ViewTube

My book If These Fists Could Talk is now available in both ebook and paperback edition, and so far it's already #2 in action and adventure filmmaking and #2 in "structuralist philosophy" (which you'll understand after reading it!), please grab a copy and spread the word! I'll do a live stream soon to discuss it with you all!

Thanks again! 

You can find it on Amz by searching "If These Fists Could Talk: A Stuntman's Unflinching Take on Violence" 

My book If These Fists Could Talk: A Stuntman's Unflinching Take on Violence is now available in eBook format on Amazon. The paperback will be available in a couple days. I talk all about the early Stunt People days, how I got cast in God of War, how we started SuperAlloy, and how I ended up making a very simple but novel hypothesis on human violence. The book also includes a few dozen QR codes which link to relevant videos.

I'd love it if you checked it out, spread the word, and left an honest review (even 4-star reviews are very welcome!). 

Hope you all enjoy it! 

Coming soon 

Hey I got verified! Now you know I'm definitely not a lizard man, or an illuminati.

... Or am I??? 

Seeking some help: I'm looking for some help making a standard thumbnail for whenever I stream. I know YouTube likes it when the thumbs are uniform. I can do uniform, but I can't seem to make it look nice. I tend to use Adobe Express to make my thumbs; if anyone is willing to lend a hand, I'm happy to give some consulting on action design, research, filmmaking, review your project publicly, etc. Thanks and happy new year! 

In the 70s-80s, the spoof genre worked so well because everyone in the spoof is part of the gag. At the end of Blazing Saddles, Dom Deluise's anger during the "French Mistake" rehearsal works so well because everyone is absolutely deadpan. It's like a Church service, everyone bowing to the sacredness of the medium to convince the audience that what they're watching is absolutely normal, when in fact it's totally absurd. That's the power of the spoof: the audience partakes in an otherwise totally normal ritual, except humans alone know the absurdity of it all, and as a viewer you're rewarded heavily for seeing through the veil. If AI or an alien or a chimp were to watch Blazing Saddles and Stage Coach, they wouldn't see much of a difference. In fact, you could subtly score Blazing Saddles, but change nothing else, and make it into a convincing thriller. 

The spoof genre absolutely worked, as seen in Police Squad, a freaking TV series which perfected the format. If someone watching Police Squad actually thought it was a serious cop drama, that only made it funnier. The joke was on them. That was its power. 

Then something happened in the 90s. Maybe it was TV in the kids' rooms, or the internet, or global distribution, the home video market... But spoofs started making a really awkward and horrible transition to becoming self-aware. You can see this awkwardness in Robin Hood Men in Tights. I know I'll get heat from this since this film is beloved, but the jokes are caught in a weird liminal space; the gags are good, like when Robin asks the crowd to "lend their ears" and they start throwing them. But there are additional reactions like Robin saying, "That is disgusting." Yes, we know that. When Brooks sells circumcisions using a guillotine, it's a great gag, but the crowd reacts all too out-of-bounds; they say it'll hurt, express discomfort. Yes, we know that. And that's where this awkward growth seems to be happening: the spoof actors, and the entire show, is trying to "help" the audience see the absurdity of it all, when the audience needed no such help in the 70s and 80s.

A major turning point was Scream in 1996, but Scream isn't a spoof; it's the opposite of a spoof. It's a refusal to partake in the sacrament of the genre, a "genre-breaker". In a way it's the cinematic expression of religious skepticism. The actors are catching on to the genre's limitations and start to think creatively outside the box they're in. That's hilarious, but that isn't a spoof. The two are fundamentally different religious exercises. The spoof is unadulterated ritual that is made ridiculous so that only the audience can see through the veil, but the genre-breaker is a complete break where the production itself escapes the ritual, and the audience is just along for the ride.

The genre-breaker is still ritual, though, and failing to see this will cause total pain and humiliation to the production. She Hulk couldn't accept itself as ritual, and the final moments when the actress disses on the writers (an actual diss) was a failed attempt to make light of their failure to accept the fact that She Hulk is as ritualistic an experience as any other show.

I don't believe spoofs are dead; people are still as religious as they've always been. People still laugh at Naked Gun. The nostalgia over Men In Tights is evidence that even awkward spoofing is better than no spoofing. But the studio production models are averse to spoofs; they are too "inside" and they fear the audience won't "get it". The studios are engaged in helicopter parenting with the audience.

I was frustrated that my oldest son wasn't "getting" my jokes, but then when he turned 8 something happened; he started getting them all, then started making his own jokes, and sometimes they would slay. I treat my sons like I'd want to be treated, trusting that they'll get the joke. Otherwise I would treat them like idiots,  which is what modern marketing execs and producers tend to do. Maybe they do this because they themselves are idiots and didn't get Police Squad. When we laugh at Leslie Nielson, we laugh at these idiots. They might intuit this; bad humor is their revenge on us. 

I think that might be why we can't have spoofs anymore, at least not on the studio level. Which sucks. 

My book, If These Fists Could Talk, tells the true story of how my novel (and simple) theory of violence nabbed us the contract of a lifetime - God of War Ragnarok - and subsequently flipped the script on the behavioral sciences. Get it next month on Amazon! 

Tatsuya Naka of  ‪@kuroobiworld‬  showing how not to show anticipation in a movement. 

The robot is here. It’s time to take this very seriously from a criminal's perspective. But I'm seeing zero videos detailing how these might be used for criminal purposes, or positing what to do when this happens. 

In fact, people seem more worried that making a video like that would incite some kind of mythical "robot uprising." If that happens, there are probably a lot of people who think that being on the side of the robots would be cool.

That's totally delusional. Criminals will be the first to pander "robot rights" because they will be the first to benefit financially. So in the meantime we need to take the threat seriously. 

If these robots cost $20,000-30,000, then (all things equal) as a criminal I need to rob you of $20,001-$30,001 to make my investment worthwhile. If I can steal your Tesla car, or another one of your Tesla bots, then it’s an easy win for me.

If I can program one to grab your child and demand a ransom, then that’s an easy win. If I can use one to enter your house and hold you at gunpoint, easy win.

If I can program one to enter your corporate office and threaten to detonate, or kidnap your CEO, or steal his/her phone, super easy win. It’s the same thing as ransomware, except now it’s a physical bot that can do lots of physical things to get that much closer to the victim.

When I look up “robot self defense” on YouTube, all I see are Corridor Digital comedies. Nobody seems to be thinking about this. 

We have to assume criminals are thinking about the massive windfalls like these.

The questions in my mind are 1) what can (or should) I do if this thing grabs me or my child? 2) How fast do I have to go to outrun it? 3) How well can it conceal a weapon?

These are the tests I’d be doing asap.

Here’s another problem. Let’s assume I acquire 10 robots from Tesla to test how a civilian can fight one off, attack one, disable it, etc. How long before pro-AI-rights groups flag these videos for robot abuse? How long before YouTube bans me? Would they shadow-ban such information fearing it might incite anger in AI, or an arms race? Again, we should probably be at least testing this.