Paper Heart movie poster

This is why Paper Heart, the half-real half-fake movie created by Yi and director Nick Jasenovec, intrigued me. The movie’s premise starts out with Yi traveling across the country, asking people what love is. The interviews are real. Then it segues into Yi meeting Cera at a party, where they show signs of liking each other. This part is presumably fake. Which, in the end, doesn’t really matter. Their love, pretend or not, is just as interesting and charming as the real stories we hear about in the rest of the movie.

This is why: Their relationship doesn’t have the kind of lightning bolts and passionate heavy breathing that we expect from romantic comedies. They’re low-key and quite humdrum. They go out on dates, walk on the beach, share quirky moments, and write silly songs. There’s no real drama (except for the very end, but that’s a bit of a spoiler). Their relationship, whether it’s real or not, is actually very close to reality. Relationships aren’t always exciting and romantic. Relationships can be kind of uneventful and quiet most of the time. But that doesn’t mean love isn’t there. Love doesn’t need lightning bolts and car chases and the running across a meadow. Love can just be.

As Yi and Jasenovec take us through multiple tales of love, including Yi’s own journey from not believing in love to her relationship with Cera, we learn that everyone has a different definition of love. And that they’re all valid, real or not.

John Hodgman plays his ukulele in his MaxFunCon keynote address
Photo by Nicole Lee (More photos here)

When I said I was going to MaxFunCon last week, many people did not know what I meant. Even after I pasted the link, or after I tried describing it, I was met mostly with incredulity and laughter. I don’t blame them. It’s hard to comprehend how something like this can even happen. Matt, Adam, and Katie probably explained it better than I can, but here goes anyway.

Perhaps some background is in order. Jesse Thorn is a professional podcaster and public radio broadcaster who has somehow turned his college radio show into an audio podcast heard and loved the world over. The show that started it all was and is The Sound of Young America, which specializes in in-depth interviews with pop culture icons (ie. Brian Michael Bendis, Jeffrey Tambor, Neil Gaiman, Scott McCloud, etc.), many with a rather nerdy or comedic bent. TSOYA, as it’s called, has since been syndicated on PRI (Public Radio International) and is broadcasted on select public radio stations across the world. Since then, he’s produced many more podcasts under the Maximum Fun umbrella, like Jordan, Jesse, Go!, a light-hearted podcast co-hosted with his long-time buddy Jordan Morris, and The Kasper Hauser Podcast, a comedy podcast starring the members of Kasper Hauser, the San Franciscan comedy sketch group. All his podcasts are recorded and produced in his modest Los Angeles apartment.

Some time last year, Jesse had the idea of creating a convention called MaxFunCon. Not only would the conference bring together fans of his podcasts, but he also planned to invite his comedian and performer friends as entertainment. They include the You Look Nice Today crew (whom I consider friends), comedy rock duo Hard N’ Phirm, nerd rockstar Jonathan Coulton, and none other than the deranged millionaire himself, John Hodgman. When I heard this list of performers, I threw down my money faster than you could say “I’m a PC.”

And what did that money buy me? Three days and two nights in a mountain cabin, all meals included. The weekend’s itinerary included activity sessions like cooking, crafting, hiking, and learning the ins and outs of improv comedy. We were also treated to a creativity seminar by the super-inspiring Merlin Mann and a humorous slideshow by Improv Everywhere‘s Charlie Todd. If that wasn’t enough, we also saw comedians Jimmy Pardo, Tig Notarro, the aforementioned Hard N’ Phirm, and Maria Bamford send us all into fits of laughter as we sat shivering in an open-air amphitheater. Add in the late-night s’mores by the fire pit, John Hodgman passing around Crystalhead vodka and Jeppson’s Malort for us to sip right out of the bottle, meeting old friends and making new ones, and it was truly the most magical weekend I’ve had in years.

There was one key ingredient in this weekend of awesome: The incredibly nice people that Jesse somehow managed to attract to his fold. Maybe it’s just the inherent nature of people who listen to nerd comedy podcasts; that we’re all just really nice and easy-going. Or maybe it was the chilly mountain air, or that there were only 150 of us, or that the presenters were guests enjoying the conference just like the rest of us, or the fact that we had to brave thick debilitating fog to get to where we were. It was a treat, and I will not hesitate to do this again.

Sign me up for MaxFunCon 2010.

Also, Rorschach was pretty much excellent and dead on. He is very clearly the most principled character in the whole movie. Even when he was doing the most violent of acts, he was doing them because he is on the right side of justice. Very well-acted, and very believable. The audience was cheering for him. Nite Owl was dead on, as was Silk Spectre and the Comedian. Sally Jupiter seemed a bit off to me, but I’ll get to that later.

Now to the parts in the movie that I didn’t quite like because they departed too much from the book. I’ll preface this by saying I completely understand why Snyder decided to change things. It’s a much neater movie with the changes, and slightly more palatable to mainstream audiences. And if I wasn’t so emotionally invested in the book, I probably would have appreciated the movie version a lot more. And yet, I cannot help but nitpick, because of what I think the story should be, versus the story told in the movie.

Ozymandias, or Adrian Veidt, is more villainous in the movie than in the book. There was slight ominous music in his scenes, and he seemed foppish, like a very well-manicured trust fund baby. In the book, Adrian was like Adonis. He was human perfection — the smartest person in the world with the perfect human body — with a strength and flexibility that no other human could match. You really believed he was good. Even in the end, you believed he was a good man who wanted peace so badly he was willing to sacrifice lives. Sure you didn’t like his methods, but deep down, you believed he meant well.

The movie version of Adrian was made out to be very smart man, yes. Also very strong and flexible, yes. But I don’t think it was made that clearly that he was supposed to be PERFECTION. I guess it’s hard to really convey that, but that’s what it seemed. And because of that, the movie version of Adrian came off as a cold and calculating villain, rather than a deeply disturbed but well-meaning person. It felt harder to sympathize with Adrian. Which is why I think they changed it — would mainstream audiences want to sympathize with someone who wanted mass genocide?

And this is the part that truly makes Adrian in the movie way more villainous than his comic counterpart. Not only does he dispatch several energy bombs around the world and enacts mass genocide, he also FRAMES HIS FRIEND. Who would sympathize with someone like that? That alone pushed him over from good guy territory to bad guy territory. Yes he ultimately wanted world peace, but even that was difficult to swallow. In the book, I bought into his crazy mad scheme. In the movie, I had to take a leap of faith.

Now, on to the ending. This is where I went from “loving the movie” to “liking the movie.” I completely understand why Snyder changed it — it wraps up the plotline very neatly, it’s a lot more understandable, and it provides an easier out to Dr. Manhattan. But the change is too much for me. You have to understand; Dr. Manhattan is my favorite character. And to see him being framed, to see the whole world turn on him; it hurts me.

Also, there’s a political danger zone here. If he had instead manufactured an alien and deployed the alien to multiple cities (I actually agree with the multiple-city theory; it makes more sense than just targeting one American city), then the world would unite against an external common enemy. Now the enemy is essentially, well, one of us. In fact, he is one of the Americans. Would the Russians truly believe that this was not a calculated act by the U.S. government? Would everyone really believe that Dr. Manhattan had given up on Earth and is not secretly working with the U.S. government? Wouldn’t this act by Dr. Manhattan unite the world AGAINST America instead of WITH America? I do agree that the only way it would make sense is if the U.S. government was successful in convincing everyone they’re not in cahoots with him. How could Ozymandias be so sure they would be able to do that? It seems tricky.

Here are a few more nitpicks: I thought Nixon seemed a bit comical. I had a hard time buying his character. Maybe it was that very obviously fake nose. I also think that the scenes where Dr. Manhattan brings up his previous life felt a little different from the book. In the movie, you had the feeling that he was having flashbacks. In the book, it was very clear that he was actually living all of them simultaneously. I think that’s the sort of thing you can’t really convey in a movie though, so I give that a pass. In the movie, it seemed like Sally Jupiter only loved the Comedian because he gave her Laurie. In the book, Sally Jupiter loved the Comedian, through and through. Also, they didn’t show Hollis Mason’s death in the movie.

I’ll fully admit that this is a nit-picky sort of review. And I’m picking at it because it doesn’t fit with my preconceived notion of how I think the movie should be. But I totally understand why the changes were made — they needed a more obvious villain (Ozy) and they needed a tragic figure that had to be sacrificed (Dr. M). Some side storylines had to be edited for time. So overall, it was very well done, and I’ll give them props for keeping the spirit of the comic book.

If I had to give a score, I guess I’d give it 4-star movie rating and a 3-star Comic Book Guy rating.

Brandon and I spent Valentine’s Day weekend at Hotel Tomo, a boutique/budget hotel in Japantown in San Francisco. It is owned by Best Western, but it is definitely not a typical Best Western hotel. There are murals of Japanese pop art everywhere, the lobby has a vending machine of Giant Robot t-shirts, and each hotel room has a Fatboy beanbag plus a game controller.

As you can tell from the few camera phone photos I took, the hotel room has a very modern yet homey sensibility. I love the yellow bedspread, the green table, the Ikea furniture, and the cool Do Not Disturb card. There weren’t a lot of amenities and the bathroom is pretty small, but everything was clean and the bed was comfortable, and that’s all I really want from a hotel room. There’s also free Internet, but I didn’t bring my laptop. As for the rest of the hotel, almost every surface (doors, walls) was painted in vibrant colors. The people who work in the hotel are also really friendly and helpful.

It was around $129 a night for a Deluxe King bedroom, which isn’t too bad considering it’s in San Francisco. Of course, seeing as it’s in the heart of Japantown, we were close to a lot of restaurants. Brandon and I went to Izumiya for the first time, and only waited around 10 or so minutes for a table (On Valentine’s no less). We both had okonomi-yaki, a Japanese pancake made with flour, vegetables, and eggs, plus your choice of meat or vegetable. The restaurant is quite small and crowded but we could still hear each other and carry a conversation. We also spent a lot of time walking around the Japantown mall, checking out Kinokuniya, and buying snacks from the Nijiya market.

It’s funny, but even though I’ve been to Japantown before, it’s a whole other thing to actually feel like you’re living there, even for a day. I felt transported. And the cool hotel helped.

(Originally posted on my Tumblr)

But sometimes.. just sometimes.. I come across a PR email that’s so inane, and ridiculous, and.. well.. just DUMB, that I can’t believe someone actually took their time to write it. Here’s one that I received recently, and I’ll leave it up to you to decide if I’m just being oversensitive here:

Dear Nicole,

[Insert introduction of said person plus the company he or she represents. It is a public relations and media firm specializing in technology. They have lots of cool clients.]

You have been in our database for some time now, listed as a writer for the CNET.com. That said, and to be entirely honest, we are not aware of your areas of interest. (Emphasis mine).

In better streamlining our communications with you, it would be great to understand your interest areas. That way we will ensure our communications with you are both targeted and appropriate.

Thanks for your help,
[Insert name of PR person]

So wait. They have me in their database (How?) and then they email me to ask me my areas of interest… Wow. How lazy can they be? Is this standard practice, to email journalists to ask them what their “areas of interests” are? Haven’t they ever heard of, oh I don’t know, web search? Maybe they could bother going to CNET.com and look for my name? Maybe they shouldn’t just chuck any ol journalists’ name into their “database” without appropriate information? What is this bullshit?

Well kudos to you, public relations person, for being honest. For that, I salute you. But.. boy, next time, do a little research instead of sending off the email, huh?

PS. Also, “the” CNET.com? That is totally a form letter. Boy they ARE lazy.

Anyway, in the press release of these Paris Hilton games, is this quote:

“[We are] dedicated to increasing mobile game offerings to female and casual gamers and we are thrilled to have Paris Hilton on board”

“Female and casual gamers”? Uh, what? So… female gamers are different from regular gamers? We like games about jewels? We’re not into “male games” that have like, what, sex and violence? And why is it “female and casual gamers” as if casual gamers aren’t also female? We don’t play Solitaire and Hearts? That phrase is just so weird and misleading in so many ways.

Besides, if there’s a game made about Paris Hilton’s *real* lifestyle, I suspect it’ll be more of a “male game”. Hey, I can make gender generalizations too.

Maybe I’m being hypocritical about this — I’ve pretty much handed my life over to GMail. It’s Beta. Should I be scared? Maybe make backups of it? How do go about making backups of GMail? The implications! How much do we want to be a part of an ever-evolving system and never see a final product? Is it about the journey and not the destination? Maybe the industry needs to stop trying to develop cool and interesting applications just because they think it’ll sell? Can money not be the bottom line? Also, is it possible to mingle in a launch party without trying to promote one’s selfish interests? Can it actually be possible to use a social networking application NOT to try to be more popular, but just to meet new people? Is it possible to utilize one’s blog not for self-promotion, but for self-disclosure? Is there life outside of the Internet?

I don’t have all the answers. But the answer to that last question is: Yes. Yes, there’s life outside the Internet. Even in the heart of Silicon Valley. And you’re a fool if you don’t live it.

It’s all just. too. much.

Here’s a quick and dirty way to tell the difference: take a look at the URLs of linked stories. If the story URL starts with http://wired.com/news, then it’s a Wired News story. If the story URL starts with http://wired.com/wired, then it’s from Wired Magazine.

The only reason I am saying this now is because I am becoming a little tired of seeing people citing their sources incorrectly. When a story is from Wired News, they attribute to Wired Magazine, and vice versa. It’s an easy mistake. I understand. But now that you know the difference, please don’t repeat it. I am an English and Journalism double major — citing sources incorrectly is a pet peeve.

And if you leave a snarky comment with something like “Hey! Have you seen so-and-so story from Wired News” and link to a Wired Magazine article, I will SO delete it.

Well I want to get rid of that latter notion right off the bat: there is really nothing of that sort in the film. Yes the two cowboys do engage in passionate lovemaking, but it is not nearly as graphic as everyone seems to think it is. There are only flashes of skin, and whatever nudity appears on screen is not graphic at all (Honestly, it could even be PG-13 except for a few seconds here and there). This movie is about love, not sex. In many ways, the plot of this movie is extremely conventional and generic. The one thing that makes this story interesting is that it’s two men instead of a man and a woman, which of course reveals several other interesting twists that are, well, kinda predictable.

I won’t reveal too much of what happens in the movie, though if you’ve watched the trailer, you probably already know most of it. But I will say, that despite the predictability and generic feel of the plot, the story is nevertheless compelling. Much of that is due to the complete believability in the heartache of the two main characters. I forgot they were Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal; for those 2+ hours, they were Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist, intertwined in a heated affair that gripped their hearts and souls. This is thanks to fantastic acting, not great writing. In fact, the movie is slow-moving for the most part, with long periods of silence littered with a few unnecessary scenes. Dialogue was few and far between, and much of it didn’t really convey the emotional gravitas I was expecting. The real emotions went unspoken — Ennis’s quiet brooding, Jack’s sad, angry eyes — which again, show how important acting is to this movie. The supporting characters were good too; the wives and children show another side to the two men that seemed to emphasize their inner frustrations.

All in all, it was a pretty decent movie. It tugged at my heartstrings, but it didn’t leave me in tears, so take that how you will. Maybe the best thing I could say about this movie, is it shows same-sex love in a positive light — that it’s valid, genuine, and real. Which may be just the wake-up call the world needs.

FBi Fingerprint Biometric Identity Drive
[RETAIL: $79]
With a name like FBi, I expected this 2-Gbyte USB flash drive to be as secure as Fort Knox. It comes close. I calibrated it to the prints on a couple of my fingers. And, soon after, I was unlocking the drive’s secret storage by flipping it the bird. As a bonus, it held my Web logins and passwords (autofilling forms in a browser — but only Internet Crap-lorer). Even though it nicked its name from the US agency, I’d say it’s perfect for the evil villain who needs to hide spy photos or world-domination plans. Sometimes it takes a couple of swipes before it can recognize your digits, but I prefer an overly cautious print reader to one that can be fooled by Gummy Bear copies of my prints. Now, if only it had friggin’ lasers. — Nicole Lee

Now, I did write a lot of that. But as is common with these things, some of the information was edited for clarity and humor. Which I don’t mind, because a lot of times, it’s better and funnier than the stuff I originally wrote. For example, “Internet Crap-lorer” was not in my original draft — I just said the drive didn’t work on Firefox, which I found sucky (because me likey the Firefox). But I liked the twist the editors made by harshing on IE, because, well, I really do prefer Firefox over IE, and it’s a nice humorous sarcastic touch. Only a few other small bits were changed, like the Gummy Bear line, and the one about lasers. All in all, very typical Gadget Lab tongue-in-cheek humor stuff. Which I felt was close enough to what I originally intended.

But I guess some people can’t take a joke. Because this is the message I received from this “Your Imagination” dude (who, by the way, has ZERO information on his Yahoo!360 profile, and who REFUSES to receive messages. Frecking coward.):

Why I No Longer Like Wired

Your Wired Gadget Lab review of the FBi Fingerprint Biometric Identity Drive was not worthy of a high school newspaper.

I take that back. It WAS worthy of a high school newspaper.

Your play-on-words, substituting “Internet Crap-lorer� for “Internet Explorer� was hardly witty. Because it was used to express (what I imagine is) your opinion of the Microsoft product, it took me a while to figure out what, exactly, you were talking about. Who are you? Am I expected to already know that you have a dislike for Microsoft Internet Explorer?

You may write for a “avant-garde� or “cutting edge� magazine, but seriously, please try to write like a professional or go back to school.

And your reference to an eight-year-old movie… How “cutting edge� is that?

Or at 30, am I just falling out of your target audience?

I know, it’s easy to criticize, but I hope you’ll find it constructive?

Sincerely,

Your Imagination

Sweet guy isn’t he? So let me tackle his criticisms one by one.

First: Gadget Lab is an extension of the magazine. It’s supposed to be quirky, off-the-beaten track, kinda like a blog in the sense that it’s about expressing unvarnished opinion, with some humor thrown in. If you’re expecting some kind of professional New York Times-esque product review, you’re looking in the wrong place. This is supposed to be like a fun email newsletter thing, not some stodgy Mossberg review. If that makes it fit for a “high school newspaper,” that’s one mighty fine high school.

Second: Like I said, the Internet Crap-lorer bit was not mine. But that said, I don’t mind it being there. Because WIRED’s target audience would most likely already know what it refers to. Seriously, you figured it out, didn’t you? Do you honestly think most people out there who are even mildly into the Internet won’t know what it refers to? As for whether it’s “witty”, who the heck made you the witty police?

Third: What the hell eight-year-old movie are you talking about? I have no idea what movie this is. I was just talking in generalities about spies and lasers and stuff.

Dude, I appreciate you taking the time to actually write this point-by-point criticism. I really do. It’s entirely your opinion and your prerogative to dislike something I wrote (heck, many people probably do). But could you at least have the balls to put your real name and address to your messages? And at least allow messages to be sent to you so that I don’t blab about this all over my blog?

Although, I have to say, if your only criticisms of the review is that it said “Internet Crap-lorer” and made an obscure reference to a movie I don’t even know existed, I think I did pretty good. Thanks for the vote of confidence.