Live Action: Part 2, Movies

I said earlier that Asian live action media's reputation for cheesy special effects is starting to wear thin.  The increasingly popular realm of dramas has given story-tellers even more room to play.  The Asian market doesn't seem to shy from the sci-fi and fantasy areas like the American market, so live action has seen a lot more of it lately.  Nevertheless, I still find myself a little embarrassed on behalf of some shows I adore, because I really wish they could look better.

On the other hand--while dramas have started to fill the role of cheesy practice fodder for special effects and stunt artists--Asian movies seem to have taken the next step. (The same thing happens in economics all the time.  someone has to fill the bottom rung, but no one wants to stay there forever.) In the same way that I didn't want to watch dramas based on my favorite anime series, I wanted to watch live action movies even less. 

In the American market, a comic book, video game, or novel being made into a movie used to mean someone wanted to exploit something vaguely popular for a quick and dirty script idea.  For a good part, it still does.  There are some exceptions, like Marvel and the newer Batman movies.  As for anime, I liked Speed Racer, but it was crucified before it could even hit the screens, and I don't think I need to talk about  Dragon Ball Z. Astro Boy was still marketed to kids.


For a long time, I had forgotten that the Asian media market is different.  Comics and novels are not an underground, they are auditions.  A successful story is usually a manga (comic) or a novel first. If it is popular or seen in the right light it may become an anime (cartoon) (a novel may become a manga and then an anime).  A successful anime is likely to sprout all kinds of media like video games, drama, audio drama, side stories in novels and manga, and perhaps even a feature length animated movie or live action movie.*

*this hierarchy is rather squishy and has gotten more so recently.  rungs may be skipped or inverted but the old order was always (novel =>) manga => anime =< video game, audio drama, drama, movie. Video games seem to break this order more frequently, as popular video games will often become anime then manga.

Despite this knowledge, my preconception was still that live action adaptations of my favorite comics, video games, and anime were little more than insults to the fans as our beloved fiction was stripped, whipped, and sent out to dance for the masses. So long have geeks and our fandoms been ridiculed and abused that we've learned to instinctually horde them in dark holes and often crawl in after them ourselves.  Whenever "normal" people handle them it feels like our dark secrets and precious treasures are being hung on display and held hostage awaiting approval.  We feel naked and don't know what's going to happen.

As "geek" culture becomes more popular, this is less dramatic.  It now feel more like reckless mishandling of unearthed artifacts than a brutal attack on our lairs and souls, but the defense mechanism is the same: we fear and hate it... and we still feel naked.  Whether it's accurate or not, whether they like it or hate it, we've still lost our shield: their ignorance.  Before if we said " I like D&D or Dragon Ball, they would wrinkle their nose and say "never heard of it." Now they think they have some idea of what it is.  they can attack us for it, or pretend they understand us.  More often than not, even if they like it, they still don't understand it like we do.  And sometimes that's worse. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: being a geek isn't about WHAT you like, it's about HOW you like it.  There are anime fans that are not geeks, just as there are rock-and-roll or baseball geeks.  There are gamers and people who play games.

Whatever the case, when I found the Rurouni Kenshin movie, I couldn't resist.  When you enter a franchise that is that popular and beloved, particularly for BEING GOOD, if you don't make it up to par, you will be crucified.  While the prequel to this article says we should be able to make things even if they aren't done well, I reserve also that some things just should no be touched unless you are going to do it right.  An established series is one of them.

I needn't have feared. The Rurouni Kenshin live action movie was not only an acceptable addition to the series, it was actually a GOOD movie.  Some of it was a little ridiculous in that "you can totally tell this was meant to be an anime" but none of it left me with the feeling that "they should have just left it as an anime."  It's not only started assuage my fears about live action fantasy and anime adaptations, it actually makes me look forward to more.  While Kenshin is not the most magical of series, it does involve a lot of magic-like movement, which was handled very well.

Dramas may not have the money for it yet (or the techniques are still very expensive), but movies are really getting into shape. After all, movies are about 2-hours long, where a drama averages between 10 and 25 episodes (resulting in about as many hours of aired footage).  And for that long, it seems Asian productions at least have learned to balance good dramatic technique and flashy filming extras.

That established, I'm finally going to dare to say this in a public forum with little fear of being cursed by Murphy.  I first realized it-- believe it or not-- while watching The Dark Knight Rises with my friend, but it's come up since then, particularly with the news that Sony Pictures has bothered to copyright some appropriate titles.*

Devil May Cry the live action movie needs to be a thing.

It doesn't need to be a thing like Dragon Ball Z: Evolution was a thing.  It needs to be a thing like Ruroni Kenshin the live action film was a thing.  DMC is, after all, nothing if not fan service.  It's definitely one of those things that should not be done if not to be done right.  Not because it's an established series, but because it's the sort of thing that you only get one crack at.  It's either done right and the right people like it, or it's done wrong and no one will ever touch it again.

So while I'm less fearful, and even eager to so more in this live action format (the pretty actors doesn't hurt this desire), I'm still guarded about it. What has been seen can not be unseen.

*I will not say anything about the Reboot here.  that's a rant for a different time.  Probably for after I play it. And while, yes, the preemptive copyrighting is probably for the later version of dmc, rather than the former, it did bring the issue back to mind.

Live Action: Part 1, Dramas

In the past, when I wanted to watch something, I've tended to gravitate toward anime.  Anime, cartoons, video games-- this kind of animated storytelling is, to some extent, ideal for a "reader" like me that prefers my fiction bursting with magic, explosions, and-- I'll be the first to admit-- pretty (yes, "pretty" is a both an adjective and a noun in my vocabulary).

Just about any digital camera with a decent frame rate can be used to film a good-looking school drama, or neighborhood intrigue, but when it comes to fantasy and science fiction--particularly the flashy, action-y kind-- a director has two choices: find thousands of dollars or make it look really corny.  Sometimes it still comes out to both.

I've been watching more live action dramas these days, as that's the preferred media in Korean language.  The Asians, for years, have held a reputation for not shying away from action and fantasy-- even on a budget.  I've run into some pretty interesting live action shows this way, including fantasy, action, and suspense. But so far, my previous assumptions have remained relatively unchanged.

The fantasies I currently hold in the highest regard, Faith and Joen Woo Chi, still come down to cheesy wire-work and exaggerated hand gestures with awkward-looking computer-generated special effects.  Even on the good end, it looks weird and hokey.  I find myself thinking, "this wouldn't bother me if it were an anime."  and it's true.  At it's roots, anime was invented on the cheap (see Astro Boy and it's 8 frames per second). While I fully acknowledge that heavy action and fast movement in animation can still be costly, whether someone jumps two feet off a chair or fifty feet up a building doesn't make that much difference in your budget and can look just as good.  Someone throwing lighting bolts can look just as realistic as someone throwing a baseball.  Not so when it comes to filming actors performing super-human feats.

City Hunter holds a reputation for being a magnificent action piece. But you can see the money pouring out the ears. Fast-moving fight scenes, death-defying stunts, good wardrobe and set, and not to mention big-name and established actors.  It was developed from an old and popular series and clearly was produced with the high expectations that fact would precipitate.

The suspense genre seems to do the best on field of "we have money to pay good (well, decent) actors and cool original music, but not enough to throw around wild action scenes with special effects." (that's really how expensive it is. EVERYTHING can be top notch, and the budget still wouldn't amount to the money in good stunt work and special effects.) Bloody Monday does a lot of chasing and waving around guns, but the fight scenes are all shoving matches; and a main actor never throws or takes a punch.  That bothered me for a while. At first I chalked it up to the character's personalities, but after a while I expected even the gentle-natured main character to break down and hit someone; not even fight, just hit them.  When it never came to that, I knew it wasn't the writing, it was the technical work.  When they finally did pull out a knock-down drag-out martial arts scene, I knew why they hadn't before, and thanked them for it.  If that show had had the fight scenes it was probably meant to but they were done as that one scene had been, I know now that I wouldn't be able to respect it as much as I do.

So what to do?  Obviously, as with City Hunter, if you have the money, you can make things happen (doesn't mean it WILL happen, but it's possible).  For Bloody Monday, while the content was similar, it was impossible for it to be City Hunter.  In this case, I'm glad that they held back.  Since the focus was on the characters, the story is conveyed just as well when the action is implied. (And to be honest, City Hunter would have been fine too.)  I can see now that I'm much more likely to recommend a good story with no (or little) special effects than a good story with bad special effects (why, is probably an article for another time).

But if we hold fantasy and science fiction to the same rule, we end up with a big problem. Even assuming we only make big budget fantasy productions (like Lord of the Rings and Marvel's various cinema productions), where did those masterpieces come from?  People like george lucas and tokusatsu* artists practiced for generations generating techniques that now look rather silly, maybe did even when they were developed.  Without that base, we certainly wouldn't have anything worth showing now.  As for the little guys, they more than deserve a place, too.

*tokusatsu is a rather unique brand of Asian, particularly Japanese, live-action special effects.  They're used mainly for sci-fi, martial arts, and action productions like Godzilla, Ultra Man, and Super Sentai (Power rangers). It reffers both to the art and the type of production that uses it. In some circles it is even called a "genre" for lack of a better term.

I don't really have a solution, other than "grit and bear it."  I know that I can watch a hokey-looking show and enjoy it for what it represents.  I have to admit, when I recommend it to others, I feel a little embarrassed, but I suppose that's what it means to support something you love.

When I started writing this, I had something completely different in mind, and didn't even know what this bit of it would come out to, but there you go. Maybe I should start a social media movement: "Support a hokey sci-fi/fantasy live action, TODAY!"

To be continued...

"This show knows exactly what it is."

Hey, long time no see.  As if I'd see anyone around here anyway. I really should be doing other things right now, but I rambled this out a few days ago and felt like procrastinating, so it's going here.

~

I frequently use the description that a show/book/game ((from here on I'll reference a "show")) "knows [exactly] what it is." It's a quality that's difficult to define as the it involves first, the circular notion that something "is what it is." But it is pretty recognizable in my book, with a little training.  Generally, this kind of show holds a quality of being cliche and/or shameless, but does so in just the right way. It's cliches then become a reason-- if not the main reason-- for liking it. It also may exhibit some genre-savvy and, in more comedic moments, even reference itself as such in a 4th-wall breaking way. This kind of show was created, not to be profound or original or push boundaries, but to be very good at "what it is."  It ends up excelling at being a confident genre piece and tends to leave a bit of room for thought by the time it's finished.  In a sense, if the show were personified, it would have very high, but modest, self-confidence and would strut the world being itself for all it's worth-- and possibly more.

More often than not, this statement has more to do with characters and writing than production quality, but it shows all the more if the production is good, too. Generally if a show "knows what it is," it's a sign that the production staff knows "what it is" and have consequently put forth the effort to make it the best "what it is" that the show can be.

I think it was first used in my circle ((I think I got the description from one of my friends)) to describe Devil May Cry (game/anime/manga/novel/etc., 2001-present) and Star Driver (anime, 2010).  It applies to things like Highlander (movie/TV/anime, 1986-2007), Firefly (TV, 2002-2003), and Slayers (anime, 1995-2009). I've most recently used it on Bloody Monday (J-Drama, 2008, 2010). I think it can also apply to Mackerel Run (K-Drama, 2007) on the writing and production end, but from the politics surrounding the show and some signs that it may have been prematurely cut, it seems that the marketing and producers themselves weren't quite sure what they were dealing with. Mackerel Run is also an example that something doesn't have to be flashy or expensive to show it's colors.

Faith (a.k.a. "신의" [Shinui] or "The Great Doctor," K-Drama, 2012) could almost be described this way, however, as a bit of a counter example.  Sometimes it knew, and sometimes it didn't. Overall, it either didn't really know that it was "what it was" or didn't want to be "what it was," and lost steam.  "What it was," was a video game/anime-like piece of period fantasy;  what it wanted to be, was a time traveling love story.  One of the reviews on MyDramaList.com states, rather accurately, that Faith "doesn't seem to know how good it is."  It could have been an awesome, super-powered fantasy with political intrigue.  It didn't quite seem to have the courage for that.  In other words, the show didn't want to be itself. Don't get me wrong; it was still pretty good.  But often the most disappointing things are those that were good enough that you know they could have been better. I loved it anyway; if not for what it was, what it could have been... and Choi Young.

In my book, a show "knowing what it is" is a good-- nay, EXCELLENT quality.  It is a point of high praise.  However, these pieces tend to have cult followings, and may be very prone to developing anti-fans, probably most often because of their genre specificity and cliche-ness.  I understand this type of show is not for everyone, but more often than not, it's what I look for these days.

"Dork" Has Become A Term of Endearment

So, the other night, I’m over at my friend’s house. We’re all geeks and this usually comes down to a bunch of us doing our own thing on our own computers. But my friend decides to be social looks down over my screen, studies it for a bit, and says, "Kaaaat, are you reading fanfiction?"

And then the whole room looks up at me with that knowing.

And I look around, then up at her sheepishly, and I says, “Nnnnnoooo..."

And she says, "Are you WRITING fanfiction?"

And I says, "Not at the moment..."

"That's 'cause you have writer’s block, don’t you?"

"Maaaaybeee..."

And then, because she says it so much, I can hear it coming: Dork.

But she knows me used to write fanfiction too, so instead she says, "We love you anyway."

And that's what "dork" means to me.

Triumph! Dan Green IS in Slayers!?

((Haven't been at this in a while, have I?))

Having seen almost three and a half seasons of Slayers now (plus some movies and OVAs), one by one half the cast of Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh have cropped up in this show. But one thing has been bothering me since the end of Next. Between Lord Gaav, Inspector Wizer, and Slayers’ tendency to reuse main character voice actors in minor roles, I could have sworn Dan Green was in this damn show. Credits thwart me time and time again with their “James Snider” as Lord Gaav or Actor Number 3.

I was about to let it drop when Slayers Revolution introduced Inspector Wizer. Surly THAT’S Dan Green. The show is ten years older now and, though they managed to round up most of the original cast, the voicing circuit has changed. That HAS to be him. “NoooOOOoo,” says the credits, “That’s Jay Snyder.” “Oh, fine!” says me. After all, I have been known to mistake Cam Clark for Dan Green, much to my dismay, but NO-LONGER! Anyway...

Wait a minute! “James Snider” and “Jay Snyder,” ten years apart with nearly identical voices? Clearly this is a stage name. Crispin Freeman is also known as Mark Percy, so it’s definitely not impossible. I was convinced, once again, that this was Dan Green in disguise, when my mom watched a few episodes of Revolution with me. She says, “Who is that guy? Why do I know him?” I have two younger brothers, 7- and 14-years-old respectively, each hit by a different wave of the Yu-Gi-Oh craze. I told her the character she was referring to probably sounded like Yugi, and dawning broke over her. My MOM recognised this voice; I note she said nothing of Goury (Eric Stuart). That’s it, I’m looking this sucker up NOW.

Anime News Network hasn’t seemed to catch on to this little game yet. Sometimes they list credits with other names or give “also known as” information, but James Snider, Jay Snyder, and Dan Green are all listed separately. The thing is, the first two only have a handful of credits to their name. I’m a terrible researcher so, to Wikipedia! Da-da-da da-da-da DAAAAA!!! (you couldn’t hear it, but that was a Batman reference.)

Wikipedia says that Dan Green also goes by Jay Snyder, Jack Bean, and James Hadley. It says nothing about “James Snider” but come-on! Look at it! Listen to it! My MOM recognised this guy. Wikipedia also lists Slayers in his filmography: Gaav, Wizer Freion, and Zannafar. Totally called that.

I suppose I could go a little deeper and get some more conclusive evidence than Wikipedia, but I’m lazy. If anyone wants to do it for me or prove me wrong, I’ll accept that. For now, I will revel in my triumph, or at least the fact that enough other people thought the same thing as me to make it fact on Wikipedia.

You can’t hide from me with a stage name, Dan Green! Especially two, nearly identical stage names. Not very creative are you?

Soul Eater - "Guitar vs Piano" or "Guitar FOR Piano"?

11/21/2010

Soul Eater - "Guitar vs Piano" or "Guitar FOR Piano"?

Ohkubo Atsushi's "Soul Eater" is a stunning manga (later, anime) in several aspects. One of the area's I have a particular liking for are it's musical and sound references, puns, and analogies. (Both his series, B.Ichi and Soul Eater, are loaded with these.)

In the musical spirit of this manga, I posted to YouTube my first, and so far only, AMV (Anime Music Video) featuring Soul and Maka to the Goukisan's song, Guitar Vs Piano. It was too perfect; I just couldn't resist.

(Shameless Plug but also for reference-- The video, it's notes, and community commentary can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FjPHoQTv9A)

About two weeks ago, someone going by "Magnenntae" posted the following comment:

"I find it strange that Soul plays the Piano and that Maka plays the Eletric Guitar, only because Soul is more crazy, headstrong and overall unpredictable, while Maka seems more refined and somehow elegant, similar to the piano. I suppose it's only because I expect an instrument to resemble it's musician for some reason."

Stumbling across it again, I couldn't help but respond. But being the wordy person I am I just can't limit it to a comment-- I need an essay. Not that I mean to tear down the comment; it's a good observation and I actually appreciate the discussion. It helps when someone legitimately challenges something I just sort of took for granted and it make for a good prompt. Of course, this is all my own interpretation based on various scenes and facts set forth in the series, mainly the manga.

I have to say, the symbolism of the piano in the series has never bothered me. The piano is a versatile and classic instrument, perhaps THE classic instrument, with a proud history; Soul himself is rather similar. (The manga makes this more clear, going more into his family's history.) It can be played classically, in hard rock, or even in pop; even songs not originally meant for it sound right on it. I'm particularly fond of modern piano, keeping it's sense of class and nobility while maintaining the strength and fullness of modern music. It's also one of the few instruments on which two or more parts can be played simultaneously; one person can play a whole song, both harmony and melody. Yet it still cooperates well with other instruments. It can be featured or can be accompaniment to highlight other instruments, like voice. You get the picture.

One interesting thing is that Soul's family is not a family of weapons; there's no history of the trait anywhere. While we see Soul's piano as a distinguishing or even odd feature, in his family, it's the weapon trait, not his musical ability that distinguishes him-- they're all world-class musicians. (His brother plays the violin.) What's more, his family seems to be classical musicians, but his preference is to jazz and funk*. It just kind of goes to show that even his "cool" personality can be fitted to a piano. It's also been alluded to that his own compositions are less classical but more dark and mysterious, even disturbing. I think he kind of struggles with the disparity between others' image of a piano and his own.

On the other hand, the guitar is only slightly less classic and versatile. An acoustic guitar is only second to the piano in "gateway instruments," especially for musicians interested in or partial to voice. The only real difference for our purposes is the electric guitar, which unlike it's piano equivalent, lends it's own feel to anything played on or with it. See Trans-Siberian Orchestra (TSO) and Savatage. (The two are essentially the same group of people, but TSO is more of an artistic project, while Savatage is more of a local circuit band. Their sound, mission, and technique are similar.) These bands use electric guitars and other rock instruments in some VERY classical music and styles (like Beethoven and Mozart classical), but the sound is very unique and the entire atmosphere is different for it. You could play "Flight of the Bumble Bee" on strings, as originally intended; on a brass band, as in the movie Drumline; or on electric guitars, as in Beethoven's Last Night by TSO. (Incidentally, I don't believe Bumble Bee is Beethoven, but homage is paid to several other artists in that opera.)

This is where Maka comes in. Interestingly enough, Maka is in NO way musical. She doesn't even APPRECIATE music, let alone "understand" it, as she puts it. She can't dance, can't sing, can't play an instrument; doesn't even really find enjoyment in listening to it. Because of this, she is particularly jealous of Soul, but it's also because of Soul that she even cares. She knows that music is important to Soul and wants to find it important as well, if even for no other reason than to understand HIM better.

We also have the guitar-vs-amp analogy. I actually found that analogy more flawed. Weapons are BORN Weapons. We're not sure if the same is true of Technicians, but other Weapons can be Technicians as well (see Liz and Pati). Weapons will be Weapons, regardless of whether or not there is anyone to wield them. At the same time, it seems that just about anyone with half an inclination could be a Technician. This makes the Weapon the unique highlight of any set but since a Weapon can't traditionally wield itself, it's the Technician's job to make them look good. In any extended sense, Soul would be the guitar in that analogy and Maka the amp (except for the fact that they were really trying to illustrate the interaction of the "soul waves" (heehee, soul waves, sound waves; it just goes on), which may indeed originate from the Technician).

Maka gets to deal with this dilemma on a regular basis. If she can't keep up with Soul, he can't fulfill his potential. You wouldn't want a really awesome guitar to sound sh__y because of a bad amp, now would you? You'd replace the amp. And Technicians are, theoretically, SO replaceable. (Yes, I know about the whole Soul-BlackStar thing, so they can't be replaced by just ANYONE, but still can be replaced.) And if Soul simply WON'T replace her, that would make her feel even worse.

In the end, it turns out being a story of Maka trying to BECOME the guitar to Soul's piano. She not only wants to be able to properly highlight him on the stage (BlackStar would be crying right now), but wants to understand him more on a personal level and loosen up a bit; become more wild and "cool" like the guitar.

*an interesting moment in translation is when the kids ask Soul to supply music for their party. Due to the Japanese alphabet and transliteration of certain English words to Japanese, he may have brought "funk" or "punk" which doesn't even amount to a whole letter's difference in sound. (funk = ファンク　punk = プァンク = パンク) Interesting side note, Ohkubo seems partial to metal, himself.

Homophobia = Sexism, plain and simple

11/15/2010

Sociology is always a good topic to make me mad. Or maybe just a good topic to make me depressed at how truly stupid people can get. Gender and sex, specifically. It's one of my favorite topics, but it's also one of the most infuriating.

Since our main subject right now is "inequality" we get to study civil rights and discrimination. As many of us may know, one of the hottest civil rights topics right about now is not race, but sexuality. So, fittingly enough, we watched a 1996 journalism program about same sex marriage.

In this program, I think heard the possibly most blatantly and public sexist statement since the 1960's, possibly 30's. High-ranking official goes on prime-time television and says, "Raising a boy in a lesbian household is child abuse. Depriving a boy of a father is child abuse."

Wait a minute. Consider a few situations, if you will: a single mother-- a widow, no less; a woman raising her grandson; a woman helping her daughter or sister raise a son; and just about any situation that would force a boy to be raised without the presence of a father-figure, sexuality of his guardian(s) completely withdrawn from the picture. Are any of these inherently child abuse? Is this guy trying to say to us that a widow is ABUSING her son simply by CARING for him without remarrying? Basically what this pans out to is that a woman, a pair of women, or even a GROUP of women are simply incapable of responsible and HUMANELY caring for a boy without a man present. But… hold it… who's supposed to be the nurturing gender, the one who takes care of the kids? Oh, right, that's supposed to be a "feminine" role.

So a woman's place/responsibility is to raise children, but she can't do it with out a man supervising her. I can't tell if this is a double standard, a statement to how incompetent this guy thinks women are, or just clear stupidity*. Probably all three.

*(If you look over this scenario closely you find that it is a case of someone being supervised by someone who's considered to be worse at the task they are performing than they are.)

Well, maybe women just aren't good enough to raise BOYS. But, no. Mr. High-And-Mighty catches himself-- he corrects that girls raised in lesbian household are also victims of child abuse. So apparently, women aren't even capable of raising girls on their own.

But don't worry, this guy is a pig in both directions. Apparently, children can't be raised without a mother-figure either. Sorry, single dads, you're all neglectful child-beaters, too.

Honestly, when you think about it, if a child is going to be raised without a dad (or without a mom) shouldn't it be better to have two loving parents and no dad (or mom) than just one parent and still no dad (or mom, as the case may be), loving though they may be. No offense to single parents, and by no means should a child be removed from their loving parent. At the end of the day, if you're going to evaluate family structures, and claim that some are better than others, you'd better be willing to accept the implications. Otherwise, STFU.

The 5 R's: Recreation, Rants, Reviews, Ramblings, and Revelations

11/3/2010

You know, I actually hate alliteration, especially first letter alliteration. You wouldn't know it looking at this blog, so far. I have my five R's, "month of madness," there's probalby more to come. Dominic Deegan (comixpedia) should be plotting my doom right about now.

I guess, I should say I used to hate it. Now, if it's used right (and by "right" I mean, according to my aesthetic senses), I can take it small doses. See, I have this thing about similar sounds or words used in close proximity.

One of my writing professors once said that alliteration and other such structures showed good sentence flow. I feel like it draws too much attention to those items. If sounds, words, or even sentence structure are similar, it feels like they belong together, even if they have nothing in common. When they have nothing in common is when it bothers me the most. If they aren't meant to stand out, they shouldn't conglomerate into a force like that.

That's just me though. My friend reaLLy Likes aLLiteration (see, that's getting too close for me). After HEL (history of english lit), I found that alliteration works really well as a poetic form; it strings together a phrase nicely, especially mid-word alliteration that plays more with rhythm, but only if it's consistent. Alliteration really does work better with English; rhyme is a much more Latin construction.

I've also found I like it when Disturbed uses it in their lyrics, or some strange form or pseudo-alliteration (see "Ten Thousand Fists" - song - lyrics). It tends to highlight the staccato rhythms of their songs. They have a habit of mixing alliteration, rhyme, and rhythm rather well (THere's THose r's again). But again, that's an offshoot of poetry, and it stays consistent.

Maybe it's the random cropping up of the form that bothers me in prose. Rhymes, repeated words, and recurring sentence structure (What's With these damn r's?) bother me, too, if the form/structure doesn't persist or have particular meaning. I think it just throws off my internal rhythm.

OK, so maybe I don't hate alliteration. I just want it to harmonize with the form around it. I don't like poetry Feeling Forced, and I don't like being jolted out of my reading rhythm… (R'S!!! ARRRGH!!)