Day #11 of year 2 -- no headaches today - yay, and about that..

Well, the vaccine and COVID-19 do have an effect on menstrual cycles. Also it may be the vaccine's jump start of my menstrual cycle that was partially responsible for the bad headaches I've been having.

Mother: I just heard from your brother, your sister-in-law and her friend both had their periods start after getting the Moderna vaccine.

I text message co-worker.
( Read more... )

She sent me a link about how COVID affects menstrual cycles...According to the article she sent me, a 55 year old woman who'd gone through menopause two years previously, had her period start after getting COVID-19.
( excerpt )

So I looked and found another article on this...from Israel, which was ahead of everyone on the vaccinations.

Does the Covid-19 Vaccine Disrupt Menstrual Cycles

Israeli women have been reporting menstrual bleeding after being administered the COVID-19 vaccine, leading to increased scrutiny by officials. The women, which have shared the experience on a Facebook forum called Talking about Vaccines, have reported an early period and various other instances of bleeding.

The comments to the article were even more interesting.
( some of the comments )

I think there is a link between COVID-19 and sex hormones. Also, I know understand why they are wary of giving the PFizer and Moderna vaccines to pregnant women at the moment. It could induce a miscarriage.

Definite pattern at any rate. ( Read more... )

I wish we would be more open about sharing this sort of information with each other - it's the type of information that can help.

***
Cancel Culture? Reconsidering the Art

I found an interesting article on Canceled Culture? Reconsidering the art of controversial artists.

One of the things I've noticed over the years is how people are willing to hand-wave favorites, and denounce people they don't like. I don't think anyone is immune from that? (shrugs) I mean I do find it entertaining that folks are willing to cancel Whedon, but are still fannish about David Boreanze and still watch Bull. Or have no issues with say Alfred Hitchcock, while they won't watch Woody Allen. Hitchcock was just as bad. Granted he's dead so it probably doesn't matter.

I mean it's sort of like saying, you need to give up those evil brownies, but I'm still eating my cookies, thank you very much. Hmm, yum, brownies.
I want brownies now. Particularly pot brownies. Never had pot brownies.
When and if marijuana is legalized? I'm totally making gluten free pot brownies.

Anyhow, I've been wrestling with the whole cancel culture idea or the need to "punish" folks. I admit it - right now, I would love to do away with the entire Conservative Branch of the Republican Party in the US, and see Trump cancelled in every way imaginable.

But I'm on the fence about some of it. Also the cancelling - basically just means the mainstream platforms. They mainly jump to the fringes again. Instead of posting on Twitter - it's well another lesser know platform. Which isn't a bad thing.

And the article - along with the Video make a good point about how it does force the artist to be held accountable. OTOH - should we stop enjoying their art? Stop watching it? Or does it provide us with the opportunity to focus on other less controversial artists?

( excerpt )

I don't know. I'm on the fence, clearly - I fall somewhere between D'Souza and Ross, to be honest. I admittedly don't think I can watch Woody Allen, Bill Cosby or Louis CK any time soon, also Roman Polanski...not so sure about. Not that I was a huge fan of any of the above to begin with, although there are a few Woody Allen films I enjoyed. And I liked Bill Cosby - I was more upset about Cosby. It's easier with musicians, somehow. I forget the musician is singing the song. I have no vocal recognition skills whatesover. Also in some respects - films, you can forget someone did a film, in some cases. Actors - it can be harder with, and it is impossible with Standup Comedians.

On the writer front? I admittedly have never liked Orson Scott Card, David Foster Wallace, or Virgina Woolf - so no problems there. And two are dead, so not sure it even matters. Joss Whedon on the other hand? I've mixed feelings about.

That brings up another question if we cancel someone - and they are dead, does it matter? (Whedon isn't dead, but Hitchcock, Kurbrick and Woolf are, as is Margaret Mitchell and WB Griffith.) I think the third critic and film professor - Richard Pena makes some good points - in that, it provides an opportunity to revisit and reconsider the art from a critical perspective. To look at it deeper. I've been thinking about Whedon's work for example - and picking up on a few things I hadn't before - such as cruelty of his jokes, and where some of that comes from. Also the degree to which that was influenced by others such as Roseanne, who had a toxic brand of humor.

At any rate - it's a topic that I've not made up my mind about.

Mother made an interesting comment last night...she said that I couldn't be manipulated by men. I retorted that I can't be manipulated by anyone, folks have tried. I make up my own mind about things, and it often takes a while.

***

It's a gray day today. I find myself watching birds outside the window, fluttering about the branches of the trees. And I wonder if it will rain some more - it looks like it.

I slept through a good portion of the Church's Palm Sunday service on FB, it had nice instrumentals and music, but way too much on sermonizing on recent events. News events that I've been deliberately avoiding. I had to shut it off finally. Yes, I know the world is a nasty place for us to live in - but I honestly don't know what I can do about it. I can't figure out how to help my poor decrepit parents in South Carolina, let alone deal with idiots who like to buy guns and shoot people, and a society that continues to hand-wave this kind of violence. Or the voting rights problem in other states. I can't change what Georgia does. (I've already sent money to the cause.)

Had nightmares last night about my inability to drive, and missing work because I got the days confused and couldn't get there in time. Basically transportation nightmares. I think I'm worried about the transportation pass, and visiting my Mom. I'd planned on visiting her as soon as I got the vaccine - by early May or late April. But she's injured and it can't happen. And if I could drive this wouldn't be as big an issue - and I could go down and drive her to appointments, and go grocery shopping for her and...but I can't drive, so that's out. And I'd just be in the way. I have wasted a godawful amount of time and energy beating myself up over this - just so you know. My mother keeps telling me not to go there - she understands, also, she adds, a lot of folks don't drive or can't drive - even where she is.

Anyhow, the good news is most of my family seems to be COVID free and vaccinated. Along with many of my co-workers - those I know and work with.

This is good news.

Last night's sunset again...there won't be one tonight, I don't think, since it's very overcast.

Justice League Comparison - Effective Use of Humor and Dialogue in Film

When comparing films or anything really - it's important to pick items that are related to each other and similar in medium. For example? I wouldn't compare the Buffy movie or Buffy comics to the Buffy television series - they are three different mediums, you kind of have to take that into account. Same with say Justice League - you don't compare the films to the comics - different mediums, different requirements. Nor do I compare Snyder's films to say the Marvel films - two different verses, different characters - be like comparing Apples to Tomatoes. Nor would I compare Justice League to the Avengers - again Apples to Tomatoes.

In regards to Justice League - and why it offers film geeks a great opportunity to see what works and what doesn't - is we are comparing two different cuts on the same film. Add to that, we have a film that the studio involved chose to re-shoot/rewrite and re-score with a new collaborative team - while essentially keeping footage, story, and writing from that team. It would be like your beta being hired to step in and rewrite your fanfic and adding stuff to it without your approval, then publishing it with your name on it along side theirs. Or someone being hired by your agent and publisher to re-write your novel, and publishing it under your name and theirs, without your approval - which happens all the time with "work for hire" gigs, particularly films. [Actually it has happened with a few novels as well, and more than one film and television series.]

Director's Cuts also provide you with the ability to compare to original cuts of a film, see what the studio got rid of, and what the artist's original vision was - and understand how the business of film affects the final product for good or ill. Note - not all director's cuts add to the original or are that different. Nor are all that great. Blade Runner - is an example of one where the Director's cut added something to the movie, although it remains controversial as to whether that was an improvement or detriment. While Superman II (Richard Donner) is an example of a cut that added nothing to the film.

In addition to the above? It's important to pick films and subject matter that you enjoy. For example? Magnificent Ambersons by Orson Wells, has an original that varied greatly from the Director's cut of the film. But I don't like the film. I have no interest in it.

Justice League works for me - because I've seen both films, I'm familiar with the work of both directors, and the source material (for the most part). Also I know the characters fairly well or well enough. I've seen at least five to ten films or works by both. Pretty much everything except for about two or three items.

Knowing the filmmakers work - makes this kind of analysis more interesting, in that if you were to ask me - say a week or so ago, which filmmaker was better at dialogue and humor - I'd say Whedon. I'd also say Whedon was better at characterization and emotional character moments. Both, aren't the best at plotting. And I'd have said Whedon was better at layers, metaphor, and narrative. Snyder - I'd have said was better at cinematography, action scenes, plot (not by much) and that's about it.

Folks? I've changed my mind. In respect to Justice League? Snyder actually is better at dialogue, humor, characterization, emotional character moments, action, story, and cinematography. I was surprised by this, since I generally prefer Whedon's films and works to Snyder's. Snyder tends to be dark, somewhat Randian in tone, and not memorable in the dialogue department. He's still not exactly stellar in the dialogue department - but he is so much better here than Whedon. Also, weirdly, I sensed more of a Randian/conservative theme coming from Whedon's group than from Snyder's.

That's why I feel the need to analyze why - because I was surprised. I don't get surprised by films that often. Also the comparison provides some insight as to what works and what doesn't and why. In particular dialogue - which is a lot harder to write well than people realize. In addition - dialogue needs to accomplish several things: 1) Be true to the character and/or reveal character, 2) Provide information, and 3) Further the plot.

How you do it - will determine how your reader or viewer responds to your characters and story. But it's even harder, or at least I think it is, for characters you've not created and in particular those that your audience may be as familiar if not more familiar with than you are. (I think most fanfic writers would appreciate that. It's why I don't like writing fanfic, I get self-conscious. For me, when I read or watch something utilizing characters I've fallen in love with - I get thrust out of the story when the characters say something out of character or do something out of character.)

Justice League Film Comparison Regarding Use of Dialogue or Why I'm Glad I'm Not a Screenwriter

There's an interesting article about the three original scripts associated with Justice League - that was published in 2019.

( Excerpt about the three scripts, the original, the Snydercut, the Whedon Reboot )

What happened? Joss Whedon was hired to "help" punch up the script of Justice League. And on the 2017 film, Whedon's only credit is "script" which he allegedly co-wrote with Chris Terrio. It's worth noting, before we go any further that he did not write the script by himself, and Terrio never worked directly with him. He had help with the script from Geoff Johns (a writer of the Justice League and Teen Titans comics) and Jon Berg. Per the article above Whedon's script was based around Snyder and Terrio's rewritten script, but had significant alterations by a team of writers including Geoff Johns, Joss Whedon, Allan Heinberg, Seth Grahame-Smith, and Andrea Berloff. They also largely edited and re-wrote Chris Terrio and Zack Snyder's original script.

In addition, Whedon is known for his script-doctoring skills and got his start fixing other people's scripts. He did that even as a show-runner on various television series. But Whedon also is a comedy writer - who came from situation comedy writing - specifically Roseanne, which is know for it's insult humor and slapstick. Also Buffy often had similar low brow and slangy, quips. Snyder - or so it was claimed, was dour with his script and humorless. They wanted to "humanize" and "lighten it up".

Note - there is only one screenwriter credit on the Snyder version - Chris Terrio does the script, Snyder directs. On the Whedon version - there's Whedon and Terrio. We also know from the article above on Whedon's Reboot, Johns, and various others who had a hand in the script - with Whedon directing and shooting the new footage. I point this out - because there's an old adage amongst film geeks and screenwriters - the more writers involved with the script - the worse the film will be. Same with the old adage about too many chefs in a kitchen? There's a reason a team of writers rarely if ever gets an Oscar or is nominated for any film.

Luckily for comparison purposes there are scenes that only the dialogue was changed. Otherwise this would be harder. (Also I'm referencing youtube and this Site for the Justice League 2017 script. My memory isn't perfect or word for word. Along with other online comparisons, and the movies on HBO Max.)

1. Diana's Dialogue with A Terrorist

( Read more... )

2. Bruce Recruits Barry

( Bruce Wayne recruits Barry Allen )

What I found fascinating and surprising is that Snyder's version focuses on female empowerment, while Whedon's focuses on Nerdy Socially Awkward Boy empowerment often at the detriment of women. And it's the nerdy boy's hero-worship of the White Male Superhero. Women and Minorities in Whedon's version are either pushed into the side-kick category or objectified. The shifts in the dialogue get this across. While Diana's scene is truncated, the Flash's isn't - if anything they added dialogue to it.

They do however remove the first introduction to the Flash, and replace it with a joke, that kind of falls flat. Jokes require build up and continuity to work well. Here it feels off, and unnecessary. The Flash isn't annoying or grating in Snyder's version, he is in Whedon's. He comes across as a bit of a jerk in Whedon's version - and it's hard, as a result, to care about him, while in Snyder's you do care about him - and he isn't a jerk at all. i would have expected the opposite.

3. Bruce Attempts to Recruit Aquaman ( Bruce Attempts to Recruit Aquaman )

One more example, I think in regards to dialogue that was changed while the directorial footage is essentially the same. Changing the meaning of the footage - which had originally been shot with different dialogue.

4. Justice League's Fight with Superman ( Read more... )

In each of these sections the character is often sacrificed in the dialogue by the Whedon version for jokes, witty banter, or for exposition (explaining the mother boxes), while in the Snyder version the dialogue is focused on further plot and revealing the characters. In the Snyder - funny moments are either situational (Flash being thrust into Arthur - which worked better for humor purposes) or small lines, like Bruce knowing Icelandic and paying Arthur more money than he asked for. Or, in Flash's section the quick exchange - "I need friends", Bruce - "Great". There's hidden irony there - since Bruce doesn't quite have them either.

Rule number 1 with dialogue - it has to be true to the character. And in regards to exposition - it's better to show than tell in film. Info dumps in film work better when we can see them.

I thought it would be better to show the differences in the dialogue above then merely tell you about them. [Whether that worked or not, I don't know. I had to see the film for myself to get it, so it may not have.] Some of the Whedon cut's changes and adjustments are rather baffling. And others, are well, offensive. Most of what he does with Diana is offensive - and in a way that surprised me.

To be fair to Whedon, he's not the sole writer on his version - and he was catering to a lot of people above him, who hired him, and had been nitpicking at the film for quite some time. Yet, here's the thing - being familiar with Whedon's other works - the added jokes, quips, and demeaning content - is boiler-plate Whedon. I've seen this in the Avengers, Buffy, Firefly, Dollhouse, Dr. Horrible and Angel, along with in the comics and the portions of the X-men film that he script doctored. He's not doing anything he hasn't done in his other works. He was actually hired to do insert it.

Undercutting a dramatic moment with humor - which is normally something that I enjoy, can work in some situations - but it matters how you do it. In this instance the undercut is at the expense of the characters - and in particular women and minority characters. So, it stood out more here - because it was outside of his own stuff, it wasn't evenly braced against the empowering moments with those characters, and it wasn't softened by the other writers/directors that Whedon had hired. Here he's putting it into someone else's story, and redirecting and re-editing that person's footage. As a result these items, which I recognized as Whedon's style of humor, stand out in stark contrast and not in a good way. That surprised me - because I hadn't noticed how demeaning Whedon's humor can be to minority and women - until I watched and compared the films. When it was gone, the film was actually better, less jarring. And the characters of Wonder Woman, Lois, Cyborg, and Aguaman had more agency and came across as less silly or only there to support Batman and Superman. They had agency, they were leads, and they were more important - in Snyder's version.

There are a few adjustments though that make sense, and make the scene tighter - in say the Aquaman scene with Bruce. But in the Flash scene they add dialogue - which unnecessarily lengthens the scene. Also there's additions of dialogue by Whedon et al in the Superman fights the Justice League sequence that makes no sense, and renders the scene somewhat silly. Not comical - just silly and grating. Superman wouldn't talk yet - he'd just been resurrected. And he doesn't know that Batman orchestrated it. Nor would he necessarily remember the particulars of his fights with Batman in Bvs.S. Snyder is a stickler for these sorts of details, while Whedon doesn't tend to be.

Another thing I noticed about the Whedon cut's use of humor - it often made the film somewhat "campy" or "silly" and in other areas..."crass and cringe-inducing". I'm not sure Whedon respected the material in quite the same way as Snyder did or the characters.

In the Avengers, some of this works, mainly because it fits the characters. But I don't think it works with DC's characters quite as well, and not here.

As previously noted, there's a continuity problem in regards to small details - these characters and the tone of who some of them are - have been previously set up in other films, that have the tonal quality. Clark, Bruce and Diana were previously set up in Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and Wonder Woman. Whedon's Justice League jumped away from that continuity of character, along with other things. Whedon tries to refer to BvS with an exchange between Clark and Bruce in the Justice League fights Superman sequence, but it doesn't quite work - if anything it is jarring, and it threw me out of the story. Clark wouldn't talk at this point. He's never been much of a talker to begin with.

Anyhow, I think dialogue matters in film, and if used poorly or inadequately, it can pull the viewer out of the story or jar them. It's true of other stories as well - fanfic, novels, etc. If your characters don't sound genuine to the reader - the reader is gone.

[ETA: Fixed some typos and changed Whedon's addition to "underlined" text, and Snyder's to "bold" text, since blockquotes automatically turn it into italicized text.]