Boycotting boycotting

Hawaii was the first state to block Trump's new travel ban. So now Trump supporters are urging a boycott of Hawaii.

Much like the laughable Hamilton boycott, this is just idiotic on it's face. Not only can you NOT boycott something you weren't able to get to/use anyway, people are not considering the everyday things they use from Hawaii and how a serious boycott would actually affect them.

Want to eat guacamole? NOPE! You're boycotting that now, along with coffee, macadamia nuts, bananas, guavas, papayas, and tomatoes. No pineapple on your pizza either.

or your pens.

Well, what about a night at the movies? Have fun avoiding Dwayne Johnston, the best-paid star in Hollywood. Also no Game or Thrones of Justice League for you, thanks to Jason Momoa.

This guy made Aquaman cool, damnit!

You can't even drown your sorrows in soda; Hawaii makes a LOT of cane sugar. Which is in pretty much everything. No tuna fish, no cotton cloth, or special spam recipes either.

Though like pineapple, this will hit some harder than others.

"Boycotters" need to admit it: #BoycottHawaii is just saber rattling. They're not going to bother to check where these things come from, or pay more to get non-Hawaiian versions of them. And good luck to them trying explaining how Moana is evil to their kids. See how far that gets you.

Oh, and just in case they are able to avoid ALL these things, Maryland has also stopped the ban. Yet (gasp!) I don't see anyone saying #BoycottMaryland and it's fine output of crabs and planes. It's almost like a bunch of racists seized on a state they were never going to visit anyway, just to be part of an echo chamber!

And as for the possible lost tourism? I think this sums it up pretty well:

Silver Eyes, or, what's the fuss about?

I just finished reading the tie-in novel for the FNAF series, The Silver Eyes. As mentioned previously, I found the book underwhelming to okay. The additional lore was worth the read, and the main character actually had character. I'm looking forward to wasting my time with the follow up novel set for this summer, The Twisted Ones.

This one is based on the game that takes place in the nightmares of a dying child! Hooray!

The book was published for teens, so I didn't go in expecting greatness. The problem is the action is limited, with almost no scares, and very little bloodshed. Goosebumps is scarier than this.

Most FNAF fans aren't enraged over the lacking story; it's the deviations from the game that madden them. For example, the animatronic eyes are brighter and differently colored.

 

Blasphemy!

Scott Cawthon has stated the INFO in the books is canon, but it also takes place in a separate timeline from the games. That translates roughly to "Just repeat to yourself it's just a franchise, I should really just relax."

See the SOL for greater detail (now on Netflix!).

As much as I like preserving every detail, there have to be allowances for changes in medium. I can allow for an altered story or details, if the changes make sense, I.E. dropping Jud Crandall's wife from the Pet Semetary movie since her impact on the plot was negligible. Changes for change sake are where I need to draw the line.

We don't speak it's name, lest it hear and return.

The TLDR of this is that The Silver Eyes is no great horror novel, but it does flesh-out the lore of FNAF, and it's totally readable. Just don't expect to enjoy it more than watching Markiplier do a lets-play.

Or even this reaction compilation.

That moment when

One of my favorite video game reviewers is a crazy racist.

JonTron, a video game an movie reviewer so funny that I actually watch his video game reviews, tweeted and debated in a video some things about immigration, racism, and other hot-button political issues. Highlights apparently include him claiming "colonialism benefited the people that were colonized, wealthy black Americans commit more crimes than poor whites, the court system doesn’t display bias against people of color, that Irish and Italians were always considered “white” in America, and that Black Lives Matter doesn’t disavow violence."

Well, shit.

The JonTron reddit page has locked down in response to this, but not before some memes got in. Memes make everything better, right?

No, memes don't make everything better.

Damnit, I just got to work, saw there was an article about JonTron in google news, and now I've got a damned moral dilemma. I wasn't even sure I had any subject matter for a blog. I wish I didn't.

This isn't like when rape allegations are brought against a celebrity, and I can get rid of their books and unsubscribe from their channel without looking back. This is America, and Jon can hold any political beliefs that he chooses. They can be dumb, ignorant, or even alternative facts, and you'll still go far, as Mr. Trump has proven.

But a bunch of the things he said were just incorrect on their face. Black Lives Matter DOES advocate for non-violence. Irish and Italians weren't always considered white in America. There IS racial bias in our courts.

The question now is, can I separate JonTron the entertainer from Jon Jafari the person I deeply disagree with.

This isn't without precedent. Mel Gibson is a fine actor, even if he is a shitty human (although, I've not watched any of his directorial work or old movies since the incidents). I've often said you either need to be a good person or a good actor (my chosen hobby) for me to work with you. I can count on one hand the number of people I personally know who have failed on both counts.

Sometimes the charge is too great, and one thing cannot trump the other: I've rid my home of Bill Cosby and Orson Scott Card's material. Rape, Homophobia, and Antisemitism are my hottest hot-button issues. You fail those marks, I don't care how talented you are. We're done.

So, one of my favorite entertainers is at best, misguided and misinformed, and at worst an active racist and isolationist.

I guess if we can have one running the country, I can watch one make funny videos.

The IT Spot: Penny for your thoughts

There's been some big news since my last IT Spot blog: first, Stephen King himself has praised the picture. Though I'm not sure I can trust the director of Maximum Overdrive to know what makes a good horror movie.

Hint: nothing in this.

The other is that the young cast of IT part one met their Pennywise, and was afraid of him. The director seems to think this is a big deal, but I'm less impressed. There's something to be said for your actors actually being afraid of the villain, but there's also an element of unprofessionalism there. I'm not sure if I'd rather have real fear verses capable actors who are comfortable enough to act afraid.

The original cast was afraid of Tim Curry, and it worked beautifully. The boy in Insidious was specially instructed that Lipstick Face wasn't real, and wasn't afraid. Both films are great, and both sets of child actors do fine.

Not that Lin Shaye seemed thrilled either.

Some of the greatest performances in horror were born of real discomfort. Shelly Duvall in The Shining was basically tortured by Stanley Kubrick. The skeletons in the Poltergeist pool scene were real. And lets not get started on what Hitchcock did to Tippi Hedron in The Birds.

But real fear isn't necessary to a good performance. Miko Hughes in Pet Semetary played with his doll stand-in. Robert Englund's co-stars are jovial and relaxed with him on Nightmare on Elm Street commentaries, recalling fun times on set. So it swings both ways.

I'm trying to remain optimistic, but with keeping the timeline linear as to "not confuse" the audience, and Pennywise's look, it's getting tough. I just have the hope the trailer looks good, since we should be seeing it soon.