I've realized what it is that attracts people to anime more than anything else. It's not the vibrant colors. It's not the unrealistic action. It's that the characters are different from one another. Yeah, they use a lot of stereotypes, but one thing I've noticed when watching a lot of American shows is that when two characters are talking to each other, it feels like one character's monologue represented by two actors. They're two different physical entities, but the words coming out of their mouths could easily be interchanged with each other.

Not all American shows have static characters. There's plenty that have diversified characters. Discounting ones based on comic books, Sex and the City comes to mind, as each character has their "role" in the group. The Sopranos, keeping in mind it's a mafia show, has character diversification. I'm sorry to fans of Stargate, but that show didn't. The characters in that show either have attitude A or attitude B. Yeah, so they're not all the same character with a different actor, but there's still very limited character diversification. Honestly, I don't watch TV much anymore, so I can't really name shows. However, if you were to find a script for a show, remove all the character names from it and read it, even if you were familiar with the show you'd be hard-pressed to tell one character from another.

Now, not all anime has good character diversification. Also, you don't find a lot of original characters in anime. You've see them before in all the other shows, just with a different appearance (and maybe a different voice). So, yeah, Japan's got its cookie cutters for characters. The thing is, they've got a lot of them, and they don't use the same one 3-8 times per show. Maybe they'll have two or three characters that are very similar, but it's not a common occurance. Typically, you've quite the variety, and if you were familiar with a show, and someone said that a character did something, you'd be able to guess which character it was pretty easily.

Maybe it's just animated shows in general, though. I mean, look at The Simpsons. Hundreds of characters, few are similar to each other. Family Guy also has good character diversification. Aside from the fact that Peter and Lois are modeled after Homer and Marge, they've got a different set of cookie cutters, although Family Guy does much fewer characters. Also, if you watch some of the kid shows, there's good character diversification there. What is it about adult live-action that can't manage this? Do they write a line and then roll a die to see which character says it?

Well, that's just my observation. You may notice it, too. You probably will now, at least.

Okay, so I've seen a few movies lately, old and new, and I'd like to give brief reviews of each of them now.

The Golden Compass - It's a fantasy tale in a world that is similar to our own but different in many ways. It follows the idea of that whole parallel realities thing. The story follows a young girl who basically has a divining device. The story isn't actually about the girl, though. It's about a complex political plot that I can't really explain without spoiling the movie. If you've seen it, then you already know what it is.

The movie was entertaining. It didn't have any noteworthy flaws, although I've heard many people criticize it for not having an ending. I guess they don't realize it's the first part of a series. It's fairly evident that it's "to be continued" at the end of the first movie. The special effects are good, although the CG is noticeable (not as much as in most other movies that use it, though). It's also very scenic, and I don't mean in a Peter Jackson "here's another shot of a mountain" way. A lot of the scenery was created in CG, so it's all very pretty. It's a movie worth seeing in the theater.

Beowulf - I saw it in 3D, and it's really worth seeing in the theater in 3D just for the experience. In the regular theater, there's a limit to how much stuff can jump off the screen at you, because there's that bounding box called "the screen". While watching Beowulf in 3D, you really notice how small the screen in your local theater is. And you always thought it was so big. The story and CG are both decent, and it's probably worth seeing just for them, but if you can see it in 3D... I mean, when was the last time you saw a movie in 3D? If it shows on an IMAX theater near me, I'm going to see it again.

Death Proof - Last night I watched one of the Grindhouse movies. This was easily Quentin Tarantino's worst film. Basically, it consisted of two acts, each unrelated to the other, and each consisting of story arcs that neither went anywhere nor were connected in any way other than the characters in them. Much of it is really just pointless. The conversations they have aren't even thought-provoking. Aside from the hot girls and action scenes it was a pretty dull movie, and I'm the kind of guy who goes for dialogue movies. It just didn't have much of anything going for it. It's like he had an idea for a movie, but didn't know how to make 2 hours out of it.

Stardust - This is a romantic fantasy adventure. It's got the whole "portal from our world into a fantasy world" cliche, but unlike most films that use that plot device, it doesn't show off its world like it's such a great thing. The characters that go from our world into the fantasy world don't act bewildered by the sights they're seeing. They really treat it like it's normal to them. I find that to be a redeeming quality of the movie. I've had enough of the ooh's and ah's from such fantasy films, where the director really wants to show off this fantasy world he's created in a manner that abuses the characters' intellects.

I don't want to get into the plot of the movie so much, as that's a lot of the fun of the movie. It is indeed a fun and entertaining movie to watch. The characters are amusing to a degree, but you're not really going to fall in love with any of them. There's no annoying side characters. There's no child characters. There are suprisingly humorous moments. Most of the movie could be described as "cute" in regards to occurances, not so much appearances. It's always cute when the star is glowing. I don't know about those of you who have seen it already, but every time she glowed, I just thought "She got laid." Yeah, I know she didn't, but why else would a woman glow?

Marie Antoinette - I admit, I haven't finished watching this one. Right from the opening credits, this movie didn't sit well with me. It has a very 12-year-old-girl style and feel to the opening credits. It's also got poppy alternative music, which really contrasts an 18th century setting. I like Kirsten Dunst because she's cute, but I could've more easily bought her as a southern-California cheerleader than Marie Antoinette in this movie. Well, that was the accent she spoke with. I noticed that nobody spoke with an appropriate accent, actually. They're French, they shouldn't be speaking with an English accent. I could deal alright if everyone just had American accents because at least then you'd know they weren't trying in that department. After about a half-hour of feeling awkward wathcing the movie, I had to give it a break. It's too bad, really. The other Sofia Coppola movie I saw, Lost in Translation, I really liked. Oh well.

Well, that's all for this run. I'm going to be watching some more movies soon, so I'll have some more reviews up eventually.

I saw I Am Legend last night. The movie was based off a 1954 book of the same name. While it's the only movie adaptation of the book to bear its name, it apparently seems to be more based off the second movie adaptation than it is off the book itself. Also, there were a number of changes made, including updating it to take place in a modern setting. The story in the book takes place in the 1970's, and the movie takes place in 2009-2012. It's not a surprising change, really. It only makes sense to update it to be more current.

The time change isn't the only change. For one, the vampires in the movie aren't "vampires" anymore. They're just diseased humans who posess vampire-like traits. Neville (the main character) doesn't use garlic, crosses, or wooden stakes to ward them off in the movie like he does in the book. Instead, he uses more practical means, like automatic weapons and bombs. The diseased humans, called "dark seekers" in the movie, are, however, hurt by sunlight. It's not specifically sunlight, though, it's the UV radiation. Another difference is that in the book, he hunts vampires, while in the movie he does not. The major differnece between the two is the ending, and how the story got its name.

Well, I could go on about the differences, but you probably haven't read the book, so it won't matter much to you. Actually, I haven't read it either, I just read the Wikipedia article I linked to above. So, instead of a comparison, I'm not going to write a proper review as if it was an original movie.

I Am Legend is about a man who is living alone in New York City. When I say he's alone, I don't mean he's a single male living in New York City. I mean, there's nobody else in New York City. Everyone died. You only get to see New York City, but presumably most everyone in the world is also dead. A virus that was meant to cure cancer ended up killing off 90% of humanity. Less than 1% of humanity was immune, and the other 9% ended up turning into vampire-like mutants who killed and ate most of the 1% who were immune. How many survivors there are is unknown, but Robert Neville is managing just fine. He's got a dog and a schedule he sticks to. He also hasn't seen another normal human in 3 years, when the virus hit big.

One of the things I like about the movie is how, within the first 2 minutes of the movie, you're in post-apocalyptic New York. They don't do the typical dull back-story that nobody really cares about. There is a back story, but it's mostly glossed over in speech and flashbacks. You get what you need, and that's all. Almost the entirity of the movie is Robert Neville surviving in New York City, and trying to find a cure so he can fix the people who became "dark seekers".

The movie is not fast-paced, but it's not slow, either. Also, it's not a horror film. It spends little time dealing with the dark stalkers, and gives a good amount of time to the many other aspects of the story and the character of Robert Neville. It's not filled with creepy moments, and they don't take cheap shots at the audience with "startle" effects. I always hate those. So many filmmakers think that startling and scaring are the same thing, and they're really not. That aside, it's not a scary movie. It doesn't try to be, either. I don't know if the marketing people tried to make it seem like it was, but I didn't really know anything about the movie until I saw it. It has Will Smith in it, and he hasn't let me down yet, so if his name's in the credits, chances are good that I'm going to see it.

The main verdict here is that the movie is good and worth seeing. It's not an effects movie, so don't worry about missing it in the theater. I liked seeing it in the theater except for the guy sitting in the row in front of me who kept text-messaging on his phone until I told him to stop. Seriously, if you're near the front row, don't keep opening your phone. There's people behind you who can see that. I asked him nicely, though, and he didn't open it again. I was glad, because I didn't feel like getting nasty. All things considered, provided you have a decent setup at home to watch the movie, it would be just as enjoyable viewed at home as it would be at the theater.

That's it. I'm done. I don't think I'd make a good professional movie critic, anyway.

So, I had a lot of work to do at Anime USA. It was a lot more work than it's been in previous years for some reason. Thinking back, I've always had help with the signs from random sources, and this year I didn't, so that's probably why it was so much more work. Well, that, and there were a lot more signs to put up, and I had to buy and assemble easels, and also we had banners for registration this year. Next year I'm going to recruit another person to be on signs staff. Well, the point of all this isn't so much to whine, it's more to explain where my back pains have come from. I was running around so much doing so much stuff that my legs felt like they were going to snap in two. My legs hurt so much I didn't really notice the back pain so much. Steph helped me out with the back pain Friday night by giving me a targetted massage (she just worked the area that was hurting), and that made the back pain go away, but there was nothing could be done for my legs. So, all weekend long, my legs were killing me. So, the part of all this really gets me, is the following Monday, me legs were fine, and my back has been killing me ever since. What the hell?

So, yeah, my back's been bothering me for a few weeks now. I didn't understand it, because I've had lower back pains before, and they've always gone away on their own within a week. These pains have persisted. I finally figured out why.

I've noticed that the back pains have been getting better while I'm at home, but then while I'm at work I'm still in a lot of pain. I noticed this to be odd, and I've finally discovered that the "ergonomic" chairs we have here are actually causing the problems. They're supposed to be good for your back, but they're not. Honestly, I don't think people who make chairs even understand the word "ergonomic". They think it's a fashion or something. "Your chair's ergonomic? Is it Calvin Klein?" Somehow "ergonomic" has become synonymous with "designer".

That's not what ergonomic is supposed to be, though. If a chair is ergonomic, it's supposed to be good for you back. Have it bend into your lower back and then lean back at the top, and not even going up to the shoulders for support for the upper back, that's not going to help your back at all. It actually hurts the lower back. The chairs using this design are the reason I've still got the lower back pains. If I could use my chair from home, I'd be fine. I changed my chair from the "designer" one with the webbed back to one that's got foam padding on the back, and that's better, but it's still designed the same way, just instead of forcing your back a certain way, it's more a nudging. I actually feel better when I'm slouching.

I think it's stupid that people are paying all this money for these crappy chairs that aren't even actually good for your back. Flat-backed chairs with padding that support your shoulders are probably the best chairs for your back. That's what I've got at home, and I feel just fine sitting in that chair. I come to work, and as if talking to accountants who don't know how to do their job wasn't bad enough, I have to writhe in pain and misery sitting in these crappy chairs. At least I found one that's padded.

I do wish my chair at home extended up a bit higher so it could support my head. Sometimes my neck hurts, and not having that support is really bothersome. I haven't really been looking, but when I was in Office Depot and Staples last month, I did look at their desk chairs, and none of them were tall enough in the back. I'll probably have to go to a high-class store to get one. The problem is, those people always have leather seats, and I don't like leather seats. Gar.