After finally recovering from the hilarious hangover of The World’s End, the internet rumor mill could at long last turn its attention back to trying to ferret out who will be donning the iconic insect-controlling cap for Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man, which he co-wrote with Attack the Block director Joe Cornish. After the Comic-Con test footage made its way past S.H.I.E.L.D. censors on to YouTube earlier this year, fans have been clamoring for more info about Wright’s Marvel-verse debut, and it appears that soon they’ll have their answer.
According to Variety, Marvel has set its sights on two actors in particular: Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Paul Rudd. Based on these choices, it appears the director wants less of a hulking action hero a la Chris Evans or Chris Hemsworth, opting instead for quippier, wise-cracking types… although, given JGL’s protein-packed physique in Don Jon, he can clearly beef up if the role demands it.
Sources have indicated that both the actors will meet once more with top-tier Marvel execs before a decision is reached. Word has it that there may be a third mystery actor in the mix, but smart money is on either JGL or Rudd going home with the prize. Considering Henry Pym/Ant-Man’s relative obscurity to the movie-going public, anchoring the film around an A-lister like Gordon-Levitt or Rudd makes total sense. They would offer up two very different takes on the troubled scientist, but in my heart of hearts, I’d be okay with either (but Rudd is my #1 from this casting pool). I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that Nick Frost will live up to his promise to me that he’d be playing the Mighty Thorax, though…
What do you make of this casting news? Who would you like to see play Pym? Let us know in the comments below or hit me up on Twitter!
The short review: A compelling character study with a solid script and anchored by a pitch perfect cast, Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut, Don Jon, offers up a money shot of a movie with heart, humor and personality in spades.
The long review: Let’s be honest – at first glance, Don Jon does not sound like a movie I have any interest in seeing. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Jon Martello, a musclebound Jersey meathead who is called “Don Jon” by his friends for his seemingly preternatural ability to pull down a different girl every weekend. But, for Jon, real sex isn’t fulfilling; he likes it all right, but nothing compares the glitz, the glamor and the sheer escapism offered by Internet porn. That’s right, good old pornography. The film’s original title, Don Jon’s Addiction, made it sound a lot bleaker than it is, but Don Jon surpassed my expectations and turned out to be an amiable, humorous look into a man who leads a hollow life and tries to fill it with something equally empty and hollow: pornography.
It’s a slick, well-directed debut for JGL, who pulls triple duty by writing, directing and starring in the film, but fortunately, he’s anchored by a simply stellar cast, including Scarlett Johansson, Tony Danza, Julianne Moore, Glenne Headly, and Brie Larson, and a savvy use of music and sound (courtesy of Nathan Johnson, brother and frequent collaborator of Looper/Brick director Rian Johnson) that elevates the film even when the script doesn’t rise to the occasion. For some, the film may seem a bit too formulaic or by the numbers, but I found it to be heartfelt, human, and a moving piece of romantic comedy, especially in light of its, shall we say, unorthodox subject matter.
The film makes ample use of running gags like the sound of Jon’s laptop ominously booting up and one including Brie Larson — that I won’t spoil here — that gives the story ample laughs and audiences repeated reasons to chuckle even when things take a turn for the saccharine. Gordon-Levitt has proven himself to be an actor to watch in recent years, but with Don Jon, he has given us many more reasons to be excited about his work behind the camera in the years to come.
I’ll leave you with this fun fact: Joseph Gordon-Levitt hand-picked the porn for Don Jon. That right there is the mark of a true artist dedicated to his craft.
Don Jon is in theaters now. Did you see the film? Let us know what you thought in the comments below or tell me in person on Twitter.
(UPDATE: The screening is all booked up. Man, that was quick. Thanks- hope you made it in!)
You’ve seen him cheer on celestial beings in the outfield. You’ve seen him have his heart broken by Zooey “500 Days of Summer” Deschanel. You’ve seen him kill Bruce Willis in the future. You’ve heard him on the Nerdist Podcast. And now you can see Joseph Gordon-Levitt make his directorial debut in Don Jon, a film which he also wrote and in which he stars alongside Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Tony Danza, Brie Larson, and more. JGL plays Don Jon, a modern day Don Juan and meathead who suffers from a crippling porn addiction and a deep, resounding sense of emptiness in his life. A pitch-black comedy tinged with moments of genuine honesty, Don Jon finds Gordon-Levitt taking on the role of a gym rat Jersey Shore-style meathead and digging deeper than the spray-tanned exterior.
And now, if you’re in the Los Angeles area, you can see it absolutely free on Tuesday, September 10th at the Cinefamily Silent Movie Theater at 7:30PM, hosted by yours truly. That’s right – come join me at Cinefamily for a free screening of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Don Jon. (UPDATE AGAIN: All booked. Thanks!)
Need more convincing? Check out the trailer below:
Will you be joining us? Let us know in the comments below!
A surprisingly large swath of the cast of the Dark Knight Trilogy has a history of teen comedies in their filmographies. From Heath Ledger and Joseph Gordon Levitt in Ten Things I Hate About You to even teen comedy staple Anthony Michael Hall (he played news anchor Mike Engel), the cast has the history to make for one epicly angsty teen comedy. That’s exactly what the folks at Movie Clips Trailers have created in their parody trailer Gotham High. Cramming as many bat-characters into Gotham’s public school system, see where Selina Kyle and the Joker may have first crossed paths with Victor Fries and Pamela Isley. Were Bruce Wayne and Ozzie Cobblepot on yearbook staff together? Did Bane really need to be put in super secret Saturday detention? So many questions and one awesome video to start providing some answers.
If you want to get even deeper into the teen melodrama of Gotham High, we also recommend Jeffrey Thomas’s interpretation the Dark Knight’s high school escapades, also called Gotham High.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt stops by the show talk about the benefits of learning a dead language, his love for Dungeons & Dragons, and playing a character who is trying to assassinate himself in Looper, out in theaters now!
Elephant, meet room. It’s well-known by anyone with an interest in such things that Rian Johnson and I went to college together. If you read my interview with him for this site earlier in the year, you know we’re friends (though I won’t claim we’re besties or anything like that; nowadays we run into each other more often in professional than personal capacities). But if you know much about Rian, you might also know that he’s the type who would insist on my bringing the best critique I have to the table, and who at Fantastic Fest challenged the crowd to unravel his story logic if they could; he’s an affable guy I’ve never seen genuinely angry. And if any of this discounts what I’m about to say in your mind, so be it.
I’m not going to claim that Looper is the best film of the year. But I will say it is easily the best Rian Johnson feature to date (I specify “feature” because I think it’s possible some of his hilariously weird student shorts were better); so much so that I hope he sticks with sci-fi for a while. I will also say that if you’ve already decided to see it, it’s best to go in cold. The trailers, thankfully and surprisingly, have most certainly not revealed the whole plot to you, and some of the revelations will unfold best to you if you can remain unsuspecting.
Still here? Than we will proceed, possibly with some minimal hints of things to come. If there’s one thing that links all three of Johnson’s features to date (the others being Brick and The Brothers Bloom), I would say it’s world-building: he constructs the movie’s reality from scratch, which in this case is a future both 32 years hence, and also 30 years subsequent to that. There’s a good deal of attention to detail – aged furniture in the year 2044 is decorated with the kind of star shapes popular in tattoo art of our current year, for one. And when it comes to time travel rules, we may quibble with his interpretation, but it is consistent – Terminator rules apply, which means this ain’t 12 Monkeys for Bruce Willis: one-way trips back from the future only (that’s not the only common factor with Terminator, but more on that later). But a rule occasionally seen in Doctor Who applies as well – one’s own timeline is the prime one and cannot be retconned, i.e., this movie’s present may change its past or future, but the present is the prime timeline and won’t be rebooted. I’m trying to dance around giving away too much, but like Terminator 2, you can tie yourself in knots thinking that the incidents which unfolded should have undone everything if a traditional interpretation is applied.
You know the gist of the story – organized crime in the future (the 2074 future) sends victims back to 2044 into a cornfield (Twilight Zone reference probably not accidental) to be assassinated by waiting hitmen called Loopers, a group to which Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Joe belongs. Generally after 30 years, one of their masked victims will turn out to be their own future self; a process called “closing the loop.” Yet when future Joe (Willis) zaps backward to be killed, he is unmasked and prepared, and escapes. Following as it does an incident prior in which another Looper (Paul Dano) let his future self get away, it brings the hammer down on young Joe, who is now targeted by his own people, while old Joe plays T-800 in the past, trying to eliminate those responsible for his wife-to-be’s death in the year he came from. And as incidents progress, he finds his memories changing.
Side note: for years, I had a big problem with Blade Runner. I loved the massive futuristic vistas and the large oppressive L.A. of the future, then felt disappointed when much of the subsequent action took place in dimly lit interiors. That issue has melted away for me over the years, but I couldn’t help feeling similarly in Looper, where a fantastic city of tomorrow is revealed, yet we spend most of the movie’s second half in and around a visually uninteresting farmhouse owned by Emily Blunt. It’s seeded in the story early on, in the film’s most creative and original sequence, that the mob of today has an amputation doctor on staff, yet we never really come back to him/her. And writing frequently forces character action (this is a common difficulty I have with Rian’s features, though generally less so in this one) – it has one of the more egregious “movie sex scenes” in recent memory, where the leads fall into bed simply because they’re the leads and it’s what such characters should do, not because it feels like they organically would do it.
Right. Those minor issues aside, let’s focus on what Looper does well, which is most things. The wordless montage that reveals future Joe’s life in leaps and bounds. The way Jeff Daniels menaces precisely by being deliberately anti-menacing. The bait and switch meaning of “Be at.” The almost irrelevant telekinetics, who can only levitate coins. And far from least, the way JGL effortlessly channels a young Bruce. In my geekier daydreams, I imagine this is an unofficial G.I. Joe sequel in which original Joe goes back in time to become Cobra Commander.
Best yet, for a sci-fi movie with action elements – calling it an action movie might be overstating things, despite what the trailers imply – you don’t know how things will resolve. And if you think you do, based on what you’ve seen so far, trust me: there’s a major x-factor of which you’re not aware.
Awards talk is way premature. But giving a solid, mostly original genre entry its due praise is not. Now, if you’ll excuse me – my hairless future incarnation is knocking at the door. Something about Rian Johnson wanting to kill us thirty years from now when he finally discovers this review….
I first encountered Rian Johnson on the radio — we were both USC cinema students at the time, and worked on the student radio station’s entertainment staff, which entailed regurgitating showbiz news from other sources (the Internet being in its infancy, this was easier to do and get away with), and coming up with comedy bits for a free-form program. Rian’s genius with words was apparent then, but his abilities as a filmmaker have grown greater.
Following an early look at the trailer for Looper, I caught up with him to discuss what had been shown; Now that it is available for all to see, our subsequent conversation over scotch and grape/goat-cheese pizza can be revealed:
Luke Y. Thompson: I liked the tweet you put out a while ago where you said Looper is the third installment of your “I made three movies” trilogy, because everybody always seems to say that such-and-such a movie is the latest installment in so-and-so’s trilogy of whatever…
Rian Johnson: Yes, the “Set on the Planet Earth” trilogy…
LYT: But if you look back on all three of your movies, do you see any commonalities between the three thematically, or do you have that distance yet?
RJ: I don’t think I have the distance yet. I don’t even really think I have the distance from The Brothers Bloom to be able to sit down and watch it yet. I’m not a neurotic person in that way, but it is actually weird after being so close to something for so many years. You have to step away from it for a while. I don’t know, I also am not sure how much thinking about your own stuff in that detail, how healthy that is. I think it might be better to just keep moving forward, and if you’re lucky enough to make enough of these things, maybe down the line someone’ll figure out what the common thread is, but for now it’s kinda whatever’s on your mind at the time.
LYT: I’ll tell you one minor common thread I’ve noticed…
RJ: Whattaya got?
LYT: You can’t sum up the plots in one sentence.
RJ: That I will take [laughs]. Much to my chagrin, as I was doing the TV press line, because they would say, “What’s the movie about?” and then, as the sentences wore on and on, I just could see that it was bad television.
LYT: Do you ever have studio people say, “You need to simplify this log line; we don’t get it”?
RJ: Well, no, luckily, I haven’t worked with a studio yet so I don’t know what that experience would be like. This movie, Sony’s putting it out, but it was these companies Endgame and Film District that financed and made it, so I haven’t really had to deal with it on that level yet. I’ve been incredibly lucky in terms of having quote-unquote “executives” who are really creative people, who just are really supportive and have taken risks on these movies.
LYT: What is it like doing these press lines, answering the same questions over and over and trying to be enthusiastic every time like you’re saying it for the first time?
RJ: You know what? I really enjoy it. It’s bizarre, and maybe at some point, again, if I get to keep doing it maybe I’ll stop enjoying it, but I actually really like it because today is basically the first time I’ve talked to people about the movie who aren’t in the movie or working on it, and there’s a real process where you learn how to talk about the movie. And so, doing interviews over the course of the day, it’s really interesting to me, the process of refining how you answer these questions and figuring out how you talk about it, and in a weird way, you start to define what you made for yourself, if that makes any sense? You start to boil it down, and in a bizarre way it defines the movie for you after the fact, talking about it over and over and figuring out what the thing is, I guess. It’s strange.
LYT: So on that note, do you think that the best interview to be had with you is the first one, or the last one?
RJ: That’s really interesting. I think the last…Well, I don’t know. I would hate to have the first interview, because it really is like a thing where you haven’t learned how to talk about the film yet, and you in some ways haven’t processed what the film is for you yet. So in that way I think the last interview is always the best, or if not the best, the most focused. Maybe the first interview is the most interesting, because you’re floundering, but the last one is always the one where you know specifically what you think about the movie and how to say it.
LYT: Another commonality I’ve noticed, certainly between your first two movies and maybe this one, is that you create a completely new world. They’re not set in our world, but more stylized worlds, it feels like.
RJ: Yeah, yeah.
LYT: And I feel like the people who don’t get your movies feel like that puts them at a distance from the characters, and the people who do like the literary-ness of it. Is that a conscious thing on your part, or just something that happens?
RJ: No, it’s not conscious at all, and I have to say, I think for Brick and Bloom it’s a really accurate description. For Looper, in a weird way, it’s less so; I think the way that Looper is stylized is mostly in a science-fiction way. It’s set in the near-future, it’s built around this time-travel concept, but unlike Brick, which had the weird language everyone talked in, or unlike Bloom, which was about storytelling so it was told in this very deliberate storybook-type fashion, Looper is much more straightforward. I figured, because we have these big time-travel concepts that we’re working with, we needed to ground it. So in that way it’s maybe less so what you’re talking about. Maybe not. I dunno.
LYT: I always figured after the stuff we did on the radio in college that you’d be making comedies.
RJ: But, I don’t know, I think that…
LYT: I’m not saying your movies don’t have funny elements…
RJ: Yeah, yeah, I guess so. I’d love to make a comedy someday. But yeah, God, what was the…
LYT: You were sort of the proto-Stephen Colbert, before he was.
RJ: Is that true? Oh my God…
LYT: Yeah, on our radio show The Master Debate, you were always playing the crazy right-wing dude, calling everyone socialist bastards.
RJ: That’s right! I completely forgot about that.
LYT: Last time I spoke to [the host] Kyle Yaskin, he was actually a working actor. You should hire him.
RJ: Are you serious? I gotta get in touch with that guy. Kyle Yaskin – and this HAS to be included in this interview, by the way, this whole thing about Kyle Yaskin who nobody knows – Kyle Yaskin wrote short scripts for our screenwriting class about talking dogs that literally had me laughing so hard, like, I would be the one chosen to read his script out loud, and I would be laughing so hard I couldn’t finish. I couldn’t breathe; I had to leave the class. He is one funny motherfucker.
LYT: I try to find him on Facebook occasionally.
RJ: I’m not on Facebook any more, man, I quit it. But I don’t think I ever figured out how to use it. It’s cool, though, because it feels like social networking, the way word gets out via Twitter these days is hard to manufacture or control, which I like. I like that it is people getting genuinely excited about stuff and telling their friends about it.
LYT: I noticed that Joseph Gordon-Levitt has talked a lot about how he imitated Bruce Willis; did Bruce Willis try to imitate him at all in return? And tied in with that, Bruce Willis has a reputation for sometimes steamrolling over directors – was he difficult to work with in any way?
RJ: No, he didn’t. It was really Joe taking on Bruce’s mannerisms, just because Bruce is so iconic, it made a lot of sense for us to kind of wrap Joe around Bruce instead of Bruce around Joe. And I had heard all those stories too; I didn’t know what to expect going into it, and I had a fantastic experience working with Bruce. He was just awesome. Not only was he wonderful to work with and a super-cool guy – we had a really good time – but he was so into the part and so focused on it, he really worked his ass off, man. He really dug into this part; I’m excited for people to see the performance he gives in this. I think he’s given some fantastic performances on film and I’m really excited for everyone to see what he did in this.
LYT: I have to say, for all the talk of Joseph wearing makeup to look like Bruce Willis, I didn’t notice it, it’s that subtle.
RJ: Good. It is, it’s fairly subtle, that’s the thing. It’s just enough. Our approach was that we were going to pick a few features and change those; we’re not going to totally transform him. We didn’t want, I mean, I enjoyed Dick Tracy in that the makeup is something you’re staring at the whole time, but for this character, we wanted it to be something to blend in, where you almost forgot about it during the course of the movie. Dick Tracy is such an outmoded reference, isn’t it? But it’s such a good movie. Gorgeous movie. What else ya got?
LYT: Well, you probably can’t answer specific questions about the time travel, but I was going to ask the South Parkquestion: is it Terminator rules, or Back to the Future rules?
RJ: It is Terminator rules. It exists as a technology in the future, and the time machine sends whatever’s inside it back, but doesn’t take itself with it. And actually the first Terminator is the best, that’s the template that I used in terms of how to use it even in the plot: just figuring out a way so that it sets the story up, sets events in motion and gets out of the way.
LYT: So does he become his own dad?
RJ: [robot voice] I cannot reveal any…[normal voice] He becomes your father. Specifically. LYT’s father.
LYT: According to everybody I meet, that would be Darth Vader.
RJ: Wowwww. Yes. Holy shit. I didn’t say it, but I agree with it.
LYT: So, you talked about how cracking the time-travel thing was like using the secret ingredient on Iron Chef. What was the secret to finally cracking it for you?
RJ: Well, I don’t want to say that I cracked it; There have been incredible movies already done with using time travel. But the approach that I figured out, that I decided to take with it was, basically, accepting that time travel doesn’t make sense. It’s never going to make sense. You’re never going to build a series of rules about time travel that make sense that you can incorporate into a two-hour movie and still have room for the amount of plot that I wanted to have. I’ll qualify that as I always do by saying “unless you’re Shane Carruth and a genius.” But I’m not, and so my approach was it doesn’t make sense, so my job as a screenwriter is to do some misdirection so that the audience doesn’t notice it doesn’t make sense. And so, the Terminator structure really helps in that the technology exists in the future, so all your people in the present don’t understand the technology. And then it’s just a matter of figuring out how to use it in the way that the plot needs, and let it get out of the way.
LYT: One thing I’ve noticed lately with John Carter and movies like that is that when you make a big-budget genre movie with a plot that’s complicated in any way, people who have no problem with something like The Tree of Life will complain that it’s too complicated. Is that something you worry about at all?
RJ: Well, but how about Inception?
LYT: It got the Christopher Nolan pass, I think.
RJ: I don’t know about that.
LYT: But Inception was also quite clear about its rules. Average moviegoers who don’t want to analyze too deeply could still follow it.
RJ: But see, there, I would say that there’s a difference between something that’s smart and complicated, and something that’s poorly told. And I think that something that’s smart and complicated makes sense. I think audiences are hungry for that. I think at this point, a smart, complicated, well-told movie where you understand it by the end but it’s taken you places you didn’t expect… I place a premium on that, especially when I go to big movies. I think too often “convoluted and confusing” is something that to me is poor storytelling – that’s not a good thing. And so I like to think that the notion of something that is complicated is not something that’s incompatible with being a big movie.
LYT: It seems like there are some filmmakers who deliberately leave out information so audiences will have to work for it, and sometimes there are some who over-explain things – is it a tough balance to come by?
RJ: No, I think you just have to – it’s tricky, because you can get really close to it yourself, it’s hard to know what an audience is going to understand and not understand. But I think ultimately you want to hit the sweet spot: everything has to serve the story, first and foremost. So if you’re intentionally doing something to confuse the audience, if it’s not directly because there’s something very integral to the story where the audience needs to be confused then but they’ll be caught up five minutes later, that’s a mistake, I think. At the same time, I think it’s just as much a mistake to – and this can happen when you start getting into films where there are too many cooks in the kitchen, where people start worrying, “will they understand this, will they understand that,” and you end up over-explaining everything, that’s just as big a sin. So it’s this weird process where you try and find the middle ground. And to a certain extent, it takes rolling the dice, saying we understand this, we’re going to bet that an audience will follow it also, you know?
LYT: You’re actually name-checked in the trailer, which is cool and rare for a director – even with Tim Burton movies, they don’t always say the name, they say, “from the director of Batman and Beetlejuice.” So how cool is that?
RJ: It’s pretty cool. It’s probably because I’ve never made anything as recognized as Beetlejuice or Batman, but it’s pretty darn cool; This is new territory for me. Like even at WonderCon, sitting up in front of that huge group of film fans… this is the first time around for me.
LYT: How was that whole convention experience?
RJ: It was awesome. I was doing interviews for most of the day, and then we went into the panel, and did the panel, so I had a very limited experience of it, but the energy in that room was pretty incredible, y’know, just feeling how many people who are jammed into that space together because they love movies and because they want to see this stuff about movies that they’re psyched about. This is the first one I’ve ever been to. I’ve never been to Comic-Con, even as just a moviegoer.
LYT: That’s ten times the size.
RJ: I’ve heard. I think we’re gonna be there.
LYT: It’s also interesting that every questioner clearly knew their stuff about your movies, which doesn’t always happen at these panels.
RJ: That’s true, man, that was really encouraging.
LYT: So how was directing all the action in this? That’s obviously got to be a big change. I mean, there’s a little bit of action in The Brothers Bloom, but this looks like a whole new level.
RJ: It was so much fun. I mean, in the way that everything in this movie is bigger than Bloom or Brick, our resources to make it bigger were also there, and so for me it was like getting to play with a new box of toys. In reality, the basics of what you do with an action scene, like the sequence in Brick where Brendan is being chased by the guy with the knife through the high school, you know, that’s very similar to a car chase through a city, just cinematically and in terms of how you keep the audience oriented, how you cover it, how you build tension, it’s really the exact same fundamentals – just bigger toys. And none of that is difficult, because you have the big support group of a great crew who knows what they’re doing, so it was really comfortable and I just had a lot of fun.
LYT: Did you choreograph them yourself, beat by beat? Some directors have other guys do that.
RJ: Oh yeah, yeah. That’s the fun part. You can’t give that up. There’s a lot of great second-unit directors who do terrific action sequences, but no, that’s the part I really enjoy.
LYT: What’s the next thing you’d like to tackle? Another action movie? Go back and do another small movie? Or something completely different the next time?
RJ: I’m figuring it out right now. I really, really loved working in sci-fi, and that might be something I try another thing in, but I don’t know. I’m cooking a few things right now, assuming this isn’t a massive disaster and I’m never able to make a movie again. We’ll see.
LYT: If your editing instincts are anything to go by, you’ve got quite a sense for horror [Johnson was an editor on Lucky McKee's May].
RJ: You know what’s weird? I love Lucky’s movies, I love Chris Sivertson’s movies, I loved working on May [but] in my heart I don’t know if I could make a horror movie. I don’t know if I have the gut for it, because really good horror, by its very nature, is something that’s disturbing and dark, and I just think I might be too big a pussy to make a really good horror movie. I don’t know. But God, I admire the people who can.
LYT: Will your next movie be in 3D?
RJ: Uhh… not if I can help it. I don’t like 3D; Just personally, as a moviegoer, I don’t like it. And I know that a lot of filmmakers are really excited about the potential of it, and are exploiting it in different ways that seem cool, and I get that, I think that’s awesome – I don’t want to say it’s bad for anyone else’s movie, but for me, I don’t like how it looks.
LYT: Is part of it for you having to put glasses over glasses?
RJ: No. I don’t care. If it looked awesome and I had to wear glasses, I wouldn’t care; I would think it was great. I just don’t think the technology is to a point where it makes a better-looking image. I think it just looks like shit. Yep.
Looper‘s new trailer is available on iTunes as of today.
Nerdist is a place where we nerds come together and share the nerdery that we find. It's also my home to various elements of the Nerdist Empire. You might recognize me from TV. You don't realize that's where you know me from, but it is. You think you went to college with me or I look like your cousin's friend, but that is not the case. At one time or another you stumbled upon me on your moving picture box in such cerebral gems as MTV's "Singled Out" and Noam Chomsky's "Shipmates." and so much more...