Clash of Technology with some LGBT thrown in for good measure

So another Wednesday, another blog. Today it's all about the review of the movie I've seen, the book I just finished reading, and a few other things.

Firstly. I went to see Clash of the Titans. Before I give my rating of the movie, I'll go over a few things about it. Warning, this may or may not continue spoilers. Foremost, Perseus was not accompanied on his journey by the clockwork owl. Bad move. Also, the storyline was incredibly choppy compared to the original. (I only say these things based on the fact that I grew up watching the original 1981 Clash of the Titans). Now I've not viewed the original in a long while, but I remember enough of it (I think) to make some comparisons.

The biggest difference is that in the 1981 version, the story was structured similarly to the tales of greek mythology wherein a hero fights against the decree's of the gods because that's what heroes do. In 2010, the whole reason for the movie was that humans had (more or less) declared war on the gods.

In the 1981 version, Calibos was his own character and was cursed by Zeus into a bestial form. In 2010, he was dual-character-ed as the human stepfather of Perseus and his bestial appearance was more his disfigurement from being struck by a Zeus-thrown lightning bolt.

Also, the scene involving the giant scorpions (while incredibly well done, if not a bit long) broke away from the original in that the scorpions came from Calibos' blood as opposed to the blood of Medusa's head.

In 2010 there was a new character/race called the Djinn (according to Wikipedia they are: "gentle and benevolent Sand-Demons with magical powers"). As far as I know there was no such race in the 1981 version. (Ergo, they were added simply to show more special effects.)

Thetis was actually Calibos' mother in the 1981 version, as opposed to some immortal being who want's to help Perseus. Hades was the main protagonist in 2010 as opposed to a jealous Thetis. Calibos was supposed to be married to Andromeda in 1981 and there is no mention of this in 2010 because Calibos is actually the wife of Perseus' mother (as mentioned above).

I could go on and on, but I won't because I don't have that kind of time. Suffice it to say that I was unimpressed with the movie. Now, I will say that normally I don't make such an issue out of some of the issues above, because I understand that sometimes things have to be cut/changed for the sake of prognosticated cinematic success. My reasons for this are is that the 2010 version is billed as a remake of the original 1981 film. It can't be called a remake if the entire storyline is changed. That makes it a whole different movie.

So, I give the Clash of the Titans 2010 a 3 out of 10.

Moving on, I finished Homosexuality and Ethics and I was really let down. I had hoped that it would be a more understandable book for the average person. It turned out that it was more of an academic text riddled with very obscure academic terms and meant more as a reference than anything. So not overall happy with it, but still grateful that I have it as I think it will benefit "the project" in the long run. I was impressed by the varied viewpoints in the book, as I think it makes a good attempt to present those views as dispassionately as possible. I was a little miffed at the constant comparison or supposed connection between homosexuality and pedophilia (which is nothing more than a stereotype). But since the copyright date of the book was 1980 (if I recall correctly) it makes sense. We've made great strides since then, unfortunately not enough.

Next book to read is (I think, unless I decide that something else would be better) this (I didn't want to type the whole title).

So I've also been reading some articles posted on the walls of some of my Facebook friends. This article was interesting, even if it was an opinion piece. I was impressed by the presentation of the idea that homosexuals are just as normal as everyone else. I was also impressed by the information held in the article. As opinion pieces goes I think it states it's point with very little bias, which is good. I also think I agree with one point in the article that once homosexuality comes into the picture, people stop looking at you as a person, and start looking at you only in regards to your sexual orientation, which isn't fair or right, but it is the truth.

I also saw this article from GLAAD (also interestingly enough on the same profile as the story above) and figured it was worth mentioning. I've recently been meeting with an old professor of mine, and while we disagree on Homosexuality (and we agree that we disagree) it doesn't stop him from speaking his mind. I've mentioned that conversion therapy and such is dangerous to people. This comment launched us into a conversation regarding the political pull of the gay rights movement in counseling and mental health. Now, I have to say that I would never subject myself to anything resembling Ex-gay therapy. I've also read some things by Wayne Besen who is a militant opponent of any sort of Ex-gay therapy/Ex-gay ministries. You can find his information regarding these things here. I refuse to put links to any site that would take a reader to anything like an Ex-gay ministry or anything like that, but if you were really interested I would encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Ok, so there's not extra things thrown in for good measure, but that's a lot of writing and opinions. Hopefully I'll have just as much by next week.

[EDIT: It seems like I'm always forgetting something, in this case it was the technology part. Apparently my blackberry broke up with my school email. Since my school email is essentially my business email address this was bad for me. Since my FB account also went through that email, it was kinda important to get email from that account, so I could also get FB notifications on my phone. (all of which is important since I lack a computer.) So, I had to set up an additional GMail account and change my FB contact email. Then I had to make sure that my school email would forward all messages to the new email address. And then I had to set up the new email address on my Blackberry. Basically I had to get some sort of couples therapist for my school email and my Blackberry so that they'll continue to talk. *sigh* Technology is so complicated.]

Settling In

Well, I'm settling into the routine of new job schedule and everything, which is going well I'm happy to report.

I finished reading And the Band Played On earlier this week, and I have to say that I'm rather shocked and incredulous about the whole thing. I don't even want to get into it because it would take way too long and would make me sound like some sort of nutcase.

In the requisite gay news, Ricky Martin finally announced that he was gay. *yawn* Tell us something we haven't known since the late 90s.

I didn't get a chance to write the blog yesterday as I was busy and seem to have twisted my knee. Mental note: refrain from doing that again.

I started reading Homosexuality and Ethics and I have to say that it's a pretty interesting read. It starts out by presenting four different views regarding Homosexuality in the context of Moral Theology a.k.a. Christian Morality, with a few sub views thrown in for good measure.

The copyright date of this book is 1980 which is interesting because I finished reading the section that goes over the viewpoint that homosexual acts (and therefore homosexuality) is intrinsically wrong/evil/sinful and I thought it was interesting that even though these authors present a religiously conservative viewpoint regarding homosexual-ness they also make sure to mention that they are solidly against any civil discrimination regarding homosexuals (in the realm of employment and housing discrimination). They do make a special mention regarding marriage and it is the conservative christian viewpoint regarding gay marriage minus the vitreous bile spewed by the christian right today.

Also, between reading this book about ethics and the previous one about the AIDS epidemic, it made me realize that sometime in the 80s, during the Reagan administration, fundamentalist Christians began to throw their weight around in the political arena. People like Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson began to infuse their religion with politics (or vice versa) and make a play for power. It was this abominable blend of politics/religion that caused political policy to be influenced by religious morals rather than political needs and justice.

I was thinking about this the other day and when we ask people to sit on a jury, we make sure to require them to put any bias' they may have, regardless of what they are about or where they come from, in order to have them reach a (relatively) impartial ruling. Why can't we require this of our politicians/representatives/justices?

[EDIT: I forgot to apologize. I was going to write a/this blog yesterday, but got busy and really needed to get some sleep. So I went to bed early. Sorry for the schedule change. I will do my best to achieve consistent Wednesday updates. It's just that with only one day off in the middle of the week, I've got a lot to do and only one business day to do it all in.]