Wil Wheaton - Articles - Zimbio

He's always there when I need him...

Thu, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 GMT

posted by in-between
There is a man who shows up just when I need him. When my day is long and I'm tired and I don't want to talk to any more people, there he is. With wit and humor and that spark of a teenage crush that bubbles up in me whenever he arrives my way....

Yes, that would be Wil Wheaton. The very same Wil Wheaton who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: Next Generation. I know, Jean Luc Picard was the sexy leading man of the series (sorry, Johathon Frakes - that whole looking just like William Shatner was a farce) but I was in my early teenage years when the show was on and I had a mad crush on that boy wonder...

Now let me explain here. I'm not a trekkie, nor even a superfan. There were never any Wesley Crusher posters on my wall. But I am a bit of a geek lover. I have had the privilege over the last ten years to work with some of the smartest, funniest, and interesting geeks on the planet. And I have learned more than you could possibly know about quarks, neutrinos, and other mind-boggling trivia than was safe to expose my puny brain to. So when there is something that I can add to the conversation - like knowledge of Star Trek - I jump in with both feet. (I proudly exposed my knowledge of 7of9 on July 4th to the thrill of one of Mike's friends).
There was one particular geek that I worked with who turned me on to WilWheaton-dot-net which has now morphed into Wil Wheaton in Exile. It is amazing to see how this childhood actor (who is also a geek) has grown up, pursued other interests and how he shares his view on life and politics. So, when I need a break in the day and want a little brain candy I look it up. Take a look if you are interested and share in my geek love... if not, then I will keep him alllllllllllllll to myself.........

http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/

Wil Wheaton profiled for GEEK Magazine

Sat, 6 Jul 2008 01:43:56 GMT

posted by thekevinpipe
Bonnie sez, "I recently interviewed actor, author, gamer and blogger Wil Wheaton for GEEK Monthly Magazine and thought you all would dig learning more about his books, Secret of NIMH connection and what he's doing in the latest GTA game."

You’ve been fairly vocal about the idea of director J.J. Abrams wanting to reinvent Star Trek. Obviously, it’s difficult to work on a beloved franchise and not get some kind of backlash from the die-hard fans. Are you excited or apprehensive about the next phase of Star Trek?
It’s something we’ve all heard before—”Long time fans of the franchise are going to be served and everyone is going to love it. But people who have never watched Star Trek before will also have fun. Even if you hate science fiction you will love this film. This movie is perfect for everyone!” And it just becomes this marketing thing.
But the people working on this next film have a very unique and daunting challenge. Star Trek is a phenomenon that spans generations. It has one of the most passionate, entrenched fan bases in the history of media. The truth is, over the last several years, Star Trek was run into the ground and the franchise was nearly destroyed by the films and the television series that were not being guided by a good hand.
J.J. Abrams is a pretty good filmmaker. Cloverfield and the first season of Lost were great. So you have this guy who’s really creative and has a pretty good track record of making science-fiction related programs and you put him in the right seat and say, “Now fly this franchise and recreate it.” The pressure that he must be under to deliver something magnificent, and the amount of studio interference must be enduring, has got to be nearly indescribable. So I have a lot of sympathy and understanding based on those things.

Link (Thanks, Wil!)

In Which I Explain How Wil Wheaton is Being a Dick*

Thu, 9 May 2008 17:18:00 GMT

posted by slag
As a periodic enjoyer of Wil Wheaton's blog, I have been pleased with the fact that he and I support the same presidential candidate. Nonetheless, karmic justice is more important than loyalty, so I feel the need to call Wil out on a recent post he wrote about the Democratic primary candidates. He started the post talking about why Obama is his president and how Clinton has been a major let-down during this campaign, all of which I'm totally on board with. But then, he goes on to extol the hilarity of a post he found through Reddit called, "Hillary Clinton: the Psycho Ex-Girlfriend of the Democratic Party." The title says all we need to know about the post for this discussion.

After that, Wil writes the following:

And allow me to just head something off right now that's already come up on Twitter: I'm not sexist. This isn't sexist. That's a stupid straw man, and if you try to make that claim, I will point and laugh at you.

So, it looks like there are two definitions with which Wil is unfamiliar. First, let's look at one of the definitions of sexism:

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

Second, let's look at one of the definitions of straw man:

2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

If there is anyone who thinks that comparing Hillary to a psycho ex-girlfriend is not exhibiting "attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles," I have one question for you: Why is that funny? Seriously. If sexism weren't an integral component to that comparison, no one would get it. If Hillary were a man, would that comparison even come up? Would he be the "psycho ex-boyfriend"? No. Because we don't think about males in those terms. A stereotypical male corollary would be something like, "Unable to Admit He Can't Find His Way to the White House, Hillary Still Refuses to Pull Over and Ask for Directions." That is an equally sexist statement (yet, oddly enough, is one that would never be made for any male candidate).

So, now that we've easily refuted Wil's "this isn't sexist" straw man argument, let's move on to the bigger picture. I'm going to do some of the men out there a favor and let you in on a little secret. Your egotistical behaviors and attitudes are getting fairly tiresome (<--See? That was a sexist statement.). The fact that Wil said he's going to "point and laugh" at me for explaining that he's wrong about something is a case in point. It is possible--I know it's hard to believe--that, in general, women may know a bit more about sexism than most men do. I know we've been told, directly and indirectly, throughout our lives that men are more serious, more rational, more authoritative than women, but sometimes, it just ain't so. Sometimes, men are wrong about stuff. And that's ok.

As we've seen (in the previous paragraph, for instance), women aren't the only ones subjected to sexism. Stereotypical gender roles, and the cultural status levels based on them, can be harmful for everyone. For instance, when a Clinton supporter praises her "testicular fortitude," he is magically demeaning both Clinton and Obama simultaneously. Unless Hillary has undergone some major surgery recently, she has not acquired testicles. And the implication that she needs them in order to be strong demeans her as a woman and as a president. And implying that Obama doesn't have them is equally demeaning to him both as a man and as a president. So, sexism works both ways and can be bad for everyone (and anyone who views testicles as a symbol of strength, let someone kick you in them, and you'll see how strong they are).

So, rather than making a "this isn't sexist" straw man argument, a more honest statement might be, "this is sexist, but I don't care." And there is a case to be made that comparing Hillary to a psycho ex-girlfriend really is a benign, albeit sexist, act. Since Hillary's entire presidential campaign has been fraught with sexism inside and out, we can discuss the possibility that we shouldn't worry about directing more gender-based stereotypes her way. She and her campaign staff and surrogates have felt free to employ them when they work for her, so maybe she should also have to put up with them when they don't. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But when you have to throw away one of the defining characteristics of sexism in order to make a claim that your argument isn't sexist, you're insulting the rest of us. Which means you are, in fact, being a "dick".

* I generally don't use genitalia as an insult (for obvious reasons), but Wil's blog tag line is "Wil Wheaton says, 'Don't be a dick!'," so I couldn't resist.**

** Has anyone else noticed that I've been using asterisks in my titles a lot lately? I wonder what that means.

One and One: Actor/Geek Wil Wheaton

Tue, 26 Mar 2008 13:39:03 GMT

posted by franz

In One and One, Game|Life asks a member of the gaming industry two questions: one about gaming, and one about something completely random.

Although Wil Wheaton is perhaps best known for portraying ensign Wesley Crusher on the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation, he has always been deeply involved with the world of videogames. He's done everything from hosting the videogame show Arena, to voice work for games like Ghost Recon 2 and GTA, to delivering a memorable keynote at PAX last year. He recently published his third book, The Happiest Days of Our Lives.

Do you think it is possible videogames will ever achieve the sort of widespread and universal acceptance of movies? What has to happen in order for a game console to become as commonplace as a DVD player in the average home?

Wheaton: I think the greatest barrier that videogames need to overcome is the cost. Anyone can get into a movie for under $20. However, to play a videogame, you need to invest hundreds of dollars in the system and anywhere from $20 to $60 for the game. It's a trade off, of course, because most movies are around 90 to 120 minutes while the games with great narrative storylines (Bioshock, GTA: San Andreas, Mass Effect) can last between 90 and 120 hours, and can be replayed differently many times.

There is also a fundamental difference between the movie and videogame experience that can't be overlooked. Movies are very passive experiences: we sit down and hand over control to the filmmakers for a little while. We have no say over what happens, and not a whole lot more at stake than our money and our time.

Videogames, on the other hand, are by their very nature interactive experiences that, among other things, test our reflexes and problem-solving skills. With the advent of sandbox games, we can explore entire worlds in ways that simply aren't possible in movies, and a good game gives us the opportunity to invest a great deal of time and energy into it. I personally love that, but it's clearly not for everyone.

Finally, there's the generation and technology gap. My kids love video games and would much rather play a multiplayer game online or at a LAN party with their friends than go sit in a theater and "just watch a movie." The boomers and a surprisingly large portion of Generation X just don't understand the language and conventions of gaming, and are intimidated or disinterested in our culture. They're more comfortable in a movie, and they still outnumber the kids in the Millennial Generation who are indoctrinated into gaming culture from a very young age.

Until the barrier to entry is significantly altered, and the growing caricature of gamers as either foul-mouthed teens or psychotic misanthropes is stopped -- which is unlikely, because opportunistic politicians have seized on it as the latest version of the Satanic Panic -- I doubt videogames will reach the level of popularity and ubiquity that movies currently enjoy.

However, my kids have grown up in a world where they can take broadband internet and 100 hour single player campaigns for granted, so as they get older and hit their twenties, I think we'll see videogames reach parity with movies. I doubt they'll ever overtake them, though, because there are a lot of people who just want to sit back and enjoy the ride, rather than holding the (joy)stick.

What do you have on your person (i.e. in pockets, backpack, whatever) every single time you leave the house, without fail?

I put a 3x5 softcover Molskine notebook and a ballpoint pen into my back pocket when I get dressed every day. It's as automatic as putting on my wedding ring. I carry it with me because I never know when I'm going to get a story idea, or see something that I could incorporate into some future work. It's also handy for playing hangman with my wife when we're waiting for the subway.

Photo courtesy wilwheaton.net

Dose: Photo Gallery Wil Wheaton as Wesley Crusher in Star Trek:...

Tue, 4 Jun 2008 09:12:06 GMT

posted by jtfmulder

Image

Dose: Photo Gallery

Wil Wheaton as Wesley Crusher in Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1987.

I was surfing the TV and I noticed that SCIFI is now showing Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes.

posted 1 day ago