The Escapist decided to let Your's Truly, Zero Punctation's Yahtzee and Extra Credits' James Portnow have a lil' email debate and assemble the result into a column. In other words: Two of the most important voices in the gaming world... and, for some reason, also me ;)
Here we are, debating the state of console gaming: Take a look.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Oscars
Feh.
Near-sweep for a safe, milquetoast, wholly-uninteresting bit of Weinstein-backed mediocrity in the top categories, the better among the nominees get to settle for cleaning up in the tech categories.
Feels like old times ;)
Near-sweep for a safe, milquetoast, wholly-uninteresting bit of Weinstein-backed mediocrity in the top categories, the better among the nominees get to settle for cleaning up in the tech categories.
Feels like old times ;)
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Ho!
CBM has your first (posted) look at the trailer for the new iteration of "Thundercats."
All the leaping, whooshing-backdrops, etc. won't do anything to assuage the irrational, blinding hatred some people have for Anime design-sensibilities (ironic, given that the original show's lasting-legacy is that it's animators eventually became Studio Ghibli) but in some respects it looks almost absurdly-faithful: The quick glimpse of Mumm-Ra could be a direct lift, and even Snarf seems to have made it over.
And I'll say it: "Teenage Lion-O" is an improvement. It's destined to become the poster child for fanboy bellyaching over "chickification" (his nickname will be Lion-Emo, calling it now) but one of the goofier things about the original series was that Lion-O was written as an impulsive, immature "kid" who the others were tasked with whipping into leadership-shape... but he was drawn and voiced with the same generic deep-voiced muscleman persona as every other would-be He-Man of the 80s. Assuming the premise is even somewhat close, making him look closer to 18 than 35 makes more sense. I also like that they look more like cat-people than people in bodypaint.
The real question, of course, is whether the intended audience for this - actual children far too young to remember or give a damn about an admittedly-obscure relic of the mid-80s - will actually care.
All the leaping, whooshing-backdrops, etc. won't do anything to assuage the irrational, blinding hatred some people have for Anime design-sensibilities (ironic, given that the original show's lasting-legacy is that it's animators eventually became Studio Ghibli) but in some respects it looks almost absurdly-faithful: The quick glimpse of Mumm-Ra could be a direct lift, and even Snarf seems to have made it over.
And I'll say it: "Teenage Lion-O" is an improvement. It's destined to become the poster child for fanboy bellyaching over "chickification" (his nickname will be Lion-Emo, calling it now) but one of the goofier things about the original series was that Lion-O was written as an impulsive, immature "kid" who the others were tasked with whipping into leadership-shape... but he was drawn and voiced with the same generic deep-voiced muscleman persona as every other would-be He-Man of the 80s. Assuming the premise is even somewhat close, making him look closer to 18 than 35 makes more sense. I also like that they look more like cat-people than people in bodypaint.
The real question, of course, is whether the intended audience for this - actual children far too young to remember or give a damn about an admittedly-obscure relic of the mid-80s - will actually care.
GI Joe 2 has a new director
I recognize that I'm in the minority of people who A.) really enjoyed the first "GI Joe" movie and B.) was dissapointed that director Stephen Sommers wasn'tgoing to return for the sequel. I still contend that, had everyone been wearing a "faithful" uniform, you essentially would've had a live-action episode of the series - what else did people want?
In any case, I'm now given to genuine curiousity as to what the fans holding out hope for a gritty, mature, hardcore reimagining of, eh... nicknamed super-soldiers fighting snake-themed terrorists... will make of the new boss-man, John Chu - director of the later two "Step Up" sequels and the Justin Beiber movie.
...yeah, that's what I thought.
Chu has actually been lobbying pretty heavily for the gig - he's only about 33, i.e. the right age to have been a fan of the show and/or toys. No word on if he is/was, though if he so much as nodded approvingly at an episode while channel-surfing back in the day you can bet he'll be described as "a big fan" in the studio press.
This'll be easily the biggest thing he's ever had his name on, and it's actually something of a coup (the boxoffice for the Beiber movie probably put him over the top) for a new guy on the scene. He's been one of those lauded USC wunderkinds people have been expecting to break out for awhile now, with credits on mostly videos and dance material until now... though I learn from the IMDB that he was apparently inside one of the monster-suits in "Freaked," so that's pretty cool.
Incidentally, I was in a roundtable interview a few weeks back with Channing Tatum during the "Eagle" press tour, and since - shockingly! - everyone ran out of Eagle questions pretty quick I asked him if he was going to do GI Joe 2. He said yes, but had no idea what was going on with the script, which he thought might be a "reboot" or something of the kind. So... there's that.
In any case, I'm now given to genuine curiousity as to what the fans holding out hope for a gritty, mature, hardcore reimagining of, eh... nicknamed super-soldiers fighting snake-themed terrorists... will make of the new boss-man, John Chu - director of the later two "Step Up" sequels and the Justin Beiber movie.
...yeah, that's what I thought.
Chu has actually been lobbying pretty heavily for the gig - he's only about 33, i.e. the right age to have been a fan of the show and/or toys. No word on if he is/was, though if he so much as nodded approvingly at an episode while channel-surfing back in the day you can bet he'll be described as "a big fan" in the studio press.
This'll be easily the biggest thing he's ever had his name on, and it's actually something of a coup (the boxoffice for the Beiber movie probably put him over the top) for a new guy on the scene. He's been one of those lauded USC wunderkinds people have been expecting to break out for awhile now, with credits on mostly videos and dance material until now... though I learn from the IMDB that he was apparently inside one of the monster-suits in "Freaked," so that's pretty cool.
Incidentally, I was in a roundtable interview a few weeks back with Channing Tatum during the "Eagle" press tour, and since - shockingly! - everyone ran out of Eagle questions pretty quick I asked him if he was going to do GI Joe 2. He said yes, but had no idea what was going on with the script, which he thought might be a "reboot" or something of the kind. So... there's that.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Temporal Dissonance
"Hall Pass," which opens today, is about two middle-aged upscale-suburban married guys (Owen Wilson and Jason Sudekis) getting into hijinks during a weeklong "hiatus" from marriage (or, rather, from marital-fidelity) bestowed by their fed-up wives (summary of charges: they check out other women). The logic at play is that married men "romanticize" their single days, and being reminded how difficult the dating scene is - and how out-of-practice they are - will bludgeon the guys into appreciation of of homebody-hood.
Dopey premise, to be sure, especially when you remember that no mainstream comedy would DARE let the story go in any direction other than "monogamy: It's the bee's kness!" But it's got it's moments, and it's a step back up to "average" for the Farrelly Bros. after "Heartbreak Kid." Except... something about it just rang incredibly false to me, and I'm a little annoyed that it took this long for me to pinpoint it.
SPOILERS ON!
Okay, so... wicked-shocker: They don't really get much action, and 90% of the comedy is seeing them strike out in bars, clubs, resturaunts, massage-parlors, whatever. Now, admittedly, it's about what you'd expect from two married suburbanites trying to jump back into the game... but for some reason I wasn't buying it. At all. I couldn't really explain it, and then it hit me (literally) a minute or two ago: The internet doesn't seem to exist in this movie.
Think about it: This premise has ZERO verisimilitude in the age of the online-hookup. These guys aren't trying to have affairs, they're openly just going for a succession of one-night-stands. And they aren't exactly paupers - these are well-off dudes with big houses in the burbs. What the FUCK are they doing on the club scene!? "Married men seeking discreet quickie" is their predicament in the movie - but in real life it's the near-literal selling point of hundreds of extremely lucrative businesses. But it NEVER comes up once in the movie! (Unless I missed it.)
Am I nuts, or is this up there with doing a present-day "lost in the woods" movie and not even addressing cell-phones? I mean, show of hands - if any married 40something guy you know got this kind of "Pass" from his wife in the real world... his first (or at least within-first-five) "moves" is to get on the equivalent of Craigslist, no?
Dopey premise, to be sure, especially when you remember that no mainstream comedy would DARE let the story go in any direction other than "monogamy: It's the bee's kness!" But it's got it's moments, and it's a step back up to "average" for the Farrelly Bros. after "Heartbreak Kid." Except... something about it just rang incredibly false to me, and I'm a little annoyed that it took this long for me to pinpoint it.
SPOILERS ON!
Okay, so... wicked-shocker: They don't really get much action, and 90% of the comedy is seeing them strike out in bars, clubs, resturaunts, massage-parlors, whatever. Now, admittedly, it's about what you'd expect from two married suburbanites trying to jump back into the game... but for some reason I wasn't buying it. At all. I couldn't really explain it, and then it hit me (literally) a minute or two ago: The internet doesn't seem to exist in this movie.
Think about it: This premise has ZERO verisimilitude in the age of the online-hookup. These guys aren't trying to have affairs, they're openly just going for a succession of one-night-stands. And they aren't exactly paupers - these are well-off dudes with big houses in the burbs. What the FUCK are they doing on the club scene!? "Married men seeking discreet quickie" is their predicament in the movie - but in real life it's the near-literal selling point of hundreds of extremely lucrative businesses. But it NEVER comes up once in the movie! (Unless I missed it.)
Am I nuts, or is this up there with doing a present-day "lost in the woods" movie and not even addressing cell-phones? I mean, show of hands - if any married 40something guy you know got this kind of "Pass" from his wife in the real world... his first (or at least within-first-five) "moves" is to get on the equivalent of Craigslist, no?
"We Dare" - Ubisoft's latest crime against humanity
hat-tip: Devin
Ugh.
Everyone knows I'm a big defender of The Wii - not just in terms of "there ARE actually good games on it" but also of so-called Wii "waggle game" titles themselves. Greater varieties of people gaming is a GOOD thing, and well-done motion-control party games are fun to play. BADLY done ones - or ones cashing in on the craze with minimal effort and a superficial "hook" on the other hand... no thanks.
With that in mind, behold "We Dare" - a "naughty adult party game" from Ubisoft...
Here's what I want to know: How did this get "ok'd" by Nintendo? Granted, the "Seal of Quality" isn't exactly what it used to be, but their still notorious for micromanaging third-parties and for guarding their family-friendly image like a Samurai Walt-Disney... so how exactly did they NOT have an issue with Ubi producing a Wii game where "shove Wii-remote down girlfriend's pants" is part of the control scheme, with an advertisement that - depending on your point of view - either looks like an Ashley Madisson spot or the lead-in to a deleted scene from "American Psycho?"
Ugh.
Everyone knows I'm a big defender of The Wii - not just in terms of "there ARE actually good games on it" but also of so-called Wii "waggle game" titles themselves. Greater varieties of people gaming is a GOOD thing, and well-done motion-control party games are fun to play. BADLY done ones - or ones cashing in on the craze with minimal effort and a superficial "hook" on the other hand... no thanks.
With that in mind, behold "We Dare" - a "naughty adult party game" from Ubisoft...
Here's what I want to know: How did this get "ok'd" by Nintendo? Granted, the "Seal of Quality" isn't exactly what it used to be, but their still notorious for micromanaging third-parties and for guarding their family-friendly image like a Samurai Walt-Disney... so how exactly did they NOT have an issue with Ubi producing a Wii game where "shove Wii-remote down girlfriend's pants" is part of the control scheme, with an advertisement that - depending on your point of view - either looks like an Ashley Madisson spot or the lead-in to a deleted scene from "American Psycho?"
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Obama gets one right
Because largely-symbolic political gestures that effectively do little more than kick the can down the road to the point where it'll ultimately be settled by the courts which as going to happen anyway ain't just for Republicans anymore, the Obama Administration announces that it will no longer defend the asinine "Defense of Marriage Act" in federal court. Furthermore, they've publically declared intent for this to be a lead-in to an eventual repeal of the act. Translation: "Gay Rights supporters? Get out and vote for our guys next time - we need a majority to make this happen."
"DOMA" was essentially a packet of provisions that prevented any laws, particularly those concerning partner-benefits, from "blurring" the line between same-sex couples and married heterosexual couples; so all this really means is that the lawsuits against discriminatory practices in this particular realm can now be made without the innevitable prospect of "DOMA" being used to block it from going through. So... not really a sea-change, but a win is a win.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program of Republicans and Democrats both pretending A.) to be shocked - shocked! - that the other side is dealing with social issues before "creating jobs;" and B.) to believe that they can actually do anything about "creating jobs" in the first place.
"DOMA" was essentially a packet of provisions that prevented any laws, particularly those concerning partner-benefits, from "blurring" the line between same-sex couples and married heterosexual couples; so all this really means is that the lawsuits against discriminatory practices in this particular realm can now be made without the innevitable prospect of "DOMA" being used to block it from going through. So... not really a sea-change, but a win is a win.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program of Republicans and Democrats both pretending A.) to be shocked - shocked! - that the other side is dealing with social issues before "creating jobs;" and B.) to believe that they can actually do anything about "creating jobs" in the first place.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Shark Sandwich, But With Awesomeness
It's somewhat comforting to know that classic-scifi archivist and B-movie maven Fred Olen Ray - who was doing schlock-for-schlock's-sake when The Asylum and Syfy's guys were in diapers - is still doing his thing. io9 brings to my attention and yours his latest opus: "Super Shark;" the epic tale of a giant shark that can hop around on dry land when it needs to... and the four-legged walking tank dispatched to fight it.
Seriously now, how great is that mecha-tank thing? It literally looks like their storyboard session was watching a four year-old smash his Shark and Robot bath-toys together. Glorious.
Seriously now, how great is that mecha-tank thing? It literally looks like their storyboard session was watching a four year-old smash his Shark and Robot bath-toys together. Glorious.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Who Will Stand?
As of right now, craven scumbags voted into office by ignorant cretins and hyper-religious nutcases Republican Congressmen still riding the "Tea Party" wave are digging into their favorite "to-do" item NOT involving bestowing personhood on petri-dishes: Defunding PBS, NPR and other entities of "Public Broadcasting." The last time they got this close to gutting the CPB was right at the beginning, during the Nixon administration. Back then, Fred Rogers - one of the last "Men of God" who can really be said to have deserved the title in my estimation - took to the U.S. Senate to defend the medium. If you've never seen it, here's the video of his testimony:
Who, if anyone, will be the hero this time? Or do we simply not have those anymore?
Who, if anyone, will be the hero this time? Or do we simply not have those anymore?
The RoboCop Statue WILL Stand in Detroit!
The world we live in now: If you want something done, make sure it's something The Internerds will take vaugely-ironic pleasure in. A privately-funded, web-donation-based effort to install a statue of RoboCop in Detroit has exceeded it's financial target, and they're going ahead with it.
io9 has an interview with the guys in charge. I know some people aren't crazy about this - wishing the money had gone to other more useful sources, viewing the whole thing as a silly fit of geek/hipster irony, etc. There's probably some truth in that... but on the other hand there's going to be a statue of Robocop in Detroit. Awesome.
io9 has an interview with the guys in charge. I know some people aren't crazy about this - wishing the money had gone to other more useful sources, viewing the whole thing as a silly fit of geek/hipster irony, etc. There's probably some truth in that... but on the other hand there's going to be a statue of Robocop in Detroit. Awesome.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Watch an actress read awful dialogue from the new "Wonder Woman"
io9 has footage of actress Tanit Phoenix auditioning for David E. Kelley's "Wonder Woman" TV show (the role has ultimately gone to Adrianne Palicki.) The results seem to confirm many folks' worst fears about what a superheroine reimagined by the creator of the noxious "Ally McBeal" would sound like. Watch on, if you dare. My impressions, after the jump...
In the sequence in question, Diana is critiquing a new run of Wonder Woman action-figures; with subsequent dialogue explaining that merchandising the WW "brand" (hence the "corporate CEO side-job) is how she funds her superhero operation. So, yeah... a multimillion dollar prime-time network TV project from one of the most successful writer/producers in the business based on a 70 year-old property has borrowed the entirety of it's "new hook" from a defunct Adult Swim series.
The "humor" of the bit is Diana being annoyed that the dolls are wearing an older version of her outfit instead of the one she wears now (which she feels is "a tad more appropriate") because the "more iconic" one sells better. So... take this as pretty close to confirmation that they'll be using something akin to the godawful "modernized" uniform from Straczynski's current run, and taking cheap-shots at the original-iteration for good measure. "Ho ho! Isn't this source-material stupid? Aren't you thankful we clever TV writers have been able to rebuild it into something good? Success!"
SIDEBAR: Listen to this dialogue, then google up some of the Adam West "Batman" for an excellent comparative-demonstration of "affectionate parody" versus "I'm too good for this genre" smugness.
Finally, since "strong" leading-women on TV only come in two flavors - "Humorless Hardass" ("The Good Wife") or "Bucket Of Insecurities" ("Grey's Anatomy," "Brothers & Sisters") - she get's a mini-monologue about how insecure she feels because the dolls have nicer breasts than she does. Because when you picture an immortal superhuman Amazon, the first scenario that leaps to mind is crying into her Ben&Jerrys about her cup-size.
Well, so much for that.
In the sequence in question, Diana is critiquing a new run of Wonder Woman action-figures; with subsequent dialogue explaining that merchandising the WW "brand" (hence the "corporate CEO side-job) is how she funds her superhero operation. So, yeah... a multimillion dollar prime-time network TV project from one of the most successful writer/producers in the business based on a 70 year-old property has borrowed the entirety of it's "new hook" from a defunct Adult Swim series.
The "humor" of the bit is Diana being annoyed that the dolls are wearing an older version of her outfit instead of the one she wears now (which she feels is "a tad more appropriate") because the "more iconic" one sells better. So... take this as pretty close to confirmation that they'll be using something akin to the godawful "modernized" uniform from Straczynski's current run, and taking cheap-shots at the original-iteration for good measure. "Ho ho! Isn't this source-material stupid? Aren't you thankful we clever TV writers have been able to rebuild it into something good? Success!"
SIDEBAR: Listen to this dialogue, then google up some of the Adam West "Batman" for an excellent comparative-demonstration of "affectionate parody" versus "I'm too good for this genre" smugness.
Finally, since "strong" leading-women on TV only come in two flavors - "Humorless Hardass" ("The Good Wife") or "Bucket Of Insecurities" ("Grey's Anatomy," "Brothers & Sisters") - she get's a mini-monologue about how insecure she feels because the dolls have nicer breasts than she does. Because when you picture an immortal superhuman Amazon, the first scenario that leaps to mind is crying into her Ben&Jerrys about her cup-size.
Well, so much for that.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Shane Black to Direct "Iron Man 3"
The Marvel Studios employee-selection procedure: "Leak" risky hiring decision to web. Gauge fanboy-press reaction. Hire accordingly. And so it comes to pass that one of the least-likely candidates plausible for a $150 million tentpole follow-up to what could be the biggest (in terms of scale/scope/buildup) superhero movie ever will get the job - so sez Deadline.
And... since that's really all thee is to the story at the moment, here's the new "Thor" trailer:
And... since that's really all thee is to the story at the moment, here's the new "Thor" trailer:
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Shark Sandwich
OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: MovieBob is not, nor has he ever been, an Atheist. That having been said...
MovieBob's Definition of a Flawed Thought-Process: Sincerely believing that a benevolent, all-powerful supernatural being has your best interests at heart and - in fact - "loves you" because he only allowed a Tiger Shark to devour a portion of your body, rather than the whole thing.
Below, the trailer for what already looks like a top-contender for one of 2011's worst movies, "Soul Surfer" - the "inspirational true story" of that teenage girl who kept on surfing through the Power ofhard work, modern medical science and positive thinking Jesus after a Tiger Shark munched her arm off.
Good God (irony!) does that look terrible - it's like "The Blind Side," "Jaws: The Revenge" and Kirk Cameron gangbanged "127 Hours," and 9 months later "someone" left THIS movie in a basket on somebody's doorstep. I can't remember the last time I felt as bad for actors as I do for Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt for having to be in this.
Anyway, a minor kerfluffle has erupted over this - apparently the real-life folks depicted in the film were rather angry to learn that one of the producers had opted to digitally remove the words "Holy Bible" from the cover of a copy of "The Holy Bible" in one scene, on the logic that this would help the film have boxoffice appeal beyond the ghetto of the Christian Film market.
First off: All of my requisite snark about the basic premise and message of the thing aside... that's bullshit, a dick-move, and they had every right to be pissed off. If you want to make the movie about these people's story, and their sincerely-held religious beliefs are a vital part of that story to them, then you're obligated to present it as such. If you want the movie to be about fighting back from injury through some other inspiration, change the names. But if you want that golden "true story" marketing-hook... you've gotta play ball, simple as that.
Secondly... what the HELL sense does that even make? Show of hands: Even without any explicit reference to such, can anyone look at this trailer and NOT immediately recognize that it's a big steaming pile of "Overcoming Adversity Through Faith" anyway? I mean... if you took every mention of the word "Force" out of any given "Star Wars" trailer, everyone would still know it was about "Star Wars."
MovieBob's Definition of a Flawed Thought-Process: Sincerely believing that a benevolent, all-powerful supernatural being has your best interests at heart and - in fact - "loves you" because he only allowed a Tiger Shark to devour a portion of your body, rather than the whole thing.
Below, the trailer for what already looks like a top-contender for one of 2011's worst movies, "Soul Surfer" - the "inspirational true story" of that teenage girl who kept on surfing through the Power of
Good God (irony!) does that look terrible - it's like "The Blind Side," "Jaws: The Revenge" and Kirk Cameron gangbanged "127 Hours," and 9 months later "someone" left THIS movie in a basket on somebody's doorstep. I can't remember the last time I felt as bad for actors as I do for Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt for having to be in this.
Anyway, a minor kerfluffle has erupted over this - apparently the real-life folks depicted in the film were rather angry to learn that one of the producers had opted to digitally remove the words "Holy Bible" from the cover of a copy of "The Holy Bible" in one scene, on the logic that this would help the film have boxoffice appeal beyond the ghetto of the Christian Film market.
First off: All of my requisite snark about the basic premise and message of the thing aside... that's bullshit, a dick-move, and they had every right to be pissed off. If you want to make the movie about these people's story, and their sincerely-held religious beliefs are a vital part of that story to them, then you're obligated to present it as such. If you want the movie to be about fighting back from injury through some other inspiration, change the names. But if you want that golden "true story" marketing-hook... you've gotta play ball, simple as that.
Secondly... what the HELL sense does that even make? Show of hands: Even without any explicit reference to such, can anyone look at this trailer and NOT immediately recognize that it's a big steaming pile of "Overcoming Adversity Through Faith" anyway? I mean... if you took every mention of the word "Force" out of any given "Star Wars" trailer, everyone would still know it was about "Star Wars."
Adrianne Palicki is Wonder Woman
When details actually got confirmed about David E. Kelley's "Girl Tony Stark: The Series" reimagining of "Wonder Woman," the principal thing that stood out as a "maybe" for me was that it sounded like it was written with a decisively adult-aged (read: mid-30s or older) vision in mind for the lead character: Kelley's Diana has apparently been living in "Man's World" long enough to not only engage-in, break-off and be-wistful-about a relationship with Steve Trevor but also to establish herself jointly as a metahuman crimefighter and serve as CEO of a self-founded industrial corporation - all of which would seem to demand a certain amount of "gravitas" that age tends to add. Yes, Amazons are supposed to functionally-immortal, but visual-cues are visual-cues. Lisa Edelstein plays "House's" boss while Olivia Wilde plays one of his minions for a reason. My train of thought was "Oh, they're actually going for Wonder WOMAN as opposed to Wonder GIRL? I like that."
Well, first impressions be damned. They've made their choice, and the new Wonder Woman is Adrianne Palicki, age 28, late of "Supernatural," and "Friday Night Lights." Her highest-profile film appearance was in "Legion," though some may recognize her as Holly Rocket in "Women in Trouble." She's also part of the Seth Green Cartoon Clique - doing voices for "Robot Chicken," "Titan Maximum" and "Family Guy." Not a bad actress, and you certainly can't say she doesn't meet certain basic "aesthetic" requirements: striking, statuesque, and it'd be uncharitable to describe her physique as anything less than "smokin'" - all the more reason to lament how unlikely they are to preserve the classic uniform.
Vaughn. Ross. "The Golden Age"
For me, the only real downside to Hollywood's current love-affair with superheroes is that along with the "official" adaptations it seems like everyone is pulling their "revisionist take" retreads out of mothballs to try for a greenlight. Every post-"Watchmen" variation on "what happens when they retire??" "What if they weren't as a good as we thought??" "What if they lived in the REAL world??" was done and re-done five times over by about 1998, but tell that to the geniuses who thought "Hancock" or "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" were a good idea.
But "Golden Age," unofficially "announced" on Deadline as a Matthew Vaughn project based on a yet-to-be-published Johnathan Ross comic, actually sounds worth being cautiously-optimistic about...
The idea, as described by Vaughn, refers to retired WWII-era heroes who're drafted back into service when their children's generation of heroes "screw up the world." So... "Kingdom Come," basically - but with an added element that makes me take notice: The rest-home supers will fight their children's mistakes alongside their superhero grandchildren - The Greatest Generation and Generation X versus The Boomers.
I'm kind of a sucker for "elderly/kid" teamups to begin with, but the potential for something uniquely "zetigeisty" in this intrigues me. There's a strong undercurrent with a lot of my generation (and the generation directly behind us) of feeling like we "relate" more strongly to our grandparents than our actual parents. Some of it is the mythologizing effects of media ("grammy and grampy defeated Hitler and were awesome, mom and dad were smelly hippies who couldn't win 'Nam") and some of it is probably the dramatic rise in two-income families and with them extended-grandparent-babysitting... but whatever it is it's there. Heck, it's not even ENTIRELY new to the genre - Carrie Kelley's whole arc in "Dark Knight Returns" was quite-directly about young teenager rejecting her Boomer parents - still getting stoned and musing about old rock songs well into parenthood - for Old Man Batman.
I want to see where they go with this.
But "Golden Age," unofficially "announced" on Deadline as a Matthew Vaughn project based on a yet-to-be-published Johnathan Ross comic, actually sounds worth being cautiously-optimistic about...
The idea, as described by Vaughn, refers to retired WWII-era heroes who're drafted back into service when their children's generation of heroes "screw up the world." So... "Kingdom Come," basically - but with an added element that makes me take notice: The rest-home supers will fight their children's mistakes alongside their superhero grandchildren - The Greatest Generation and Generation X versus The Boomers.
I'm kind of a sucker for "elderly/kid" teamups to begin with, but the potential for something uniquely "zetigeisty" in this intrigues me. There's a strong undercurrent with a lot of my generation (and the generation directly behind us) of feeling like we "relate" more strongly to our grandparents than our actual parents. Some of it is the mythologizing effects of media ("grammy and grampy defeated Hitler and were awesome, mom and dad were smelly hippies who couldn't win 'Nam") and some of it is probably the dramatic rise in two-income families and with them extended-grandparent-babysitting... but whatever it is it's there. Heck, it's not even ENTIRELY new to the genre - Carrie Kelley's whole arc in "Dark Knight Returns" was quite-directly about young teenager rejecting her Boomer parents - still getting stoned and musing about old rock songs well into parenthood - for Old Man Batman.
I want to see where they go with this.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Smithsonian's GODAWFUL game-voting thing
I'm on my way to bed (early-ass screening tomorrow - ugh!), but rest assured that I WILL have more to say when time avails itself about the ungodly, horrible way the Smithsonian is going about the "public voting" aspect of it's "Art of Videogames" exhibit. Don't get me wrong: The effort is appreciated, but everything from the selections to the categorizations on this thing are so wrongheaded, slapdash and uninformed as to make me honestly think it'd be better if they didn't do it at all.
For example: The voting (which seems to ignore Arcades ENTIRELY, btw) divides the history of the medium into five "eras," with options to vote for which of three games will be each console/eras "representative" title in each of four genres. Only FOUR? Yes: Action, Adventure, Target and Combat/Strategy. That's right: No platformer, no puzzle, no RPG - in the 8-bit/NES/Adventure category, it's Final Fantasy vs. Zelda vs. Shadowgate... and only ONE can "win."
This. Is. FUCKING. ASININE.
Where did they get this system? Did they just make it up without consulting anyone who knows thing-ONE about the medium? Gaming is young, but there's NO shortage of historians and credited experts out there who could've given them a better outline. This isn't a matter of nerd-nitpickery... obviously not every game can get in there... but trying to tell the "history" of the form and classifying Zelda and Final Fantasy as the same thing? That's like if I opened up a Bird Museum and added an Octopus on the basis that it has a BEAK.
I imagine others will want to weigh in on this, but instead of just griping along with me why not gripe directly to them instead: Here's the exhibit/voting's comment section.
And here's the email address associated with the page: AmericanArtGames@si.edu BE RESPECTFUL if you do write in, regardless of what you have to say. We gain nothing by being crass.
For example: The voting (which seems to ignore Arcades ENTIRELY, btw) divides the history of the medium into five "eras," with options to vote for which of three games will be each console/eras "representative" title in each of four genres. Only FOUR? Yes: Action, Adventure, Target and Combat/Strategy. That's right: No platformer, no puzzle, no RPG - in the 8-bit/NES/Adventure category, it's Final Fantasy vs. Zelda vs. Shadowgate... and only ONE can "win."
This. Is. FUCKING. ASININE.
Where did they get this system? Did they just make it up without consulting anyone who knows thing-ONE about the medium? Gaming is young, but there's NO shortage of historians and credited experts out there who could've given them a better outline. This isn't a matter of nerd-nitpickery... obviously not every game can get in there... but trying to tell the "history" of the form and classifying Zelda and Final Fantasy as the same thing? That's like if I opened up a Bird Museum and added an Octopus on the basis that it has a BEAK.
I imagine others will want to weigh in on this, but instead of just griping along with me why not gripe directly to them instead: Here's the exhibit/voting's comment section.
And here's the email address associated with the page: AmericanArtGames@si.edu BE RESPECTFUL if you do write in, regardless of what you have to say. We gain nothing by being crass.
snowjob
My favorite "Donald Duck" cartoon ever, also my go-to clip to refute the whole "only Goofy holds up today" thing i.e. Disney shorts. I love how minimal the setup is - as though Donald and the Nephews exist in a permanent state of antagonism. If I had had the kind of ridiculous snow we've had here this year when I was, say, 10... I'd have probably contracted serious hypothermia trying to recreate this stuff...
Even today, the quality of the animation on these things blows my mind, especially considering it's ALL oldschool ink-and-paint stuff. And you can tell the animators had a field-day playing around with the physics of snow/ice/water - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was the whole reason for doing the cartoon itself.
Even today, the quality of the animation on these things blows my mind, especially considering it's ALL oldschool ink-and-paint stuff. And you can tell the animators had a field-day playing around with the physics of snow/ice/water - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was the whole reason for doing the cartoon itself.
sellout
Yes, there are now ads on both of these blogs. I'm trying it out, seeing how it goes, etc; hoping it won't be some kind of "issue."
Monday, February 14, 2011
"The Amazing Spider-Man"
Retitling the SpideReboot "The Amazing Spider-Man" is, by any objective measure, a smart move on behalf of Sony Pictures: It reaffirms that it's a new start, plus by specifically evoking the source-material it strongly implies that it's "of a kind" with the current wave of more "faithful" adaptations.
It also reveals a certain level of confidence in the project: Part of the reason you DON'T see a lot of positive-adjectives used in movie titles is that doing so is pretty-much inviting the media to have fun with it if and when they have to report negative reviews or performance (re: "The Underwhelming Spider-Man" or "Amazing? Not Quite.") Either way, I like it (the title) and if they so-choose to use the same font/text-design for it as the comics I'll like that, too.
Hey, wait a sec... where are his feet?
Look close: The shadowing has been staged in such a way as to completely obscure both of his feet below the calf. Aside from lending the image a somewhat-ironic Leifeldian quality, it denies sharp-eyed fans an answer to the biggest costume-question to come out of all those unplanned candids: Are those metal toe-shoes he seems to be wearing over his boots part of the onscreen costume or just a stunt/safety thing for certain shots? And if they ARE part of the actual outfit, why exactly does Spider-Man need to armor his toes?
I dropped it into photoshop, blew up the bottom portion and cranked the brightness/contrast to try and bring up the detail and make them out. There basically ISN'T any detail to raise on the feet, as though it's been darkened even beyond the shadows from the photography, but I got a small hint of what looks like the shiny non--red "tip" of a boot, which leads me to believe that he WAS wearing them in this shot and that they ARE part of the costume-proper. Take a look:
So, if the new Spider-Man has metal feet... what are they? Is the wall-crawling a mechanical-aparatus now as well? Does he have shooters on his FEET, too?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
"In those days, nickles had pictures of bumblebees on them!"
hat-tip to Jeff Wells
Andy Rooney reviews"The King's Speech," in a manner that's both sincerely endearing and also, unintentionally, explains how and why this particular film became an awards season juggernaut:
Andy Rooney reviews"The King's Speech," in a manner that's both sincerely endearing and also, unintentionally, explains how and why this particular film became an awards season juggernaut:
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Who Plays John Galt?
I maintain a certain fascination with - if not necessarily adherence to, by any means - Ayn Rand. Yes, yes, I know... an antisocial nerd with a soft-spot for Objectivism? Shocker.
Look, I'm no Objectivist, but I'd be lying if I said that the broad sweep of it - particularly the whole "live for yourself," "to hell with the Greater Good," "traditonal-morality and social-stability are secondary to the freedom of visionaries to realize their potential" aspects - didn't appeal tremendously to what I recognize to be both the best and worst aspects of my personality. Yes, I recognize that the "philosophy" is a lot more about the author's own pathology and self-justification... but on the other hand "The Fountainhead" IS probably still the most absurdly-potent "Artist Versus The World" story ever, and more-indirectly, "Trees" is a really good song.
Basically, I appreciate it just enough that seeing Objectivist lingo and imagery being whipped out by the Tea Party as of recent is like a stabbing pain in the gut for me - it's akin to watching a caveman using an M-16 as a club. "Atlas Shrugged" as the banner of barely-literate "family values" yahoos for whom "elitist" is a curse-word? Have these people no concept of irony whatsoever? Sarah Palin is Dagny Taggart like I'm Erroll Flynn. Egh. Anyway...
I've always maintained that there's a good movie somewhere inside "Atlas Shrugged," but that to find it would require a top-down reworking, merciless trimming and oversight by filmmakers who could "respect" the story without needing to worship the philosophy (such as it is.) For the longest time, Angelia Jolie was trying to get it off the ground, but apparently that's been stalled. Instead, an indie outfit decided to put a version together as a "keep the rights" move, and they've now released a trailer...
...which looks like a Syfy/Asylum level production. Love the ominous "Part 1", too, indicating that they're keeping the interminable, meandering length of the thing. This could be the "Battlfield Earth" of political movies.
Incidentally, want a sobering glimpse of just how much political thought in the U.S. has degraded over the last few decades? Google "Ayn Rand" and "abortion," and marvel at what "conservative" USED to mean in this country.
Look, I'm no Objectivist, but I'd be lying if I said that the broad sweep of it - particularly the whole "live for yourself," "to hell with the Greater Good," "traditonal-morality and social-stability are secondary to the freedom of visionaries to realize their potential" aspects - didn't appeal tremendously to what I recognize to be both the best and worst aspects of my personality. Yes, I recognize that the "philosophy" is a lot more about the author's own pathology and self-justification... but on the other hand "The Fountainhead" IS probably still the most absurdly-potent "Artist Versus The World" story ever, and more-indirectly, "Trees" is a really good song.
Basically, I appreciate it just enough that seeing Objectivist lingo and imagery being whipped out by the Tea Party as of recent is like a stabbing pain in the gut for me - it's akin to watching a caveman using an M-16 as a club. "Atlas Shrugged" as the banner of barely-literate "family values" yahoos for whom "elitist" is a curse-word? Have these people no concept of irony whatsoever? Sarah Palin is Dagny Taggart like I'm Erroll Flynn. Egh. Anyway...
I've always maintained that there's a good movie somewhere inside "Atlas Shrugged," but that to find it would require a top-down reworking, merciless trimming and oversight by filmmakers who could "respect" the story without needing to worship the philosophy (such as it is.) For the longest time, Angelia Jolie was trying to get it off the ground, but apparently that's been stalled. Instead, an indie outfit decided to put a version together as a "keep the rights" move, and they've now released a trailer...
...which looks like a Syfy/Asylum level production. Love the ominous "Part 1", too, indicating that they're keeping the interminable, meandering length of the thing. This could be the "Battlfield Earth" of political movies.
Incidentally, want a sobering glimpse of just how much political thought in the U.S. has degraded over the last few decades? Google "Ayn Rand" and "abortion," and marvel at what "conservative" USED to mean in this country.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Must-Read
On the off chance that people haven't checked it out yet, here's that "New Yorker" profile of Paul Haggis that's ultimately the biggest-yet expose on the Church of Scientology. It's LONG, but seriously worth reading through even if you do it in pieces - just fascinating, chilling, damning stuff.
What really makes it worthwhile is that it's not at all just another "ha ha alien ghosts!" dressing-down, by now we all know about Xenu and Thetans and all the nutty business of the actual dogma - this is the REAL down n' dirty stuff: Serial abuse, slave-labor, people vanishing, brainwashing, etc; and Haggis specifically comes off as a genuinely tragic figure in it.
Give it a read.
What really makes it worthwhile is that it's not at all just another "ha ha alien ghosts!" dressing-down, by now we all know about Xenu and Thetans and all the nutty business of the actual dogma - this is the REAL down n' dirty stuff: Serial abuse, slave-labor, people vanishing, brainwashing, etc; and Haggis specifically comes off as a genuinely tragic figure in it.
Give it a read.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
"Quest of The OverThinker"
Here's what's going on over at the other blog:
I think this might be my favorite "OverThinker" episode ever, honestly. Had a ball making this, and it came out really good as far as I'm concerned.
I think this might be my favorite "OverThinker" episode ever, honestly. Had a ball making this, and it came out really good as far as I'm concerned.
X-Men: First Class trailer
Can Matthew Vaughn restore what Brett Ratner destroyed?
Looks like it, yeah ;) Cast looks good, action looks big... Cuban Missile Crisis? Nifty!
And yes, you saw that right: The new "girl Angel" is, essentially, a human-sized Faerie. Kickass. Also: No, that's probably not Nightcrawler - but they probably want you to think so.
I love how "bright" this all is - not just in the "hooray for yellow spandex!" sense but how much of it seems to be set in the daytime and in tropical environments - about as clean a break as you can get from the urban/winter-forest locations of the first two movies (and that one that didn't happen.)
Looks like it, yeah ;) Cast looks good, action looks big... Cuban Missile Crisis? Nifty!
And yes, you saw that right: The new "girl Angel" is, essentially, a human-sized Faerie. Kickass. Also: No, that's probably not Nightcrawler - but they probably want you to think so.
I love how "bright" this all is - not just in the "hooray for yellow spandex!" sense but how much of it seems to be set in the daytime and in tropical environments - about as clean a break as you can get from the urban/winter-forest locations of the first two movies (and that one that didn't happen.)
Meant To Be
Yes indeed. Let me add my voice to everyone else out there in agreeing that - if Marvel Films and Robert Downey Jr. really ARE seriously considering Shane Black, writer of some of your favorite tough-guy movies of the last few decades and writer/director of the AWESOME RDJ mini-comeback"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," as a candidate to replace John Favreau as writer/director of "Iron Man 3 - then HELL YES that should happen!
Normally I'd be given to dismiss the web-wide geekgasm over this sort of thing - sure, great idea, but no use getting worked up since our enthusiasm or worry can't really effect a hiring decision. But for better or worse, Marvel Films does things differently than other studios - not only would hiring an out-of-left-field "huh?" choice be in keeping with their practices up to this point, but don't forget that Marvel is widely believed to have picked Chris Evans for Captain America after "floating" his name made the geek-o-sphere go wild. So yeah, might as well get loud and try to get this awesomeness happening.
Normally I'd be given to dismiss the web-wide geekgasm over this sort of thing - sure, great idea, but no use getting worked up since our enthusiasm or worry can't really effect a hiring decision. But for better or worse, Marvel Films does things differently than other studios - not only would hiring an out-of-left-field "huh?" choice be in keeping with their practices up to this point, but don't forget that Marvel is widely believed to have picked Chris Evans for Captain America after "floating" his name made the geek-o-sphere go wild. So yeah, might as well get loud and try to get this awesomeness happening.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
BREAKING: 2011 Academy Awards Race Ends 11 Months Early!
Pictured right, Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady." Director is Phyllida Lloyd, who previously worked with Streep on the insipid "Mama Mia!"
Monday, February 7, 2011
Detroit: Build The ROBOCOP Statue!
Hat-tip, BAD
Someone tweeted the Mayor of Detroit, Michigan a wacky idea: Erect a statue of RoboCop, arguably the most famous fictional character to be associated specifically with the city. The Mayor, naturally, said no.
Y'know what, though? I think it's actually a brilliant idea. Detroit should totally do this.
Anyone who knows anything about Detroit knows the place is in trouble - the collapse of the U.S. Auto Industry has brutalized that whole area, and it's in serious need of new revenue streams. Lots of economically-shaky regions have successfully rebuilt themselves as tourist destinations, but thus far most attempts at turning nostalgia for the Golden Age of American manufacturing into landmarks have fallen short... y'know what DOES sell, though? Kitchsy, semi-ironic pop-culture relics.
I live a short drive from Salem, MA, a city that relies on tourism for the overwhelming majority of it's revenue. A few years back, TV Land lobbied for and bankrolled the construction and installation of a statue of Samantha from "Bewitched" downtown (on the rather shaky premise that the show had done an episode there once), and it's become a very popular site in a city that lives and dies by it's landmarks. This is the best-known one, but TV Land has actually done this for other icons like Andy Griffith and Ralph Kramden, too.
I bring that up less as precedent and more as a suggestion of how something like this ought to get done: Whoever owns the rights to "RoboCop" (whatever's left of MGM, I believe) isn't really doing anything with them that this point - it wouldn't cost much, in "Hollywood dollars," to buy a piece of property in Detroit and stick a statue on it, and you have to imagine the city would be more amenable to it if it weren't costing THEM anything. It'd be a HUGE publicity-coup for the rights-holders, and a net-positive for the city in terms of press coverage, tourism and image-building.
There's actually some pretty solid precedent for this, too: Remember those monuments of the Ten Commandments that caused so much trouble in the U.S. recently? A LOT of those weren't put there for specifically religious purposes - they were publicity-stunts to promote Cecil B. DeMille's "Ten Commandments" movie in 1956.
Seriously, someone needs to get a letter-writing or facebook/twitter campaign going to both Detroit and the owners of the Robocop character. There's no reason for this NOT to happen.
Someone tweeted the Mayor of Detroit, Michigan a wacky idea: Erect a statue of RoboCop, arguably the most famous fictional character to be associated specifically with the city. The Mayor, naturally, said no.
Y'know what, though? I think it's actually a brilliant idea. Detroit should totally do this.
Anyone who knows anything about Detroit knows the place is in trouble - the collapse of the U.S. Auto Industry has brutalized that whole area, and it's in serious need of new revenue streams. Lots of economically-shaky regions have successfully rebuilt themselves as tourist destinations, but thus far most attempts at turning nostalgia for the Golden Age of American manufacturing into landmarks have fallen short... y'know what DOES sell, though? Kitchsy, semi-ironic pop-culture relics.
I live a short drive from Salem, MA, a city that relies on tourism for the overwhelming majority of it's revenue. A few years back, TV Land lobbied for and bankrolled the construction and installation of a statue of Samantha from "Bewitched" downtown (on the rather shaky premise that the show had done an episode there once), and it's become a very popular site in a city that lives and dies by it's landmarks. This is the best-known one, but TV Land has actually done this for other icons like Andy Griffith and Ralph Kramden, too.
I bring that up less as precedent and more as a suggestion of how something like this ought to get done: Whoever owns the rights to "RoboCop" (whatever's left of MGM, I believe) isn't really doing anything with them that this point - it wouldn't cost much, in "Hollywood dollars," to buy a piece of property in Detroit and stick a statue on it, and you have to imagine the city would be more amenable to it if it weren't costing THEM anything. It'd be a HUGE publicity-coup for the rights-holders, and a net-positive for the city in terms of press coverage, tourism and image-building.
There's actually some pretty solid precedent for this, too: Remember those monuments of the Ten Commandments that caused so much trouble in the U.S. recently? A LOT of those weren't put there for specifically religious purposes - they were publicity-stunts to promote Cecil B. DeMille's "Ten Commandments" movie in 1956.
Seriously, someone needs to get a letter-writing or facebook/twitter campaign going to both Detroit and the owners of the Robocop character. There's no reason for this NOT to happen.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Captain America: The First Commercial
I do sort-of wish the first look at this was a proper, more deliberately-paced "story trailer" as opposed to a frenetic action/action/joke/action/joke/joke/action/joke Superbowl spot; but otherwise FUCK YEAH, looks good. Suit looks great in motion, overall palette looks much more Raiders than Ryan (good call) and Chris Evans looks 100% believable.
Two things to look out for: That looks like The Howling Commandos flanking Cap going through the door, and it looks like (at least at some point) Hugo Weaving is actually wearing a human mask over his (100% source-faithful) Red Skull face; which is a fun twist considering it's usually the reverse.
Two things to look out for: That looks like The Howling Commandos flanking Cap going through the door, and it looks like (at least at some point) Hugo Weaving is actually wearing a human mask over his (100% source-faithful) Red Skull face; which is a fun twist considering it's usually the reverse.
All kinds of unpleasant (UPDATED!)
UPDATE! The listing has been pulled from eBay. As of this writing, the Kotaku link still has the image in question posted for those seeking some context. I maintain my earlier position that the whole thing is creepy as hell and raises all kinds of "call Child Services" flags, to me anyway.
Hat-tip: Kotaku
Some guy in Georgia wants YOU to help him punish his kids... and he seems to be getting a real kick out of it. Kinda uneasy-feeling details after the jump:
The story: Allegedly, this guy's two kids busted up the bath tub by using it as an "arena" for their Beyblade toys (a spinning-top game based on an Anime series); so to punish them, he's selling-off said toys on eBay to pay for the damage. Yes, it's real,here's the eBay page... though the numbers may look a little shocking, as "Anon" - alias the web-vigilantes from 4chan - have apparently been screwing with the auction via fake bids all day.
Okay, so... sounds a little harsh, but also sounds like a sensible "cause and effect" type of punishment i.e. a kill-two-birds mix of "actions have consequences" and "use it properly or lose it." Probably wouldn't be my approach... but okay, he's got kids, I don't, etc.
Here's where this tips over into "red flag" territory for me: Instead of posting a good photo of the actual items up for sale, he posted a picture of the two kids holding them up. I don't want to put the image here, go look at the auction to see it. For those who didn't: Two boys, one looking about six or seven, the other older, holding up the offending playthings in a ziplock baggie. The older one is bawling like E.T. just flatlined, the younger one is staring down the camera like Vincent D'Onofrio's last day at Boot Camp. It's pretty striking.
This is where my head is at on this: What exactly is he REALLY selling here? There's no specific detail on what the items are for anyone who wants to buy them, and no image you can see from, so he's pretty-much selling "bag of random toys." But the picture of the two kids, both of them clearly captured in a moment of very real (deservedly or not) trauma... I'm sorry, but what this says to me is that his (apparently sincere) sales pitch isn't the bag of Beyblades so much as "Hey, y'see this sobbing child? Bid NOW for the privilige of being part of making that happen!"
For those who'll offer that "context is everything," he doesn't describe the items in the text-description, either - instead, he relates the story of the punishment, plus the exact dollar amount of what he's already confiscated from their piggy-banks. Oh, and it's capped-off with a rather gleeful exclamation of "and then it's on to their other toys!" And let's not forget: He's showing-off a picture of his visibly-shaken post-punishment children on the internet, for all the world to "enjoy." Folks, I've been punished in my life - often severely and quite deservedly... but my parents NEVER took a photo of my anguished expression and plastered flyers of it reading "look what Bob did!!!" all over the neighbor, to say nothing of THE PLANET. And if they had, I imagine Child Services would be knocking on the door for that sort of thing.
So... am I NUTS, or does this just scream abuse? I don't mean the initial punishment - fine, sell the damn toys, whatever - but proudly showing it off for The Internet like some demented cross between the dad from "This Boy's Life" and that Tiger Mother sociopath... wouldn't "subjecting child to public humiliation" constitute abuse in and of itself? And if not, wouldn't it at least be probable cause for Child Services to maybe show up and check these kids for bruises or whatever else could cause the younger-looking one to have a goddamn thousand-yard-stare at that age? I'm NOT "accusing" the guy, I'm just saying... if I was a cop in Georgia, and I saw this, I'd be inclined to follow-up on this.
Hat-tip: Kotaku
Some guy in Georgia wants YOU to help him punish his kids... and he seems to be getting a real kick out of it. Kinda uneasy-feeling details after the jump:
The story: Allegedly, this guy's two kids busted up the bath tub by using it as an "arena" for their Beyblade toys (a spinning-top game based on an Anime series); so to punish them, he's selling-off said toys on eBay to pay for the damage. Yes, it's real,
Okay, so... sounds a little harsh, but also sounds like a sensible "cause and effect" type of punishment i.e. a kill-two-birds mix of "actions have consequences" and "use it properly or lose it." Probably wouldn't be my approach... but okay, he's got kids, I don't, etc.
Here's where this tips over into "red flag" territory for me: Instead of posting a good photo of the actual items up for sale, he posted a picture of the two kids holding them up. I don't want to put the image here,
This is where my head is at on this: What exactly is he REALLY selling here? There's no specific detail on what the items are for anyone who wants to buy them, and no image you can see from, so he's pretty-much selling "bag of random toys." But the picture of the two kids, both of them clearly captured in a moment of very real (deservedly or not) trauma... I'm sorry, but what this says to me is that his (apparently sincere) sales pitch isn't the bag of Beyblades so much as "Hey, y'see this sobbing child? Bid NOW for the privilige of being part of making that happen!"
For those who'll offer that "context is everything," he doesn't describe the items in the text-description, either - instead, he relates the story of the punishment, plus the exact dollar amount of what he's already confiscated from their piggy-banks. Oh, and it's capped-off with a rather gleeful exclamation of "and then it's on to their other toys!" And let's not forget: He's showing-off a picture of his visibly-shaken post-punishment children on the internet, for all the world to "enjoy." Folks, I've been punished in my life - often severely and quite deservedly... but my parents NEVER took a photo of my anguished expression and plastered flyers of it reading "look what Bob did!!!" all over the neighbor, to say nothing of THE PLANET. And if they had, I imagine Child Services would be knocking on the door for that sort of thing.
So... am I NUTS, or does this just scream abuse? I don't mean the initial punishment - fine, sell the damn toys, whatever - but proudly showing it off for The Internet like some demented cross between the dad from "This Boy's Life" and that Tiger Mother sociopath... wouldn't "subjecting child to public humiliation" constitute abuse in and of itself? And if not, wouldn't it at least be probable cause for Child Services to maybe show up and check these kids for bruises or whatever else could cause the younger-looking one to have a goddamn thousand-yard-stare at that age? I'm NOT "accusing" the guy, I'm just saying... if I was a cop in Georgia, and I saw this, I'd be inclined to follow-up on this.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
BREAKING: Is Every Villain Actor in Hollywood Practicing The Phrase "Son of Jor-El!" In Front Of Their Mirrors As We Speak!?
A big hurdle (maybe the biggest) for anyone making a new "Superman" movie is that unlike other comic-heroes you've got a general-public that has JUST as strong an impression of what the character "must be" as the fans do - except said impressions are entirely different. Superman is the most iconic fictional figure on the planet Earth, everyone who knows him also "knows" what he's supposed to be... and for the mainstream audience, the "supposed to be" framework is largely limited to the everybody-knows origin story and the various movies and TV shows; with ONE simple question hobbling even the most earnest of attempts: How do you "refresh" Superman for today without simply revisiting "Superman: The Movie?"
According to Latino Review, Zack Snyder (director), David Goyer (writer) and Christopher Nolan (human fanboy-proof-shield) have apparently found the answer: By revisiting "Superman II," instead.
Earlier today, word "leaked" that the new "Superman" movie was casting a major female part... but that it wasn't Lois Lane. In fact, the "shortlist" seemed to be favoring blondes. "Who could this be!?," wondered The Internets. Lana Lang? Cat Grant? Supergirl!?
Sez Latino Review: It's actually URSA, the female member of the troupe of Kryptonian ex-cons led by General Zod in "Superman II."
This makes a lot of sense, really. Zod etc. are really the only Superman enemies other than Lex Luthor and MAYBE Brainiac that non-comic readers have heard of, so it's familiar for "everyone else" while fans can likely look forward to the "Superman fighting someone/something else with super-powers" movie they've been demanding since before "Returns." The obvious question now becomes "so is Zod in there, too?" Probably, yeah... if for no other reason that I can't imagine them having the ONLY combat in the film being Superman punching the crap out of a woman, super-powered or not. The still-secret storyline supposedly involves a younger (20-ish) Clark Kent traveling the world (in-between leaving Smallville but before settling in Metropolis) trying to decide exactly what form his "use powers to help world" form will take; so make of that what you will. "Clark doubts powers can actually be helpful, same-powered heavy threatens world, Clark realizes purpose and becomes Superman," maybe?
Actually, Zod could be the "teased for the sequel" bad guy, too... or would that be Luthor?
According to Latino Review, Zack Snyder (director), David Goyer (writer) and Christopher Nolan (human fanboy-proof-shield) have apparently found the answer: By revisiting "Superman II," instead.
Earlier today, word "leaked" that the new "Superman" movie was casting a major female part... but that it wasn't Lois Lane. In fact, the "shortlist" seemed to be favoring blondes. "Who could this be!?," wondered The Internets. Lana Lang? Cat Grant? Supergirl!?
Sez Latino Review: It's actually URSA, the female member of the troupe of Kryptonian ex-cons led by General Zod in "Superman II."
This makes a lot of sense, really. Zod etc. are really the only Superman enemies other than Lex Luthor and MAYBE Brainiac that non-comic readers have heard of, so it's familiar for "everyone else" while fans can likely look forward to the "Superman fighting someone/something else with super-powers" movie they've been demanding since before "Returns." The obvious question now becomes "so is Zod in there, too?" Probably, yeah... if for no other reason that I can't imagine them having the ONLY combat in the film being Superman punching the crap out of a woman, super-powered or not. The still-secret storyline supposedly involves a younger (20-ish) Clark Kent traveling the world (in-between leaving Smallville but before settling in Metropolis) trying to decide exactly what form his "use powers to help world" form will take; so make of that what you will. "Clark doubts powers can actually be helpful, same-powered heavy threatens world, Clark realizes purpose and becomes Superman," maybe?
Actually, Zod could be the "teased for the sequel" bad guy, too... or would that be Luthor?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Armchair Thinkers podcast
Quick head's-up: The Armchair Thinkers podcast has yours truly as a guest for the most recent episode (Feb 3 2011) and we get pretty into depth on stuff like The AntiThinker, Other M, etc. Check it out HERE:
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Best Shot of Captain America Yet
Scans from Empire, via ComingSoon.I really want to see it move at this point, but thus far I think this might be the best solution to an "impossible" superhero costume ever attempted (as opposed to say, Batman or Daredevil's movie-outfits, which were overly-complicated solutions to very simple and quite-possible costumes.) It's as though the approach was "okay, if a human being had to wear this, what would it be made of?"
But I REALLY like this. You almost never see one of these made out of practical-fabric, which really makes the "muscle-padding" work a lot better than they do in rubber. Above all else, you can tell it was built to MOVE, so hopefully it won't have the Batman Problem where the fight scenes all happen "around" a main character who can (very obviously) barely lift his own feet.
ALSO: Samuel L. Jackson confirmed on Jimmy Fallon's show (so that DOES exist!) that Nick Fury is set to turn up in both "Captain America" and "Thor" - the Thor part is news, previously it'd been said that he wasn't in there. This would also seem to confirm that we'll see Cap's arrival in the present-day in the movie (or at least after the credits) since Fury couldn't possibly have appeared in WWII.
Although... this does bring up the still-wonky question of how OLD Nick Fury is actually supposed to be in these. In Iron Man 2, he says he knew Stark Sr., who has been dead a good amount of time already as that series opened. Movie-Fury looks like the "Ultimate" version, who's just a regular secret agent; but the traditional Fury is actually slightly older than Cap is, and has been kept artificially young(ish) by a serum derived from the stuff that created Cap in the first place - he was original a WWII-era character, "Sgt. Fury," and some version of his team "The Howling Commandos" have been rumored to turn up somewhere in the Cap movie, so... who knows.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
BREAKING: David E. Kelley Has Heart, Will Merely Humiliate 70 Year-Old Woman Instead Of Mangling Her
Bleeding Cool has the pilot-script NBC bought for David E. Kelley's "Wonder Woman" reboot. How does it look? In some respects, better than many were probably expecting. In other respects... much much worse. More after the jump:
Amazingly, if your "hangup" was the admittedly-logical prospect of Kelley junking the source material entirely... you can relax a bit - if anything, it looks as though the main problem is "shitty TV-writing" as opposed to "disrespect for the material": At least according to BC's report, pretty-much all the "weird" stuff I would've expected them to throw out actually made it in: Lasso, bracelets, Amazons, magic island, super-powers, etc.
The "general" backstory seems to have arrived intact: Steve Trevor crashes on the Amazon's Island, brings Diana back to Man's World, etc - she goes by "Diana Themyscira," and Wonder Woman appears to be her "title." The big change is to the interim: At the point at which the "present day" story kicks-in, Trevor is now "the one that got away," and in addition to acting as a superhero she's founded a super-wealthy corporation ("Themyscira Industries.") That the CEO of said corporation is a superheroine on the side is general public knowledge - so, pretty-much a copy-paste of "Iron Man," but with a female lead. If nothing else, this pretty-much screams "older actress" (say late-30s and up), yes? If so, that's a refreshing development.
It IS kind of funny how much it lays bare the shamefully narrow definition of "strong female character" in TV terms, though - the character is a (literal) superhuman, described in the script as being able to throw a truck around... but, dammit, you've GOT to find a way for her to also have a glamorous-yet-taxing White Collar job - otherwise, how will anyone know she's supposed to be tough and independent!!?? Yeesh.
On the less-good side, while she's not doing the secret-identity thing between her two "careers;" she DOES still have the Diana Prince (hair up, glasses, "girl Clark Kent" basically) second-self for a "walkin' around" identity; which seems to exist mainly as a place for trite "women-as-imagined-by-David-E-Kelley" idiosyncracies: Singing along with the radio, "girlfriends" who behave like grade-school BFFs into their 30s, "cute" pining for Steve Trevor (a'la "Big") and, of course: Ice Cream Buddy-Binging. Ho ho! Women bonding over junk-food! That bit NEVER get's old...
Incidentally, Veronica Cale is named as the main baddie. A fairly recent creation in the comics, she was a scientist whose "thing" was trying to destroy WW for not being a good-enough feminist role model ("it's easy to be accepted when your already a goddess," that sort of thing.) In terms of appearances in comics people might've actually read, she was the blonde doctor who seduced Will Magnus and then had a "what have I done!?" breakdown in "52."
Amazingly, if your "hangup" was the admittedly-logical prospect of Kelley junking the source material entirely... you can relax a bit - if anything, it looks as though the main problem is "shitty TV-writing" as opposed to "disrespect for the material": At least according to BC's report, pretty-much all the "weird" stuff I would've expected them to throw out actually made it in: Lasso, bracelets, Amazons, magic island, super-powers, etc.
The "general" backstory seems to have arrived intact: Steve Trevor crashes on the Amazon's Island, brings Diana back to Man's World, etc - she goes by "Diana Themyscira," and Wonder Woman appears to be her "title." The big change is to the interim: At the point at which the "present day" story kicks-in, Trevor is now "the one that got away," and in addition to acting as a superhero she's founded a super-wealthy corporation ("Themyscira Industries.") That the CEO of said corporation is a superheroine on the side is general public knowledge - so, pretty-much a copy-paste of "Iron Man," but with a female lead. If nothing else, this pretty-much screams "older actress" (say late-30s and up), yes? If so, that's a refreshing development.
It IS kind of funny how much it lays bare the shamefully narrow definition of "strong female character" in TV terms, though - the character is a (literal) superhuman, described in the script as being able to throw a truck around... but, dammit, you've GOT to find a way for her to also have a glamorous-yet-taxing White Collar job - otherwise, how will anyone know she's supposed to be tough and independent!!?? Yeesh.
On the less-good side, while she's not doing the secret-identity thing between her two "careers;" she DOES still have the Diana Prince (hair up, glasses, "girl Clark Kent" basically) second-self for a "walkin' around" identity; which seems to exist mainly as a place for trite "women-as-imagined-by-David-E-Kelley" idiosyncracies: Singing along with the radio, "girlfriends" who behave like grade-school BFFs into their 30s, "cute" pining for Steve Trevor (a'la "Big") and, of course: Ice Cream Buddy-Binging. Ho ho! Women bonding over junk-food! That bit NEVER get's old...
Incidentally, Veronica Cale is named as the main baddie. A fairly recent creation in the comics, she was a scientist whose "thing" was trying to destroy WW for not being a good-enough feminist role model ("it's easy to be accepted when your already a goddess," that sort of thing.) In terms of appearances in comics people might've actually read, she was the blonde doctor who seduced Will Magnus and then had a "what have I done!?" breakdown in "52."
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in "Batman" after all
Huh. Whaddaya know.
It's utterly-impossible to "predict" who or what he'll be playing, because that's not how Nolan and company roll: He could be playing anyone, re-imagined into anything, and it'll probably work out (and if not we'll spend years pretending that it did anyway) because Nolan Can Do No Wrong.
In any case, might as well make a game of it: Who can come up with the most preposterous rumor as to who he's playing?? I'll start:
He's Dick Grayson... but NOT Robin!
He's Clark Kent... but NOT Superman!
He's Bane... BEFORE the experiments!
He's Jack Ryder, alias "The Creeper" (short version: What if Keith Olbermann was secretly The Joker, and a good guy.)
He's Harley Quinn - Nolanverse Joker is even more "reimagined" than we thought!
The Joker: 2.0!
Azrael! (good god, I hope not...)
The new Ras Al Guhl!
Vic Sage, alias "The Question!"
The Riddler - Turns out the Nolan's really, really liked your photoshopped fan-poster!
The Ventriloquist! (I love that guy)
Superboy Prime - he suckered-punches reality, thus explaining why the various DC movie heroes don't live in the same universe now!
Surprise! The vaugely Robin Hood-esque bandit Alfred supposedly killed back in the day had a son! And he likes to hire Luchadores and kitty-cosplayers to fuck with his enemies!
Clayface. Why the hell not?
It's utterly-impossible to "predict" who or what he'll be playing, because that's not how Nolan and company roll: He could be playing anyone, re-imagined into anything, and it'll probably work out (and if not we'll spend years pretending that it did anyway) because Nolan Can Do No Wrong.
In any case, might as well make a game of it: Who can come up with the most preposterous rumor as to who he's playing?? I'll start:
He's Dick Grayson... but NOT Robin!
He's Clark Kent... but NOT Superman!
He's Bane... BEFORE the experiments!
He's Jack Ryder, alias "The Creeper" (short version: What if Keith Olbermann was secretly The Joker, and a good guy.)
He's Harley Quinn - Nolanverse Joker is even more "reimagined" than we thought!
The Joker: 2.0!
Azrael! (good god, I hope not...)
The new Ras Al Guhl!
Vic Sage, alias "The Question!"
The Riddler - Turns out the Nolan's really, really liked your photoshopped fan-poster!
The Ventriloquist! (I love that guy)
Superboy Prime - he suckered-punches reality, thus explaining why the various DC movie heroes don't live in the same universe now!
Surprise! The vaugely Robin Hood-esque bandit Alfred supposedly killed back in the day had a son! And he likes to hire Luchadores and kitty-cosplayers to fuck with his enemies!
Clayface. Why the hell not?