sean Parker. In fact, I’d argue that both of their performances are so strong, they detract greatly from what Eisenberg is doing and draws the focus away from him completely.
Major kudos need to be handed out to Armie Hammer who played both Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss – the twin brothers who claim they came up with the idea for Facebook. Using digital technology, Fincher was able to seamlessly fit the actor playing two roles into the same scene and Hammer does an expert job having impassioned, testosterone-fueled arguments… with himself.
I had more I wanted to say about The Social Network, but truthfully, I’m a little distracted by a review I read from new media author Jeff Jarvis that takes the movie to task for not understanding the value that Facebook brings to communication or how Zuckerberg has changed the world as a result of it. He cites New York Magazine’s Mark Harris who proclaimed “The Social Network can be seen as a well-aimed spitball thrown at new media by old media.” In his review and in an interview with This Week In Google, Jarvis went as far to state that the movie is “anti-geek.”
Personally, I find these claims to be ridiculous – a calculated complaint designed to stir the pot and draw attention to Jarvis.
I only mention it because I was incensed after listening to his interview on This Week in Google and went to Twitter to express my frustration. “Jeff Jarvis is a paranoid idiot,” I wrote. To which Jarvis replied “I saw that.” 3 hours later.
Was I a little harsh calling Jarvis an “idiot?” Maybe. But keep in mind I didn’t use Jarvis’ screen name in my tweet. So that means Jeff was doing a bit of ego-surfing on Twitter and decided to send a shot across my bow. It’s these actions and Jarvis’ review that make him come off like the possessive tech-snob he claims The Social Network tries to paint all new media representatives with.
Is everything about The Social Network true. No, of course not. It’s a movie – a dramatization – not a documentary. This is an argument Jarvis doesn’t accept. He says if they were going wholly fabricate details (for example, Sorkin’s creation of a fictional girlfriend who spurned Zuckerberg – and indirectly “inspired” Facebook) then they should have done what Orson Welles did with Citizen Kane in his take-down of William Randolph Hearst and changed the names and locations as well.
I would agree with that if I thought The Social Network was meant to be a take-down piece. But it’s not. If anything, I think it shows reverence to the societal value of Facebook by demonstrating the ferocity with which the players at is genesis fight to take control of it.
If anything, I would argue that it’s not the responsibility of Fincher or Sorkin to paint a 100% accurate portrayal of Zuckerberg. He wouldn’t be the first public figure to suffer character assassination for the sake of entertainment and he won’t be the last.
Is it fair? Not in the slightest. But as far as I’m concerned, Zuckerberg has done a miserable job changing the tone of the story. He’s a very reclusive and private individual. Perhaps even introverted. Yet he’s the figurehead of the social media revolution? He has – as Jarvis claims – “a vision?”
Why do we know nothing about him aside from a fluff piece he did with Oprah? He’s sitting on top of one of the largest communication networks in history and he doesn’t have the power to turn the tide on negative press? He can’t do an interview where he comes off like an authentic human being? They knew the movie was being made YEARS ago. They could have killed it with negative word of mouth months before it came out.
Transparency. Authenticity. Humility. Zuckerberg doesn’t know the meaning behind any of those words. For someone that is fast and loose with EVERYONE ELSE’S privacy, he’s very guarded about his own. At this point, I’d say a little bit of character assassination is his just desserts.
Jarvis hinges his criticism of the film on Sorkin’s admission in Harris’ New York Magazine piece that he doesn’t have a Facebook account. Jarvis has gone on to “expose” director David Fincher and lead actor Jesse Eisenberg also do not have Facebook accounts.
“This is all about snobbery, about dismissing all this Internet stuff,” Jarvis claims. “The filmmakers didn’t give any value to what Zuckerberg made. How can they say that they understand him if they don’t understand his creation? It’s dismissive of the 500 million or so people who are on Facebook. It’s intellectually lazy. It’s insulting.”
And that, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with Jarvis’ take on The Social Network. Jarvis didn’t want a movie about Facebook’s creation. He wanted a movie about Facebook’s users. He wanted to see a movie about himself. He didn’t get what he wanted, so now he’s screaming to anyone who will listen that the film is “intellectually lazy” and “insulting.”
Kudos to Jarvis for spinning the conversation about The Social Network in a different direction. The debate is worthwhile and interesting. I just happen to disagree with him completely.
Did you see The Social Network this weekend? What’s your take? What do you think about Jarvis’ criticisms of the film? Do they have merit? Did you expect the film to be 100% accurate? Should they have changed the names and locations if they were going to change details of Facebook’s creation? Let’s get a larger debate started. Leave your comments below!
Johnny Knoxville isn’t 50 years-old, as IMDB corroborates. But he might as well be considering that he’s been getting tazed in the balls for the last 10 years. I mean, seriously, at what point does it get old?
The first Jackass came out in 2002. Jackass Number Two came out in 2006 and now in 2010 we get Jackass 3D. It’s kind of interesting how all three movies are evenly spaced out by four years a piece. I suppose that’s how long it takes to get a clean bill of health from your physical therapist.
I can’t help but feel that Jackass 3D was rushed to production in order to take advantage of the 3D trend in theaters right now. For some reason I can easily picture some executive at MTV cynically pitching the idea. “Hey! Everyone loves 3D and this would be the third Jackass movie – we can work it right into the title!”
Part of me wants to see Jackass 3D largely because I remember what an amazing experience it was to watch the original Jackass in a packed theater on a Friday night back in 2002. People grossed out and howling, gasping in shock – it was great.
I think I must have blocked out Jackass Number Two, though. Because when I asked Cami if she had any interest in watching Jackass 3D this weekend, her opposition to the idea was much stronger than presented in the comic.
“I liked the first Jackass,” she said. “But I remember sitting in the theater for the second movie thinking this was the dumbest waste of time I ever saw. I nearly threw up a couple of times.”
In fairness, she was pregnant with Henry at the time. But, still.
I guess I’m kind of afraid of how Jackass 3D will leverage 3D technology. Innately, you know it’s going to be horrible. And as much as I had a good time with the first movie, I know I don’t need to see a boil on Chris Pontius’s backside in 3D. I really don’t.
Sorry again for the late comic. I’ve just been having a rough couple of weeks. First we moved, then I got sick, then we started unpacking and I got sick again. Our house is a mess and Cami and I are breaking down. We work all day, come home and take care of the kids and then you only have a couple of hours to put things away before you have to go to bed and do it all over again.
In our old house, I would hang out in my office all the time. Now the ONLY time I’m in my office is when I’m working on the comic. It’s kind of a drag. I’m hoping we can fall into a routine soon. Until then, I continue to appreciate your patience and understanding.
In the meantime, how is everyone feeling about Jackass 3D? Are you making plans to see it this weekend or are you kind of nervously anticipating it like I am? Leave your comments below!
Aww, what did Space Cowboys ever do to anybody? It’s just a sweet old film about launching geriatrics into orbit to teach them young whipper-snappers a thing or two!
If you’ve never seen Space Cowboys, don’t. It’ll ruin your impression of Clint Eastwood’s late career Oscar streak. Before directing movies like Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, he directed and starred in junk like Space Cowboys and Blood Work. Avoid at all costs.
As Cami ascertained in today’s comic, RED is very much like Space Cowboys in that it stars a cast of borderline-elderly actors running around, doing things they probably shouldn’t. I don’t care if it’s entering a low orbit around the planet or blowing up a pallet of C4, you have grandkids to worry about!
At least RED isn’t taking itself too seriously.
Except it kind of is.
In the way that Space Cowboys limply tried to assert the value of The Greatest Generation, RED is basically an “eff-you” thrill ride for Baby Boomers, rapidly approaching obsolescence.
I’ve ranted about this in the past. Bruce Willis is a key offender in this area. Look at Live Free or Die Hard. He can still kind of get away with it, though. Ever since he figured out he could shave his head and look like a bad-ass, audiences have kind of forgotten he is 55.
Sylvester Stallone is worse. The Expendibles was fun, but his extension of both Rocky and Rambo were a little desperate.
These guys need to let it go. Make room for the next generation. Right now, there’s really no one to take their place because the old guard won’t get out of the way.
And Bruce! Bruce… You’re dragging Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren into it with you? For shame.
RED might be a rental for me somewhere down the line if for no other reason than to see John Malkovich in full-on crazypants mode. He doesn’t play up his intensity for laughs very often, so when he does, it’s devastating.
It looks like the movie may have legs, considering it stood its ground with a $22 million opening this weekend against Jackass 3D. Johnny Knoxville and the boys raked in $50 million at the box office setting a record for a fall movie (September – October) ever seen. In fact, I nearly doubled the take from the original Jackass and its sequel Jackass Number Two.
I’m kind of lamenting the fact that I didn’t make it out to the theater this weekend to catch it. But Cami had relatives in town this weekend from Texas and we spent a lot of time hanging out with them. I don’t know if there’s a point of seeing the movie on a school night. I doubt it would generate the uproarious response it seemed to attract this weekend.
What say you? Did anyone see Jackass 3D or RED this weekend? What was your take? Did you have fun screaming at the infantile antics of the Jackass crew? Was RED a viable choice for anyone who can’t remember where they were when Kennedy was shot?
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW!
I was sitting around last night thinking about the juxtaposition between Clint Eastwood’s fuzzy, feel-good, “Hey, you’re gonna die, but it’s okay” Hereafter and the money-grubbing “INVISIBLE DEMONS ARE EATING YOUR BABY” Paranormal Activity 2 and felt that it was a potential comedic goldmine.
So I wrote this comic, penciled it, inked it, colored it, added shading and lettering… and then became immediately self-conscious about the punchline. In not fishing for compliments or anything. I’m just pointing out the weird tinge of instant regret I experienced after uploading the comic. Usually the anxiety needs a little time to marinate first.
I don’t feel too bad about the comic, though. Because the original punchline was Tom bolting upright from a bad dream in the fourth panel – and I’ve done THAT joke to death. So instead of doing what was safe and predictable, I decided it was okay to throw logic out the window (So, wait. Cami’s not a demon, then?)
And besides. I just really like the pie punchline.
As far as the movies themselves go, I really have no interest in seeing either of them.
Hereafter seems like Eastwood’s attempt at confronting his own mortality. Based on reviews, it kind of sounds like he failed the test by making a film with a sappy “I’m okay, you’re okay, you’re never alone message.” I don’t fault him for it. I think that’s exactly the kind of message an octogenarian would WANT to promote. It brings comfort.
But I don’t buy it.
Maybe experience hasn’t beaten cynicism out of me yet. But sometimes death is abrupt, meaningless and confusing. Frankly, whenever you try to attach religious dogma to death in an effort to explain it, you’re not really addressing the absurdity of it.
Maybe I should reserve judgment until I see the movie. Maybe Peter Morgan’s script answers some of those concerns. I don’t know. But based on what I’ve seen of the film and the reviews I’ve read so far, it doesn’t sound like something I’m ideologically aligned with.
Paranormal Activity 2 was the big box office winner this weekend, taking in $41.5 million. I never saw the original because I TOTALY buy into the conceit that your mind can always come up with something far more terrifying than a filmmaker could ever show. The original Paranormal Activity – with it’s locked-down, single camera aesthetic – played that to the hilt.
From the sound of it, Paranormal Activity 2 didn’t fall into the same trap that Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows fell into. But at the same time, I’m wondering why Hollywood can’t leave well enough alone.
Part of the reason the original Paranormal Activity did so well because was because of the innovation it inspired due to a limited budget. Unknown actors, minimal effects, AMAZING concept and execution. Hollywood should be making more films like this rather than repackaging experiences we’re already familiar with.
I understand that making movies requires a large investment and producers are looking for a sure thing to recoup any potential financial losses. But creativity doesn’t grow when you do the same thing over and over again.
Look at me. Should I have used a tired “startled awake from a dream” punchline that I’ve used a dozen times before or a zinger from out of left-field about pie?
On second thought, that’s not a very good example.
Did anyone see Paranormal Activity 2 or Hereafter2 this weekend? Let us know what you thought in the comments below!