Ok. Enough is enough.

There is a lot of bully culture surrounding Morbius. Some people who thrive on bully culture want to mock the movie endlessly. Look, find a crappy movie to bully. Morbius isn’t it.

In the interests of honesty, I’ll admit Morbius one of my three favorite Marvel characters. Had a subscription. Dressed as him for halloween twice as a boy.

I’ve tried watching the reaction videos to it. Recently, I watched a reaction video where a couple decided they were going to suspend judgment on it, and watch it fairly. Decide for themselves.

Throughout the movie, they kept commenting, “That scene is FIRE!” Certain scenes they deemed awe-inspiring. The Mercenary killing sequence, for instance.

At the end, they said the only two things they felt were wrong with the movie were the transition from child to adult was too jarring, and the ridiculous after credits scene.

One scene they said they didn’t understand was why Martine licked her lips as she died, after Morbius kissed her goodbye. That’s easy to explain, and I’d say the director missed out on how long the scene would have to be to allow the CGI operators to portray the effect.

Morbius was bleeding when he kissed her. A drop of his blood landed on her lips. She licked up the blood, knowing it would bring her back from the dead.

Explained. Questions?

After credits scene: undoubtably ordered by the Sony to tie in a future sequel. It didn’t ring true to Morbius, and everyone picked up on it. Morbius is not a villain per se, but a tragic hero.

Now, if a couple who decided they were going to be fair to the movie kept describing it as “Fire”, then Morbius is not a bad movie. It must therefore be fairly good, merely marred by a couple of problems.

One problem is the “joke.” The accusation has been made industry wide that movies are rushing to incorporate joke sequences into otherwise serious movies to get a cheap laugh. The Star Wars franchise is guilty of this, and may be the source of it.

A movie where a man is dying and trying to find a cure for a disease that requires daily blood transfusions is serious. When his cure backfires and causes him to murder a group of mercenaries for their blood and he only finds out when he reviews security cameras – there’s not a lot of room for joking in there.

Morbius never was much for humor. He was a serious man caught in a serious predicament, and make serious choices – such as killing his enemies so that he wouldn’t kill an innocent civilian for their blood.

I don’t know whether Leto focused on including the jokes, or if they were scripted. Morbius was never light hearted, and portraying him in such a way cheapened the movie. This may be what all the fuss is about. The “I’m not that kind of vampire” joke, along with “I am Venom…” fell flat. The “Stinky pinky” joke actually did work. I could see Michael Morbius clinically identifying every bone in your hand as he broke them one by one. The couple doing the reaction video reacted well to that scene. “Man, that is COLD.”

Let’s analyze one scene that really was important. Michael’s transformation. He is going through convulsions as the bat DNA is affecting him. A lost moment for dialog there: “You need to hurry.” Would have tripled the tension, if followed with, “Go, go!” and Martine running for the door.

After he kills and drinks the first mercenary, Martine calls through the glass. “Michael?”

He turns with a guttural snarl. The two honest reactors went wide eyed.

Another reactor (another channel) burst out in laughter at the scene. His co-star looked at him in surprise.

Okay, maybe you didn’t get it.

Michael is now part Vampire bat. The Beast within him is in control. There’s only one way he would respond. A turn and a snarl. If you’re part of the bully culture, you’ll be looking for any moment in the movie to laugh at. But-there’s nothing remotely funny about the scene. Michael killed the man so fast he probably didn’t know he died. Martine just tried talking to him, and sees a horror respond with violent aggression. He freezes when he sees its her. We don’t kill Martine.

I’ll say this part was missing from the original Morbius, but I applaud its inclusion. It makes the movie and character more tragic. Morbius’s transition was one way originally. He quite simply had the Vampire bat face and pale white skin forever at that point.

Ok. Let me deal with the single most cringe-worthy scene.

Milo’s dance.

It establishes the absolute evil of Lucian/Milo. But I mean, it gets established quickly in other ways. For crying out loud, the dance should have been cut. It’s cringe.

What did Morbius need?

Make Milo more powerful. More threatening. He was not large enough in scale. The audience gets a minor victory when Morbius wins. They were asking for a MAJOR victory. So make Milo much more powerful, so that we fear for Morbius.

And the ending scene was just too fast. Milo weakened by the bats, and Morbius stabs him. Where’s the drastic punch-punch-punch slam Milo into building beams kind of fight?

Give me the budget, the script, Jared Leto and I can deliver a blockbuster. Morbius was very good, but viewers were hoping for legendary-and I think this is where the criticisms lie.

Please don’t say Morbius sucked. It’s actually, as the reactors said, a very good movie – 7 out of 10 was their rating. And so little work to have earned the ten stars!

The post In Defense of Morbius appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

I thought I’d post this, because apparently some people have no idea how to do informal debates on Twitter/X. Sorry, I’ll probably always call it Twitter. Yes, I found the need to post this, because apparently a lot of people don’t know how to do an informal Twitter debate.

Of course, you have to be concise beyond a fault, because Twitter has a character limit.

Since I’ve had VERY good exchanges with people on Twitter, and certain people have shown they don’t know how to have an intelligent dialog, I decided to write this guide.

Breaking The Rules

If you do certain things, you end the debate. Not only do you end it, you automatically lose it. Insulting people (“You’re a special kind of stupid…”) ends the debate automatically in your loss. Resorting to hatred, hate speech or hate behavior costs you the debate. This especially includes Antisemitism, like the guy who wanted to post every Jewish person on line and make me apologize for their choices or behavior. Sorry, not going to defend Howard Stern. It would be as wrong as me posting every Gentile online and demanding they apologize for their behavior. Understand, I will not engage in racial hatred. I ask the same of you.

Knowing the Rules

Be calm. Don’t flame.

Be respectful. I want to respect you. I’ve had VERY good discussions with people online who were respectful and even friendly. There was a really nice Atheist online years ago who called himself Atomic Mutant who was not only respectful, nice, intelligent, but astoundingly funny. Man, I miss that guy!!!

Make your point. Please. I want to interact with your argument.

Know your material. Not only what you’re trying to quote and making sure you have a correct citation, but if you quote “protocols of Zion” or the long debunked “Khazar theory” you’re going to do really poorly in the debate.

Be certain of your sources. There’s nothing that derails a good discussion like someone who quotes a book they read by someone that makes faulty argumentation, cites untrustworthy sources, randomly cherry-picks facts , etc. Like the books by the guys who say “Fiction writers by law have to write things that are true, and Middle Earth and Hogwarts are real behind the Antarctic Ice Wall, and Microsoft and Gulf Oil have to hide this from you based on international law.” Yes, someone has argued this with me.

Allow the other to respond. Wait your turn.

When they’re done, move on to the next point.

What actions cost me points in the debate?

Abort, Retry, Fail arguments. For those who never dealt with DOS machines and floppy drives, this was the error you got when you forgot to put a floppy disk in the machine. “Drive D: not ready – Abort, Retry, Fail?” The acronym is ARF.

What is an ARF argument? That’s a repeating of an argument when asked to defend the argument. “The Housing Market is crashing.” “Interesting, can you point me to statistics showing this?” “I don’t have to, because the housing market is clearly crashing.”

You didn’t lose the debate, but in your interlocuter’s mind you just lost points.

“Challenging my narrative rage.” Prevalent in political arguments, this is when someone believes an argument emotionally but has no basis for defending the viewpoint logically. This usually is present when you suffer cognitive dissonance, the holding of two incompatible or contradictory beliefs, and the interlocuter challenges this resulting worldview of the incompatible beliefs.

If this happens to you, stop. Calm down. Examine the argument. Examine the cognitive dissonance in you, and ask yourself if you’ve been brainwashed, or if there’s validity in the other argument? I encountered this recently when someone challenged the Electoral College concept. He managed to ensue narrative rage and ARF arguments both at the same time.

Mis-Citation. Doesn’t impact you too badly. You can recover if the opponent points it out with a “Sorry, yes, you’re correct. Thanks. Had a brain burp.”

Wikipedia/Snopes quoting. I miss the old Snopes. Used to be great – I used them all the time to prove pop rocks didn’t kill Mikey.. Then all of a sudden they became an outlet for narrative rage by posting mis-information and presenting it as truth. Few debate opponents will accept a Snopes citation anymore.

Quoting Wikipedia as a source is exceptionally untrustworthy – and yes, to my amazement, someone did that to me. Listing a 600 page book as a source proves nothing – because people will list “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (long proved to be a forgery) as a source, and Wikipedia does nothing about it. And if I have an editing account, I can just go in, remove your citation and replace it with “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” instead. If you don’t believe me, try submitting a Thesis or Dissertation to a University (although lately, antisemitism is so entrenched at most Universities now that they’d probably accept a reference citing the Protocols of Zion), and see how fast your Thesis is rejected.

Straw Man Arguments. This is far too common. That would be me arguing Ford beats Chevy, then constructing arguments of “Chevy owners be…” and then demolishing my own arguments. costs you mega points in a debate.

Ad Hominem arguments. This is attacking the person because you can’t answer their argument. One of these seriously imperils your arguments. Two ends the debate in your loss.

Joel Versus Mike arguments. Known among MST3K fans, this is the endless arguments about who is better, Joel Hodges or Mike Nelson? This was settled years ago, people. Mike is better. Leave comments below

IQ Arguments. Dealt with above in the “costing you the debate” section, but I’m going to warn you what will happen if you try it with me. I was tested with the Torrence Evaluation tests and IQ tests by a rival organization to MENSA. My scores were off the charts, and my IQ was pegged at 174. In 9th Grade.

Anyone who tries the “You’re a special kind of stupid” with me is going to be hit with a soul crushing, “My IQ is 174.” Not only did you lose the debate, you just humiliated yourself on the internet. Don’t do this. A lot of people have done just this with me. They’ll tell you there’s nothing more humiliating than seeing that when you’ve got a 100 IQ.

Assigning Homework. Yes, this is a thing. “Please watch my sixteen-part four hour per episode Youtube video series on this argument before I’ll discuss it.” If you can’t make your argument on your own, you can’t debate. I in turn could demand Arminians (people following the teachings of Jacob Arminius) that they read the 1689 Confession, the Westminster Confessions and all of Calvin’s Institutes before we debate. That’s not their job. MY job is to present MY argument. If I can’t do it, I lost the debate.

Standard Conclusion everyone skims or doesn’t even read…

Mike is better than Joel. Avoid the stumbling blocks and disqualifiers above, and your debate should be a friendly and respectful, enjoyable experience!

The post A Guide to Informal Twitter/X Debates appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

One of my fears is this:

I am presented an idea for a novel or screenplay. And right away, there’s ten thousand choices.

Unless I can grasp a strong sense of the story immediately, I have to make choices.

Each choice I make limits the story to something manageable. However, just like my taste in guitars, I can only choose so many things.

What if I choose wrong?

What if the thing I eliminate is the right choice after all?

Here’s the answer.

Make a choice IMMEDIATELY.

Don’t look back.

Write quickly, until you get past the point where you can backtrack.

Or you will sit there indecisive for years.

The post The Fear of Choices appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

Okay.

This is getting old.

I seem to be in shadowban limbo with Twitter/X.

And I’m getting tired of it.

I reported outright calls for the genocide of the Jewish people. All excused as, “They didn’t violate our guidelines.” And then my tweets all suddenly dropped to single digit exposures, suggesting a temporary shadowban because I’m Jewish.

Then from time to time I get labeled a Spammer, and a “Note is placed on my account, limiting my exposure to others on Twitter/X.”

In other words, encouraging other writers to finish their books is somehow spam?

In other words, “you’ve been shadowbanned. And we’re telling you officially.”

All of this is contrary to what Elon Musk’s mission statement for X is. He’s specifically called for Jews to not be discriminated against on X. He’s specifically called for free speech on his platform.

His managers aren’t getting the hint. They’re continuing the very things he’s said he was opposed to.

Elon, you need to clean house. It’s your platform. You’ve made it clear what you want. If your employees are opposed, they’re free to work elsewhere.

The post Getting frustrated With X/Twitter appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

Up to page 13 out of 70. Sorry, can’t give details until it’s greenlit!

The post Screenplay update appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

In talks on a new screenwriting project.

I won’t of course go into details on it until the other party gives consent to talk about it.

I’ll keep all of you posted once I get the green light!

The post New Project? appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

We would do well to remember what freedom is.

The post D- Day appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

I’m a proponent of planning novels… up to a point. Compared to some, they’d classify me as a pants’er.

I write three different sets of numbered lists where I place between a 5-9 word summary of what the scene is.

Once that’s done, I usually (!) can write an entire novel very quickly.

However, every now and then I’ll realize mid-stream that there needs to be an additional scene I hadn’t planned on.

Say somebody buys bad food in scene 12.

Scene 13 has to be them getting sick from the food.

It usually stops me cold mid sentence in scene 12.

No worries. I’ll find a way to compact the story elsewhere.

Be prepared for this, working on your own novels.

The post Sometimes the book requires… appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

If your workflow works…

Don’t mess with it.

Somehow I fell out of use of my old workflow. No idea how. Laziness, I guess. It only took an hour, really, to plan my novels.

The last three novels had little or no planning. And I’ve spotted major flaws that exist in them now.

I’m actually considering updating my 60 point sheet to require scenes dedicated to the Bad Guys.

While advanced readers are saying my latest novel is very good, I’m dissatisfied that I haven’t increased tension enough.

No tension is a dull book.
Share on X

I have two novels that are finished or almost finished, but unsatisfying to me. So I’ve either got to create 60 point sheets for novels that are done to spot where the errors are, or just write and write and fiddle and write.

Do it right, or don’t do it.

Failure to plan is planning to fail.

The post When your workflow works… appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.

Working on the concept behind my novel (working titles Moon and Second Moon, subject to change), I did some research into the concept of Werewolves. Like Vampires, Werewolves can be found in almost every culture’s folk tales, and apparently in every continent except Antarctica.

Probably because there’s no native population besides Penguins there, and we don’t know if they have such a folk lore.

I’m very careful not to say myth, because there are quite a few people in today’s world that literally have encountered beings they describe as werewolves, sometimes as Skunk Apes or Dog Men – but the essential descriptions are roughly similar. Such people who’ve had sightings of these beings would argue against it being mythology. Out of respect for them and their experiences, I avoid using that word. Indeed, in my novels, I use characters who use the term in a scoffing way. To them, it is not a myth.

I discovered that the term Lycanthrope according to some means “Shapeshifter”. Literally a Vampire who can turn into a bat, mist or elemental dust (three traits they supposedly have) would fall under this definition.

The term “Garou”, from the French “Loup Garou” or Wolf Man, would be the more accurate term.

So let’s talk about the Werewolf Apocalypse board game.

I heard about it for the first time an hour ago. This is after I wrote the first novel, and got 50,100 words into the second novel.

I had heard about the Werewolf: Apocalypse computer game. With apologies to the game developers, it didn’t look all that interesting to me. It seems to share the Defiance computer game curse. Defiance apparently was released unfinished to the computer gaming public in the 90’s. It’s biggest drawback was that every level and encounter was – exactly the same. By the time you won the game, you were bored with it because you never really got expanded abilities, greater attack levels, etc. From what I’ve heard about the game, it’s roughly like that.

My decisions on how to structure the novel follows this logic tree.

1. Zev is the hero
2. he is turned involuntarily into a Garou.
3. The garou that turned him is amoral and evil, seeking only to fuel the wolf within by killing and eating men.
4. See point #1. Zev Geller cannot be a villain. What happens then is he is left with two outcomes – refuse to be the wolf (he has no control over this) or eventually take his life to avoid killing.

Now I have to create two or three different groups of Garou. Those who kill, those who do not. Zev apparently is one of those who do not – because he is a hero.

Okay, there’s only one logical outcome of this event. Zev is now engaged in a war between the killers and the non-killers. To give him a fighting chance, I made him physically huge. Contemporary descriptions of werewolves from eyewitnesses describe them as massively muscled, physically powerful, and giant. Over eight feet tall is a common recounting.

So we’ve got a non-killer, young and inexperienced, whose only benefit is that he’s almost nine feet tall. Close to three meters, if you live in some country with metrics.

Kind of not enough.

Just these four decisions led me to creating an entire society, orderly and fairly structured. There would have to be some form of law, and enforcers to keep things in check.

With all these factors introduced, I made Zev the only wolf who can change “At will”. At first, still only involuntarily, but external circumstances can make his super-type A personality manufacture massive amounts of adrenaline, which triggers the change. His playing with it (to make his appearance appealing to a woman he’s got feelings for) leads eventually to complete control over the change, with one caveat – he cannot avoid the change during the Moon.

Distinctions like this (capitalizing the Moon to show its importance) and in the skin vs. in the fur lead me to the creation of the Law, the Liturgy of the Garou for the Lawkeepers, close association with physical wolves, isolation vs. packs, etc. went a long way towards creating my novel for me.

So that’s how I wrote the novel. Some werewolf enthusiasts will be annoyed at the atmospheric moodiness of the novel, and “Why aren’t they scarier?” (because the nail that sticks up gets hammered down – werewolves that kill or “blood” during the moon call attention to themselves and arouse the wrath of man, who will hunt them down and exterminate them). And the Others, who oppose the Lawkeepers, want exactly that.

Once these conditions are put in place, it sets the tone and atmosphere of the novel. Unless you make the werewolf the villain, you don’t get the “Massacre everybody” action.

You do end up with… well, you’ll have to read it.

The last thing to know – someone complained on his werewolf web site that “Stop making them smell like wet dogs. It’s not funny. These things are terrifying.”

Eyewitnesses that claim to have seen Garou describe the smell of blood, urine and wet dog. All of them. Can’t have a hero that smells like pee, so hey- he smells like blood and wet dog. Sorry.

And suddenly I’ve got novels that reek of doom, pain, blood and one massive werewolf who isn’t even done growing yet.

The series is too cool, and I can’t stop playing in it. I might end up with more than just a trilogy.

The post On Using the Term Garou appeared first on Nicholas Reicher.