American Classic Arcade Museum Seeks Your Help!
hat-tip: Kotaku.
The American Classic Arcade Museum is seeking donations to aquire several rare classic arcade machines - including Discs of Tron! - from a private collector. I've made a donation, and I encourage any readers who are able/willing to do the same. Read on past the jump for details.
The American Classic Arcade Museum (ACAM) is located within a famous New Hampshire family entertainment complex called "The Funspot," which many of you may have seen in the film "King of Kong." While "Funspot" itself is a business, the ACAM is a registered nonprofit operation dedicated to not only collecting vintage arcade machines but also preserving them to be played by "Funspot" visitors. A private collector has offered to sell them five classic game machines that would be "new" to their collection - Space Dungeon, Mad Planets, Discs of Tron and Black Widow - and ACAM is asking for donations to raise the $1,840.00 needed to purchase the lot on their main website page via the "chip-in" widget.
Some of the happiest memories I have are of going to The Funspot during yearly family vacations to the NH area. The "museum" concept is relatively new, a response to the place's newfound prominence at the start of the Retro-Gaming boom - for the longest time they were simply a place that chose to keep their HUGE collection of game machines in working order rather than junking them for new ones. As a result, they have one of the BEST collections of vintage games - many of them extremely rare (they have a standup "Chiller" cabinet!) - that you can visit and play.
They have not asked me to post this information on these blogs - I am doing so to give back to both a good cause and a specific organization that has brought me a lot of good times over the years. I encourage any fans, readers etc. with a few bucks to spare to considering kicking some their way. The amount they're trying to raise is not very high, and you'll not only be supporting the good cause of classic game preservation - you'll be helping these games be placed in a REAL arcade where they can be rediscovered and enjoyed by new generations of gamers who might otherwise never have the chance.
Here is the link once again. My sincerest thanks to everyone who chips in, and to Funspot/ACAM for doing what they do. I'm planning to visit the place again this Summer, and it sure would be a kick to take a turn at that Discs of Tron machine when I do.
The American Classic Arcade Museum is seeking donations to aquire several rare classic arcade machines - including Discs of Tron! - from a private collector. I've made a donation, and I encourage any readers who are able/willing to do the same. Read on past the jump for details.
The American Classic Arcade Museum (ACAM) is located within a famous New Hampshire family entertainment complex called "The Funspot," which many of you may have seen in the film "King of Kong." While "Funspot" itself is a business, the ACAM is a registered nonprofit operation dedicated to not only collecting vintage arcade machines but also preserving them to be played by "Funspot" visitors. A private collector has offered to sell them five classic game machines that would be "new" to their collection - Space Dungeon, Mad Planets, Discs of Tron and Black Widow - and ACAM is asking for donations to raise the $1,840.00 needed to purchase the lot on their main website page via the "chip-in" widget.
Some of the happiest memories I have are of going to The Funspot during yearly family vacations to the NH area. The "museum" concept is relatively new, a response to the place's newfound prominence at the start of the Retro-Gaming boom - for the longest time they were simply a place that chose to keep their HUGE collection of game machines in working order rather than junking them for new ones. As a result, they have one of the BEST collections of vintage games - many of them extremely rare (they have a standup "Chiller" cabinet!) - that you can visit and play.
They have not asked me to post this information on these blogs - I am doing so to give back to both a good cause and a specific organization that has brought me a lot of good times over the years. I encourage any fans, readers etc. with a few bucks to spare to considering kicking some their way. The amount they're trying to raise is not very high, and you'll not only be supporting the good cause of classic game preservation - you'll be helping these games be placed in a REAL arcade where they can be rediscovered and enjoyed by new generations of gamers who might otherwise never have the chance.
Here is the link once again. My sincerest thanks to everyone who chips in, and to Funspot/ACAM for doing what they do. I'm planning to visit the place again this Summer, and it sure would be a kick to take a turn at that Discs of Tron machine when I do.
Told You So
So... yeah, after doing two episodes about "The Simpsons" still being funny, I realized I hadn't actually watched this year's Xmas episode, so I did. Fox made it available HERE on their website, though I watched it On Demand.
It's another "possible future" episode, this one set in a timeline where Bart and Lisa both grow up to be parents themselves. To my mind, it's easily one of the best episodes I've seen in awhile - good enough to have been a Season 5 or 6 episode (or at least a current installment of Futurama.) Seriously, give it a watch. (SPOILERS after the jump.)
SPOILERS:
This is the first "future" episode where Homer and Marge actually seem to have personality changes beyond "older" - Marge has a shorter temper and seems a touch jaded, while Homer is sober(!!!) and seemingly more intelligent and good-natured as result. I like that.
Running joke about Dearborn, Michigan is edgy as hell by Simpsons standards, to the point where it verged on being out of place. But yeah, I laughed.
So, at least according to this timeline, Lisa Simpson is bisexual as a grownup. I like that the "reveal" passes without comment, but it runs one extra beat so you can tell they wanted you to catch it. I know a few BIG fans of Lisa who I can picture turning cartwheels at this... and also a few desperate continuity-obsessives who'll be furious that this contradicts the character in the "President Lisa" timeline's claim to being "the first straight female president.
This is the first "Simpsons Future" I can say I'd be legitimately interested in seeing them revisit. In particular, I'd LOVE to know the story behind the blink-and-you'll-miss-it detail as to the fate of a certain ex-Krusty Sidekick - I feel like it must have been either Bart or Homer who finally did the deed, but I can't decide which would be more awesome (leaning toward Homer.)
It's another "possible future" episode, this one set in a timeline where Bart and Lisa both grow up to be parents themselves. To my mind, it's easily one of the best episodes I've seen in awhile - good enough to have been a Season 5 or 6 episode (or at least a current installment of Futurama.) Seriously, give it a watch. (SPOILERS after the jump.)
SPOILERS:
This is the first "future" episode where Homer and Marge actually seem to have personality changes beyond "older" - Marge has a shorter temper and seems a touch jaded, while Homer is sober(!!!) and seemingly more intelligent and good-natured as result. I like that.
Running joke about Dearborn, Michigan is edgy as hell by Simpsons standards, to the point where it verged on being out of place. But yeah, I laughed.
So, at least according to this timeline, Lisa Simpson is bisexual as a grownup. I like that the "reveal" passes without comment, but it runs one extra beat so you can tell they wanted you to catch it. I know a few BIG fans of Lisa who I can picture turning cartwheels at this... and also a few desperate continuity-obsessives who'll be furious that this contradicts the character in the "President Lisa" timeline's claim to being "the first straight female president.
This is the first "Simpsons Future" I can say I'd be legitimately interested in seeing them revisit. In particular, I'd LOVE to know the story behind the blink-and-you'll-miss-it detail as to the fate of a certain ex-Krusty Sidekick - I feel like it must have been either Bart or Homer who finally did the deed, but I can't decide which would be more awesome (leaning toward Homer.)
History
As part of a longstanding tradition, U.S. Navy ships will - upon returning home - select a sailor to descend to the dock ahead of the others and share the first "homecoming" kiss with their significant other (and, one presumes, with new photographers looking to take "their version" of the famous V-Day photo.)
On December 21st of this year, said tradition once again became part of history as - for the first time ever - an "official" first-kiss was shared by a same-sex couple:
The lucky couple in question are Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell. Gaeta (in the hat) was the returnee, having purchased $50 worth of tickets in her ship's (The USS Oak Hill) charity raffle where the honor was the prize.
Photo is credited to one Brian Clark of The Virginian-Pilot. I hope his contract let's him retain some rights to it so he can get a cut of the royalties as this almost-certainly winds up in history books, newsreels and museum displays from now until the forseeable future.
On December 21st of this year, said tradition once again became part of history as - for the first time ever - an "official" first-kiss was shared by a same-sex couple:
 |
PHOTO: Brian Clark, The Virginian-Pilot |
The lucky couple in question are Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell. Gaeta (in the hat) was the returnee, having purchased $50 worth of tickets in her ship's (The USS Oak Hill) charity raffle where the honor was the prize.
Photo is credited to one Brian Clark of The Virginian-Pilot. I hope his contract let's him retain some rights to it so he can get a cut of the royalties as this almost-certainly winds up in history books, newsreels and museum displays from now until the forseeable future.
The Greatest Adventure Is What Lies Ahead
Fuck. Yes.
Ten years ago, the "Lord of The Rings" movies stepped into both a blockbuster-filmmaking realm and a movie-geek culture realm - both of which hurting in the wake of "The Phantom Menace" debacle - and completely rewrote the book. I don't think that's exaggerating - I firmly believe that the "21st Century Model" of film-geekdom begins with this series, which took every concievable creative and financial risk and paid them off with a singular filmmaking achievement that in my mind has yet to be equalled.
...and now we get to go back.
Ye gods... hearing that Howard Shore score kick back up on the soundtrack... seeing The Shire again... it feels like coming home. This is, literally, the LEAST stressed I have felt all December.
This, my friends, is THE movie of 2012 as far as I'm concerned. Batman? Small potatoes. Avengers? Slightly-prettier small potatoes. Spider-Man? Don't even start.
Ten years ago, the "Lord of The Rings" movies stepped into both a blockbuster-filmmaking realm and a movie-geek culture realm - both of which hurting in the wake of "The Phantom Menace" debacle - and completely rewrote the book. I don't think that's exaggerating - I firmly believe that the "21st Century Model" of film-geekdom begins with this series, which took every concievable creative and financial risk and paid them off with a singular filmmaking achievement that in my mind has yet to be equalled.
...and now we get to go back.
Ye gods... hearing that Howard Shore score kick back up on the soundtrack... seeing The Shire again... it feels like coming home. This is, literally, the LEAST stressed I have felt all December.
This, my friends, is THE movie of 2012 as far as I'm concerned. Batman? Small potatoes. Avengers? Slightly-prettier small potatoes. Spider-Man? Don't even start.
Here's That Batman Trailer
"Wrath of The Titans" Will Probably Sucker You In, Again
I didn't dislike "Clash of The Titans," but I also don't remember hardly any of it. In any case, even though no one seems to have really "loved" it it managed to make a MASSIVE international profit theatrically; so Warner Bros. made another one.
The trailer is selling "monsters, monsters and more monsters;" and I wish I wasn't such an easy lay for this stuff: Show me a Cyclops (and guy made of lava, and what I think is a gryphon) and I've pretty-much bought a ticket. Oh well...
The trailer is selling "monsters, monsters and more monsters;" and I wish I wasn't such an easy lay for this stuff: Show me a Cyclops (and guy made of lava, and what I think is a gryphon) and I've pretty-much bought a ticket. Oh well...
Kim Jong Il is Dead
Reports are still coming in, but the title says it all: North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, one of the worst and most brutal dictators on Earth, is dead tonight.
Power will almost-certainly pass, however symbolically, to his son Kim Jong Un - who is reputed to be either legitimately insane, mentally-impaired or both - though it's almost a foregone conclusion that the myriad military/government officials who're alleged to have been the real operators during the elder Kim's dotage (he's been in failing health for years) will be vying to either take power themselves OR get the hell out of dodge with whatever they can carry in the event that the house of cards collapses entirely.
I feel more than a little crass doing to the "blah blah something HUGELY important happened somewhere that's not America... but here's how it will effect America!" hard-segue, but this is really the only thing definite you can say about this right now: Any illusions that Barack Obama or his various would-be Republican challengers may have had that with Iraq "finished" and Afghanistan winding down this would be a strictly meat-and-potatoes "domestic issues" presidential election just evaporated. If you are the "China Policy Advisor" to an American politician, you are very likely about to learn that you are working this Christmas.
Here's the situation: Setting aside the very real long-held concerns that Kim Jong Un (who is essentially a mystery - no one even knows how OLD he actually is outside of the NK government) will not have the official loyalty or ability to hold the system together; this is almost certain to cause a significant amount "rumbling" in the nation itself, which will be most-directly felt at it's borders with China and South Korea (the former of which is seperated by a demilitarized zone patroled by U.S. forces) both of whom will be looking to their American allies to help out (or, in China's case, "back off") with management of what could be a 'failed state' crisis at their respective borders. Here's to hoping things don't get too much worse for North Korea's impoverished citizens, in any case.
Place your bets now as to which GOP Presidential candidate will have the dumbest thing to say about this tomorrow morning.
Power will almost-certainly pass, however symbolically, to his son Kim Jong Un - who is reputed to be either legitimately insane, mentally-impaired or both - though it's almost a foregone conclusion that the myriad military/government officials who're alleged to have been the real operators during the elder Kim's dotage (he's been in failing health for years) will be vying to either take power themselves OR get the hell out of dodge with whatever they can carry in the event that the house of cards collapses entirely.
I feel more than a little crass doing to the "blah blah something HUGELY important happened somewhere that's not America... but here's how it will effect America!" hard-segue, but this is really the only thing definite you can say about this right now: Any illusions that Barack Obama or his various would-be Republican challengers may have had that with Iraq "finished" and Afghanistan winding down this would be a strictly meat-and-potatoes "domestic issues" presidential election just evaporated. If you are the "China Policy Advisor" to an American politician, you are very likely about to learn that you are working this Christmas.
Here's the situation: Setting aside the very real long-held concerns that Kim Jong Un (who is essentially a mystery - no one even knows how OLD he actually is outside of the NK government) will not have the official loyalty or ability to hold the system together; this is almost certain to cause a significant amount "rumbling" in the nation itself, which will be most-directly felt at it's borders with China and South Korea (the former of which is seperated by a demilitarized zone patroled by U.S. forces) both of whom will be looking to their American allies to help out (or, in China's case, "back off") with management of what could be a 'failed state' crisis at their respective borders. Here's to hoping things don't get too much worse for North Korea's impoverished citizens, in any case.
Place your bets now as to which GOP Presidential candidate will have the dumbest thing to say about this tomorrow morning.
Green Goblin Makeup Test Appears Online
Below, test-footage of an unused makeup-concept for Willem Dafoe's "Green Goblin" makeup (before they went with the mechanical helmet design instead) by ADI. Left unsaid is whether this was intended to be a (very) elaborate rubber mask like in the comics or some kind of full-on physical transformation...
Characters like this go through LOTS of designs on their way to the screen, and it's not unusual at all to see full-functioning suits, appliances and props being made to test them out. The reason you very seldom SEE any of them is that the studio/license-holder owns the rights to the character AND the work and usually doesn't want them shown for one reason or another.
So why would you be seeing it now? Probably no reason. Maybe because Sony is testing the waters for what GG should look like when he innevitably turns up in the rebooted series? Who knows.
Characters like this go through LOTS of designs on their way to the screen, and it's not unusual at all to see full-functioning suits, appliances and props being made to test them out. The reason you very seldom SEE any of them is that the studio/license-holder owns the rights to the character AND the work and usually doesn't want them shown for one reason or another.
So why would you be seeing it now? Probably no reason. Maybe because Sony is testing the waters for what GG should look like when he innevitably turns up in the rebooted series? Who knows.
Escape to the Movies: "The Adventures of Tintin"
Very, very good.
Wondering where my feelings on the (extremely mediocre) "Mission: Impossible" and (shockingly terrible) "Sherlock Holmes" sequels are? Right here...
Wondering where my feelings on the (extremely mediocre) "Mission: Impossible" and (shockingly terrible) "Sherlock Holmes" sequels are? Right here...
Big Picture: "If The Oscars Were The VGAs"
Cobra Commander Looks Like Cobra Commander
I'm "that guy" who really liked Stephen Sommers' first "G.I. Joe" movie. Yeah, it was far from perfect - mostly thanks to having been a "strike script" victim - but from where I sat it more-or-less delivered a faithful-in-tone adaptation of the animated series and comics (read: aggressively silly scifi-military nonsense as-envisioned by 8-year olds playing with action figures) and I maintain that most of the excessively-negative reactions would've been greatly reduced if it had been the same movie but with more source-accurate costuming...
...which more or less seems to be what the out-of-nowhere AWESOME debut trailer for the sequel, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," is offering:
The new director is John M. Chu, who's mostly made dance and concert movies up to this point. At some point he'd made some noise about this one going "dark and gritty," but this looks like anything but: It's the same basic look and feel as the first one, just with bigger action heroes in the cast (The Rock is "RoadBlock," who is apparently our new lead, while Bruce Willis is supposedly playing a retired soldier named "Joe" from whom the organization derives it's name) and characters like Cobra Commander, Snake Eyes and Jinx (Jinx? For real?) looking more like they're "supposed to." But does that make it look "better?"
...Yeah, kinda. I'll admit it: Seeing Cobra Commander in the blue uniform with the mirrored-faceplate is all kinds of awesome, I'm always a sucker for color-coded ninjas and the 'money shot' of the Cobra Flag flying over the White House is sort of incredible.
I wonder how "seriously" to take the storyline implications in this particular trailer, though - are they really so committed to the "sorry about the last one" angle that they'll kill off everyone from the first one except Snake Eyes, which is what the trailer is implying?
...which more or less seems to be what the out-of-nowhere AWESOME debut trailer for the sequel, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," is offering:
The new director is John M. Chu, who's mostly made dance and concert movies up to this point. At some point he'd made some noise about this one going "dark and gritty," but this looks like anything but: It's the same basic look and feel as the first one, just with bigger action heroes in the cast (The Rock is "RoadBlock," who is apparently our new lead, while Bruce Willis is supposedly playing a retired soldier named "Joe" from whom the organization derives it's name) and characters like Cobra Commander, Snake Eyes and Jinx (Jinx? For real?) looking more like they're "supposed to." But does that make it look "better?"
...Yeah, kinda. I'll admit it: Seeing Cobra Commander in the blue uniform with the mirrored-faceplate is all kinds of awesome, I'm always a sucker for color-coded ninjas and the 'money shot' of the Cobra Flag flying over the White House is sort of incredible.
I wonder how "seriously" to take the storyline implications in this particular trailer, though - are they really so committed to the "sorry about the last one" angle that they'll kill off everyone from the first one except Snake Eyes, which is what the trailer is implying?
Good "Dark Knight Rises" Poster
I'm not quite ready to change my "innevitably recieved as a dissapointment, regardles of it's actual merits" projection of "The Dark Knight Rises." But the new poster, which builds on the idea that this is the end of the story as opposed to just the part where they stop, has a lot of promise.All Wet
Here's that new trailer for "Battleship," the naval-centered sequel to "Battle: LA" (remember that?) that nobody asked for:
I'm still fairly curious about this, as I kinda like the idea that Berg basically wanted to make a navy vs. aliens movie and got it done by offering to name it after the board game... but it's hard to stay optimistic when it still looks so much like "Transformers" on the water.
Also: Is that the Freedom Tower they're blowing up?
Also: Is Rihanna doing a Carribbean accent? EDIT: Apparently that's her real speaking (as opposed to singing) voice... which I now realize I had never actually heard until now.
I'm still fairly curious about this, as I kinda like the idea that Berg basically wanted to make a navy vs. aliens movie and got it done by offering to name it after the board game... but it's hard to stay optimistic when it still looks so much like "Transformers" on the water.
Also: Is that the Freedom Tower they're blowing up?
"The Amazing Spider-Man" Lies His Ass Off In NEW Poster
When I first saw this (origin: SuperHeroHype) as a partial-view on my smartphone I kind of loved it - great design, if nothing else. Then I scrolled down to the bottom and burst out laughing in public.They're really selling a revisitation of what may be (at least!) the 3rd most widely-known superhero "origin story" EVER as "The Untold Story?" The origin of Spider-Man is the definition of a TOLD story! It's not even as though it's a "prequel" to the previously-made movies and is going to reveal some "untold" part of that continuity; it's just a new version of the same exact fucking story! That's as close to a full-blown lie as a poster can tell!
But... whatever. What it does make me wonder (again) is what they might have meant when they put this together. What is "the untold story?"
Of all the things that set off my alarm bells about the godawful first trailer for the film, the most glaring was that the death (dissappearance?) of Peter Parker's actual parents - and satchel full of mysterious-documents they left behind - was revealed as some kind of big driving point for the plot (the big final line of the trailer was "We all have secrets. The ones you keep... and the one's kept from you.") Of all the convoluted nonsense that Spidey's backstory has accrued over the years, the detail that Richard and Mary Parker were actually Bond-style secret agents is one of the dopiest; but as part of a movie continuity it gives off the bad vibes of some "big thing" that 'coincidentally' connects all the current and future characters together as opposed to "weird super-science stuff happens all the time around here" worldbuilding.
Best guess? They'll be revealed to have been "taken out" because of some nefarious doings related to Oscorp (the company's name is on Gwen Stacy's and Curt Conners' labcoats in the trailer) which will in turn be the "source" of both The Lizard and sundry baddies to come (oh, and they'll tease The Green Goblin at the end a'la The Joker.)
Am I the only one that hates when they do that? Joker being the Wayne's killer in the Tim Burton "Batman," Sandman shooting Uncle Ben in "Spider-Man 3," etc? It always makes the "world" so small and narrow. I know why it's there from a screenwriting 101 standpoint, connecting the threads and whatnot - but it kills out the "scope" factor of having the various villains and/or other "super" people existing independently of the main character until their paths cross. Like... in "Captain America," I LOVE that the Cosmic Cube has zero connection to Cap until The Red Skull has it, and that even then it has nothing to do with why The Skull is what he is; or how S.H.I.E.L.D. is not exclusively devoted to looking for Thor, they're just "there" and they've brought an archery-themed superhero with them "because why not?" It makes everything so much more expansive and adds so much more potential.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Come See MovieBob At ARISIA '12!
...And, hey! Did you see the NEW "Game OverThinker?"
Anyway, I can now announce that I'll be out and about at Arisia '12 - a big Boston Area scifi/fantasy/fandom convention running January 13th-16th you can learn more about HERE. At this time I can't officially announce where/when you'll be able to see me appearing in an "official" capacity (i.e. panels, speaking, discussions, etc;) but I'll also be around "the floor" so feel free to say hi if you happen to be onhand as well.
I'm also planning on being at PAXEast again this year as well, though details on that are still aways off. Stay tuned!
Anyway, I can now announce that I'll be out and about at Arisia '12 - a big Boston Area scifi/fantasy/fandom convention running January 13th-16th you can learn more about HERE. At this time I can't officially announce where/when you'll be able to see me appearing in an "official" capacity (i.e. panels, speaking, discussions, etc;) but I'll also be around "the floor" so feel free to say hi if you happen to be onhand as well.
I'm also planning on being at PAXEast again this year as well, though details on that are still aways off. Stay tuned!
"Three Stooges" Looks Worse Than You Thought
Apple has the trailer for the Farrelly Bros. modern reboot of "The Three Stooges." I'll post an embed when I get one, but for now go and feel my pain.
Ye gods, what did anyone do to deserve this? For all the care taken to get the actors looking "right" and match the old-timey sound effects; how did NO ONE notice (or care) that they have NONE of the actual Stooges' gift for physical comedy? And are we really, honestly doing "sexy nun" jokes in 2011?
Ye gods, what did anyone do to deserve this? For all the care taken to get the actors looking "right" and match the old-timey sound effects; how did NO ONE notice (or care) that they have NONE of the actual Stooges' gift for physical comedy? And are we really, honestly doing "sexy nun" jokes in 2011?
"Cabin in The Woods" FINALLY Has a Trailer
THIS Is Why People Think Republicans Are Stupid.
It is, let's be honest - just as it's not fair that my "Liberal" friends get stereotyped as weak and/or wimpy; it's a little unfair that my Republican friends get stereotyped as being idiots. Granted, running presidential candidates who reject the scientific facts of things like evolution, climate change, or in general hold science and knowledge as inferior to "belief" doesn't really help their case.
Also not helping their case? Doing a 7 minute segment on Fox Business attacking "The Muppets" for "brainwashing" children with an anti-corporate message. (Summary of charges? The bad guy is an oil magnate named Tex Richman.)
Also not helping their case? Doing a 7 minute segment on Fox Business attacking "The Muppets" for "brainwashing" children with an anti-corporate message. (Summary of charges? The bad guy is an oil magnate named Tex Richman.)
Less-Than-Thrilling "Star Trek" Bad Guy Rumors
EDIT: Somehow, this initially went up without the page-break I intended. My appologies.
This has been "news" for a few days now, but I wanted to chew it over before posting anything. Plus, weekend and all that...
So... Internet Lore has it that I "hated" JJ Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot; which is basically untrue - I didn't really care much for it, and I think it's kind of telling that the "return of Trek as a super-relevant franchise" thing that it was supposed to kick off has more-or-less failed to materialize - let's be real for a moment: the Geek Culture "organism" has been obsessing over "what's gonna happen in 'The Avengers'" since the end of "Iron Man"... how much chatter or even excitement has there been over "New Trek" since the movie? - but mostly I was underwhelmed.
Anyway! Latino Review claims to have the scoop as to the identity of the (presumed) villain Benicio Del Toro is playing in the sequel. POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING FROM HERE ON OUT!/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
According to LR's sources - and they are known for having really, REALLY good intel - he'll be Khan Noonien Singh, pretty-much THE most widely-recognized Trek villain (moreso because of "Wrath of Khan" than his origins on the original series.)
This has pretty-much been what most people have been assuming (again, Khan is really the only Trek heavy that EVERYONE has heard of) since the beginning... and while there have already been a slew of denials from the filmmakers that means very little at this point, as Devin at BAD points out "extreme truth-stretching" is standard-issue for movie rumor denials these days.
In any case, IF true it's kinda dissapointing news from where I sit.
Mainly, it smacks of taking the easy route: This was what everyone assumed the 2nd movie would be before they shot the FIRST movie. By the same token, it smacks of Abrams and company's strictly-superficial read of the franchise: Khan is iconic mainly because of "Wrath of Khan" - which they probably aren't going to remake (in no small part because they already 'borrowed' the basic skeleton of Khan's story in that film for Nero in the last movie.) "Space Seed" - the Young Kirk era episode that introduced the character - had previously been prized mostly for it's world-building; one of the few Original Series episodes to offer some tidbits about what had happened in Trek's history between the audience's present and the Federation-era future (short version: Khan is a genetically-engineered superhuman who became a would-be conquerer during the delightfully-named "Eugenics Wars," later discovered hibernating in a spaceship by The Enterprise.)
Basically; if this is true it means that despite re-booting the entire Trek universe and thus having the option of using ANY character (or making up a new one) they'd be going for a retread of the most popular movie in the pre-reboot series. This isn't automatically indicative of anything, of course - maybe THIS will be the screenplay where Team Abrams finally delivers - but it's not a terribly encouraging sign.
Also... not to nitpick here, but if it IS going to be Khan... with all due respect to Del Toro, it would've been nice if they could've found an Indian actor for the role. Khan is supposed to be a Sikh, after all - and it's not like there aren't a metric-ton of good Indian actors who could really benefit from a breakout part like this (not to mention it could mean HUGE boxoffice in the increasingly-important India market.) Casting him with another Spanish actor - a good one, don't get me wrong - once again smells unpleasantly of a surface-only read of the series. Plus, let's be honest, the ONLY way for a new Khan to stand on his own merit is for him to be as far removed from Ricardo Montalban's version as possible.
We'll see.
This has been "news" for a few days now, but I wanted to chew it over before posting anything. Plus, weekend and all that...
So... Internet Lore has it that I "hated" JJ Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot; which is basically untrue - I didn't really care much for it, and I think it's kind of telling that the "return of Trek as a super-relevant franchise" thing that it was supposed to kick off has more-or-less failed to materialize - let's be real for a moment: the Geek Culture "organism" has been obsessing over "what's gonna happen in 'The Avengers'" since the end of "Iron Man"... how much chatter or even excitement has there been over "New Trek" since the movie? - but mostly I was underwhelmed.
Anyway! Latino Review claims to have the scoop as to the identity of the (presumed) villain Benicio Del Toro is playing in the sequel. POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING FROM HERE ON OUT!/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
According to LR's sources - and they are known for having really, REALLY good intel - he'll be Khan Noonien Singh, pretty-much THE most widely-recognized Trek villain (moreso because of "Wrath of Khan" than his origins on the original series.)
This has pretty-much been what most people have been assuming (again, Khan is really the only Trek heavy that EVERYONE has heard of) since the beginning... and while there have already been a slew of denials from the filmmakers that means very little at this point, as Devin at BAD points out "extreme truth-stretching" is standard-issue for movie rumor denials these days.
In any case, IF true it's kinda dissapointing news from where I sit.
Mainly, it smacks of taking the easy route: This was what everyone assumed the 2nd movie would be before they shot the FIRST movie. By the same token, it smacks of Abrams and company's strictly-superficial read of the franchise: Khan is iconic mainly because of "Wrath of Khan" - which they probably aren't going to remake (in no small part because they already 'borrowed' the basic skeleton of Khan's story in that film for Nero in the last movie.) "Space Seed" - the Young Kirk era episode that introduced the character - had previously been prized mostly for it's world-building; one of the few Original Series episodes to offer some tidbits about what had happened in Trek's history between the audience's present and the Federation-era future (short version: Khan is a genetically-engineered superhuman who became a would-be conquerer during the delightfully-named "Eugenics Wars," later discovered hibernating in a spaceship by The Enterprise.)
Basically; if this is true it means that despite re-booting the entire Trek universe and thus having the option of using ANY character (or making up a new one) they'd be going for a retread of the most popular movie in the pre-reboot series. This isn't automatically indicative of anything, of course - maybe THIS will be the screenplay where Team Abrams finally delivers - but it's not a terribly encouraging sign.
Also... not to nitpick here, but if it IS going to be Khan... with all due respect to Del Toro, it would've been nice if they could've found an Indian actor for the role. Khan is supposed to be a Sikh, after all - and it's not like there aren't a metric-ton of good Indian actors who could really benefit from a breakout part like this (not to mention it could mean HUGE boxoffice in the increasingly-important India market.) Casting him with another Spanish actor - a good one, don't get me wrong - once again smells unpleasantly of a surface-only read of the series. Plus, let's be honest, the ONLY way for a new Khan to stand on his own merit is for him to be as far removed from Ricardo Montalban's version as possible.
We'll see.
Today's Pointless, Doomed-to-Suck Reboot is "Starship Troopers"
The problem with Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" is the problem I worry "John Carter" has - being a 'seminal classic' also means that by the time you get to the movies everyone else has already borrowed all the original stuff. Which is why, to my mind, Paul Verhoeven's "Troopers" movie did the only thing you could really DO with the propert after decades of military scifi had picked it's bones clean: Turn Heinlein's quasi-fascist army-fetishism into a scathing - and kind of brilliant - scorched-earth throttling of every bullshit pro-war propaganda flick ever made. I still maintain that, if not for pre-dating the "War On Terror" by many years, it would be the best movie about the "War On Terror" ever made.
So, of course, it's being rebooted.
It would be crazy for them to try and mimic the tone of the first film (or the sequels,) so expect talk of "going back to the source," which will probably also include actually utilizing the "powered robot-suits" that the first film skipped for budgetary reasons. I'm sure it'll result in a serviceable, visually-attractive film... just not one with much going on under the hood.
I could be wrong, of course..
So, of course, it's being rebooted.
It would be crazy for them to try and mimic the tone of the first film (or the sequels,) so expect talk of "going back to the source," which will probably also include actually utilizing the "powered robot-suits" that the first film skipped for budgetary reasons. I'm sure it'll result in a serviceable, visually-attractive film... just not one with much going on under the hood.
I could be wrong, of course..
Today I Like McDonalds
I understand and sympathize with the attitude behind San Francisco's goofy "Happy Meal Ban." Yeah, my latent libertarian streak says that if your stupid enough to think a $1 hamburger (which is NOT, by the way, the cheapest food you can get in most areas where such poverty is a major problem so please spare me the histrionics) prepared in 30 seconds is proper day-to-day nutrition you deserve what you get. To some people "too dumb to live" is a cute hyperbolic insult - to me, it often sounds like a solid catch-all public policy...
BUT, that said, I completely "get" not wanting children to suffer for the stupidity of their parents. So yeah, I get where they're coming from; but it's still a foolish, pointless move from a city that seems to have lost it's ability to distinguish between worthwhile liberal social-policy and cartoonish parodies of what right-wing dipshits think liberals are about.
Which is why - despite my mixed feelings on the Fast Food industry (on the one hand I'm not "against" corporations 'preying' on idiots, on the other hand... y'know, kids don't get to choose whether or not they're born to idiot parents) I straight-up LOVE McDonalds' ingeniously dickish "fuck you!" to the ban:
See, SF made a law that said you can't include FREE toy prizes in "kids meals" that don't comply with city nutritional standards; which, of course, seem precisely built to exclude pretty-much anything McDonalds might sell. McD's solution? Raise the price of a Happy Meal by a dime, make the toys something you have to ask for, and call the dime the "price" of the toy. Oh, and that dime? They're giving it to charity. Fuck yeah. Take a bow, Ronald.
To show my solidarity, one appreciator of a high-quality loophole-leaping "fuck you" to another, I'll be making it a point to eat some McDonalds today - y'know, after a 2,000 calorie workout, of course. I haven't been in awhile, what should I get?
BUT, that said, I completely "get" not wanting children to suffer for the stupidity of their parents. So yeah, I get where they're coming from; but it's still a foolish, pointless move from a city that seems to have lost it's ability to distinguish between worthwhile liberal social-policy and cartoonish parodies of what right-wing dipshits think liberals are about.
Which is why - despite my mixed feelings on the Fast Food industry (on the one hand I'm not "against" corporations 'preying' on idiots, on the other hand... y'know, kids don't get to choose whether or not they're born to idiot parents) I straight-up LOVE McDonalds' ingeniously dickish "fuck you!" to the ban:
See, SF made a law that said you can't include FREE toy prizes in "kids meals" that don't comply with city nutritional standards; which, of course, seem precisely built to exclude pretty-much anything McDonalds might sell. McD's solution? Raise the price of a Happy Meal by a dime, make the toys something you have to ask for, and call the dime the "price" of the toy. Oh, and that dime? They're giving it to charity. Fuck yeah. Take a bow, Ronald.
To show my solidarity, one appreciator of a high-quality loophole-leaping "fuck you" to another, I'll be making it a point to eat some McDonalds today - y'know, after a 2,000 calorie workout, of course. I haven't been in awhile, what should I get?
"John Carter" Looking Better
Much as I liked what the first "John Carter" trailer was implying, the buzz since then has been shaky - fans who got a look at a sizzle reel during D23 were largely underwhelmed; and the suspiciously expection-lowering-esque "leaked" reports of budget runovers and the ongoing issue of the title (WHY can't they add in "Of Mars" again?) haven't helped. I want this to work, but I'm not getting that same "holy shit, they NAILED IT!" vibe the first "Lord of The Rings" trailers had.
This new one... is a step in the right direction. I'm still coming to terms with the decidedly un-Martian look of Mars (I'm wondering if they intend "I'm on Mars" to be some kind of surprise-reveal?) and the practical/semirealism look of the the tech and creatures... but that's an expectation thing, I think - adhering to either Burrough's persistent "going native" fetishism OR the gloriously-overblown Frazetta paintings that have defined this franchise visually for so long were never really options for a Disney actioner.
At this point, my bigger worry is that it doesn't look all that much "different" from Star Wars or a dozen other similar offerings, which is problematic considering how 'traditional' the narrative is by now. That said, the use of Led Zepplin (which couldn't have been cheap) goes a long way toward giving the whole thing a very "ostentatious album-cover" feel, so we'll see.
This new one... is a step in the right direction. I'm still coming to terms with the decidedly un-Martian look of Mars (I'm wondering if they intend "I'm on Mars" to be some kind of surprise-reveal?) and the practical/semirealism look of the the tech and creatures... but that's an expectation thing, I think - adhering to either Burrough's persistent "going native" fetishism OR the gloriously-overblown Frazetta paintings that have defined this franchise visually for so long were never really options for a Disney actioner.
At this point, my bigger worry is that it doesn't look all that much "different" from Star Wars or a dozen other similar offerings, which is problematic considering how 'traditional' the narrative is by now. That said, the use of Led Zepplin (which couldn't have been cheap) goes a long way toward giving the whole thing a very "ostentatious album-cover" feel, so we'll see.
Finally, Someone Made "Moulin Rouge" Entertaining
If you ever needed a reason as to WHY the Channel Awesome/That Guy With The Glasses collective are pretty-much THE force in the criticism-as-entertainment video genre... I'd say that this is the best example to date: a good chunk of the crew (primarily The Nostalgia Critic, Nostalgia Chick and a guest-appearing Brentalfloss, but Linkara, Spoony etc. get in some amusing cameos) dive into a nearly 45-minute breakdown of "Moulin Rouge" in musical format. Amusingly, the film itself is uniquely well-suited to being intercut with the TGWTG "house-style;" aka "mugging-the-shit-out-of-the-camera."
I'm embedding it below, but I really encourage people to visit the site - a really amazing amount of content from a refreshingly-diverse group of voices.
I know that reactions to TGWTG run hot-or-cold at this point, especially as they've become more ubiquitous. Depending on who you ask, they're either geek-culture revolutionaries or the worst thing that EVER happened to internet criticism; as they're seen as popularizing the move away from youtube-slideshow to character/skit-driven as the dominant style of the genre.
For the most part, I'm the mostly-affirmative camp. Having guys like these (along with the gang at ScrewAttack and the omnipresent juggernaut of James "AVGN" Rolfe) towering over this medium has been a consistent and welcome kick-in-the-ass reminder for me to step up my game and try newer/better/different things with my various projects.
Also, it must be said, I think the sheer diversity of voices and perspectives - that it's NOT "only" a site of the usual GenX Suburbanite White Male Nerds - they've assembled is an enormous good for web/geek culture overall. That they have so many female reviewers, for example, is a big net-positive; and while Lewis Lovhaug's (Linkara's) work-ethic and natural talent are what's made him a star (I really do think he's the best thing to happen to comic book journalism/criticism in a decade or more, not that there's much competition...) it's the uniqueness and sincerity of his cultural-outlook that makes his stuff so frequently refreshing.
I'm embedding it below, but I really encourage people to visit the site - a really amazing amount of content from a refreshingly-diverse group of voices.
I know that reactions to TGWTG run hot-or-cold at this point, especially as they've become more ubiquitous. Depending on who you ask, they're either geek-culture revolutionaries or the worst thing that EVER happened to internet criticism; as they're seen as popularizing the move away from youtube-slideshow to character/skit-driven as the dominant style of the genre.
For the most part, I'm the mostly-affirmative camp. Having guys like these (along with the gang at ScrewAttack and the omnipresent juggernaut of James "AVGN" Rolfe) towering over this medium has been a consistent and welcome kick-in-the-ass reminder for me to step up my game and try newer/better/different things with my various projects.
Also, it must be said, I think the sheer diversity of voices and perspectives - that it's NOT "only" a site of the usual GenX Suburbanite White Male Nerds - they've assembled is an enormous good for web/geek culture overall. That they have so many female reviewers, for example, is a big net-positive; and while Lewis Lovhaug's (Linkara's) work-ethic and natural talent are what's made him a star (I really do think he's the best thing to happen to comic book journalism/criticism in a decade or more, not that there's much competition...) it's the uniqueness and sincerity of his cultural-outlook that makes his stuff so frequently refreshing.
"Men In Black 3" Has a Magic Eye Poster
Hat-tip: BADI'm too lazy to check, but I'm sure it's a given that someone else has made this joke by now... none the less, it behooves me to point out that it's kind of wonderfully appropriate that the teaser poster for "Men In Black 3" is built to look like one of those old "Magic Eye" posters: The last time anyone gave two shits about "Men In Black;" Magic Eye was NEW...
There's a second version of the poster featuring Josh Brolin, who's playing the circa-1960s version of Tommy Lee Jones' character from the last one. The plot was supposed to involve time-travel and the origins of the MIB organization; but apparently it's been extensively rewritten (leading to a scandalously-overblown budget, or so goes the gossip) so at this point who knows/cares?
Crazily-Plausible "DARK KNIGHT RISE" Theory Advanced by Joke Website
CRACKED - which morphed from a middling MAD Magazine clone to a shockingly-awesome The Onion clone - has a blogger advancing a new "what will happen to Batman" theory that, unlike most other versions of the same idea, makes a surprising amount of sense. No spoilers (yet) but the main "big" point is what I'd call my favorite guess yet made as to what the point of Joseph Gordon Levitt's role will be.
Read the piece HERE
Read the piece HERE
RIP Ken Russell 1927-2011
Ken Russell has died. Though he'd slipped somewhat from public consciousness outside of his native England, Russell was the director of a string of popular and/or noteworthy films throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. Any film buff worth his salt ought to have seen "The Devils," "Women in Love" and "Altered States" by now; though he was probably best known for "The Who's 'Tommy" and a slew of increasingly-offbeat biopics of classical composers.
Below, a scene from "Lair of The White Worm" - for my money still the height of Hugh Grant's onscreen moments:
UK readers: Did any news outlets opt to use that clip for effect back when Grant was the big hero of the hacking scandal? Or do you guys not "do" the ironic-movie-clip-as-part-of-the-news thing?
Below, a scene from "Lair of The White Worm" - for my money still the height of Hugh Grant's onscreen moments:
UK readers: Did any news outlets opt to use that clip for effect back when Grant was the big hero of the hacking scandal? Or do you guys not "do" the ironic-movie-clip-as-part-of-the-news thing?
Escape to the Movies: "The Muppets"
Apologies for not putting this up sooner. Busy day for me, and I wasn't even shopping.
"Intermission" has more Muppets.
"Intermission" has more Muppets.
Big Picture: "Skin Game"
This is about the PETA Mario spoof. I advise the weak-of-stomach to proceed with caution.
I'm feeling like this will be the last "super-serious" episode for a little while, because the research I had to do was pretty ghastly stuff and I just don't need the extra stress for the holidays. Lots of people celebrate New Years Eve/Day; but *I* celebrate January 2nd - the day the world gets back to normal.
I'm feeling like this will be the last "super-serious" episode for a little while, because the research I had to do was pretty ghastly stuff and I just don't need the extra stress for the holidays. Lots of people celebrate New Years Eve/Day; but *I* celebrate January 2nd - the day the world gets back to normal.
"Dark Knight Rises" Is Batman (Slightly) Beyond
EMPIRE had a much-hyped set-visit story about "The Dark Knight Rises" recently, much to the delight of all those who can't get enough non-news about next year's all-but-garaunteed-to-not-live-up-to-your-expectations blockbuster. But what was actually revealed? Well... nothing, really; save that Bane still looks about as crummy in the "official" images as he has in the random on-location snaps.
The only thing close to new information is that the film is apparently set 8 years after the end of "Dark Knight;" which is... interesting, I suppose?
A lot of fans are reading the time-jump as a "clue" that the film will ultimately be some form of adaptation of either "The Dark Knight Returns" (i.e. old Batman un-retiring) or "Knightfall" (i.e. Batman coming back from Bane-induced injuries); mostly because for a lot of fans everything is a clue pointing to an adaptation of those stories. More likely, it's a way for Nolan to do what he's always said he was going to do - put a definitive END on "his" Batman story - without having dissapointed fans point out how brief this particular Batman's career was. It also, maybe, gives Warner Bros. room to say that the innevitable new-actor-reboot is actually happening during the "missing" 8 years.
Also "revealed" in the article is the possibility that Bane is actually "powered" by inhaled-gas painkillers instead of muscle-growth chemicals, which will come as a shocking dissapointment to anyone who actually expected Christopher Nolan to include a Hulk-sized monster-man in his movie.
The only thing close to new information is that the film is apparently set 8 years after the end of "Dark Knight;" which is... interesting, I suppose?
A lot of fans are reading the time-jump as a "clue" that the film will ultimately be some form of adaptation of either "The Dark Knight Returns" (i.e. old Batman un-retiring) or "Knightfall" (i.e. Batman coming back from Bane-induced injuries); mostly because for a lot of fans everything is a clue pointing to an adaptation of those stories. More likely, it's a way for Nolan to do what he's always said he was going to do - put a definitive END on "his" Batman story - without having dissapointed fans point out how brief this particular Batman's career was. It also, maybe, gives Warner Bros. room to say that the innevitable new-actor-reboot is actually happening during the "missing" 8 years.
Also "revealed" in the article is the possibility that Bane is actually "powered" by inhaled-gas painkillers instead of muscle-growth chemicals, which will come as a shocking dissapointment to anyone who actually expected Christopher Nolan to include a Hulk-sized monster-man in his movie.
Desert Bus Has Begun!
The great folks at LoadingReadyRun have begun their yearly "Child's Play" charity drive, wherein they play Desert Bus - one of the worst games ever made - for your amusement. You can watch the live feed and donate HERE.
I'm scheduled to call in and shoot the breeze with them LIVE at 11am PST (2pm EST) on Monday the 21st, so tune in for that as well.
I'm scheduled to call in and shoot the breeze with them LIVE at 11am PST (2pm EST) on Monday the 21st, so tune in for that as well.
"Expendables 2" Poster Promises the Movie You THOUGHT You Were Getting the First Time
Source: JOBLOLost in the shuffle of people rushing to invent nefarious conspiracy theories as to why I HATED "The Expendables" was the fact that I'd been looking forward to it at one point. Who wouldn't want to see a dream-team of B-movie action heroes teaming up for one big show? The end result... pretty mediocre, sadly.
This new poster for the sequel, however, promises that they'll try to get it right: Arnold and Willis with (reportedly) bigger non-cameo roles, Van Damme and Chuck Norris added to the roster, etc. Jet Li is apparently in there, too, but didn't rate the poster. I also don't know who the new female recruit is.
It still probably won't end up being very good - Stallone has turned the director duties over the to professionally-mediocre Simon West - but maybe this time they won't bother angling for a PG13 and deliver the ultraviolence properly. Still, good poster.
Right-Wing Douchebags Already Mad at "Happy Feet 2"
Everything below the fold may or may not be MILD plot-spoilers for "Happy Feet 2."
American "conservatives" who still make a go of engaging with the popular culture already seem to live in a kind of fantasy fever-dream where every single entertainment entity on the planet with the exception of Country Music and Call of Duty (dig the ORGASMIC praise the widely-panned "Black Ops" got from the Breitbart coven) is attacking them - personally - with "surprise liberal messages!!!;" so it's always fun to see how they react on those rare occasions when a "surprise liberal message" is actually there.
"Happy Feet 2" (written review coming at some point, but it's REALLY good) features as it's "B-story" a pair of Krill named Will and Bill (Matt Damon and Brad Pitt) who break off from their Krill swarm to explore the "next world" - i.e. everything outside the swarm which they had previously believed encompassed the entire universe. (their sequences are the visual standouts in what's already a gorgeous looking movie - the swarm looks like something out of Tree of Life.) Basically, they're here to go through the "animal outside his boundaries as metaphor for existential-transcendance" (the "Happy Feet" movies are kinda weird) bit that the Penguins already did in the first one.
So what has the professionally-grumpy's panties in a bunch about that? Will and Bill are gay.
To be fair, they didn't imagine this - that the two encompass a male/male couple (which Bill seems to be more "aware" of than Will) is the main "for the grownups" joke of the film. But if you want to see some choice venom, look at the comment thread below all that in the link. Yeesh...
Oh well, at least they'll be thrilled that a film dedicated to telling an audience of mostly teenaged girls that abortion-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother is wrong because dying in childbirth will reincarnate you as what amounts to an angel/faerie/superwoman just had a $30 Million midnight opening. Joy.
American "conservatives" who still make a go of engaging with the popular culture already seem to live in a kind of fantasy fever-dream where every single entertainment entity on the planet with the exception of Country Music and Call of Duty (dig the ORGASMIC praise the widely-panned "Black Ops" got from the Breitbart coven) is attacking them - personally - with "surprise liberal messages!!!;" so it's always fun to see how they react on those rare occasions when a "surprise liberal message" is actually there.
"Happy Feet 2" (written review coming at some point, but it's REALLY good) features as it's "B-story" a pair of Krill named Will and Bill (Matt Damon and Brad Pitt) who break off from their Krill swarm to explore the "next world" - i.e. everything outside the swarm which they had previously believed encompassed the entire universe. (their sequences are the visual standouts in what's already a gorgeous looking movie - the swarm looks like something out of Tree of Life.) Basically, they're here to go through the "animal outside his boundaries as metaphor for existential-transcendance" (the "Happy Feet" movies are kinda weird) bit that the Penguins already did in the first one.
So what has the professionally-grumpy's panties in a bunch about that? Will and Bill are gay.
To be fair, they didn't imagine this - that the two encompass a male/male couple (which Bill seems to be more "aware" of than Will) is the main "for the grownups" joke of the film. But if you want to see some choice venom, look at the comment thread below all that in the link. Yeesh...
Oh well, at least they'll be thrilled that a film dedicated to telling an audience of mostly teenaged girls that abortion-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother is wrong because dying in childbirth will reincarnate you as what amounts to an angel/faerie/superwoman just had a $30 Million midnight opening. Joy.
Your Next Big Video Game Movie Might Be "RAMPAGE!"
I've been saying for years that the reason Hollywood keeps failing at making movies out of video games is largely because they keep choosing the wrong games; i.e. they should look beyond the currently-popular crop of big-sellers - overwhelmingly a collection of drably-generic properties built to resemble various popular movies - and toward older and/or more enduring properties originating in an era when the industry was a hair more creative.
Well, producer John Rickard of the reconstituted New Line Cinema has now opted to take exactly HALF of my advice, putting out the call for screenplay pitches for a big-budget adaptation of "RAMPAGE;" a Golden Age arcade classic that was funny, colorful, utterly bizzare... but also a blatant "Brand X" pastiche of popular movies. On the plus side, said popular movies meant "Godzilla," so there ya go.
I'm excited about this on principal (it would be AMAZING if "golden age video games" became Hollywood's new fixation a'la comics) but I'll be interested as hell to see what they come up with... and probably dissapointed as hell when it turns out they just want to make a generic monster movie with a "brand" name attached. People forget this, but there WAS a semblance of a story to "Rampage" - George (gorilla) Lizzie (dinosaur) and Ralph (werewolf) were humans transformed by mad science.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: If I was pitching this (I'd take this job in a heartbeat) I'd pitch it as a comedy - embrace the juvenility of the game (it's literally coin-op destruction porn) and do it as a broad raunchy slapstick thing; "Harold & Kumar" but with Godzilla-style monsters (use guys in suits green-screened into "real" cities instead of CGI for added humor) as the leads. In fact, make it an Apatow-style dipshit-meets-girl thing with George (Seth Rogan/Jack Black type) and Lizzie (think Sarah Silverman.) King Kong and Girl-Godzilla fucking? That's funny just on it's own. Maybe Ralph is the bad guy, that'd work. Go all-out with the giant-sized scatology humor: Let the giant gorilla throw his giant gorilla poop. Skyscraper-humping. Big river of monster-pee coming down the street like a tidal-wave. Definitely do the toilet-eating thing from the game. Have one of them make a smokestack into a bong. Murderer's Row of comedians doing bit parts as soldiers/cops/bystanders/etc. Do the "this isn't a cave... we're in a monster's mouth!!!" bit... only they're actually in it's butt.
Well, producer John Rickard of the reconstituted New Line Cinema has now opted to take exactly HALF of my advice, putting out the call for screenplay pitches for a big-budget adaptation of "RAMPAGE;" a Golden Age arcade classic that was funny, colorful, utterly bizzare... but also a blatant "Brand X" pastiche of popular movies. On the plus side, said popular movies meant "Godzilla," so there ya go.
I'm excited about this on principal (it would be AMAZING if "golden age video games" became Hollywood's new fixation a'la comics) but I'll be interested as hell to see what they come up with... and probably dissapointed as hell when it turns out they just want to make a generic monster movie with a "brand" name attached. People forget this, but there WAS a semblance of a story to "Rampage" - George (gorilla) Lizzie (dinosaur) and Ralph (werewolf) were humans transformed by mad science.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: If I was pitching this (I'd take this job in a heartbeat) I'd pitch it as a comedy - embrace the juvenility of the game (it's literally coin-op destruction porn) and do it as a broad raunchy slapstick thing; "Harold & Kumar" but with Godzilla-style monsters (use guys in suits green-screened into "real" cities instead of CGI for added humor) as the leads. In fact, make it an Apatow-style dipshit-meets-girl thing with George (Seth Rogan/Jack Black type) and Lizzie (think Sarah Silverman.) King Kong and Girl-Godzilla fucking? That's funny just on it's own. Maybe Ralph is the bad guy, that'd work. Go all-out with the giant-sized scatology humor: Let the giant gorilla throw his giant gorilla poop. Skyscraper-humping. Big river of monster-pee coming down the street like a tidal-wave. Definitely do the toilet-eating thing from the game. Have one of them make a smokestack into a bong. Murderer's Row of comedians doing bit parts as soldiers/cops/bystanders/etc. Do the "this isn't a cave... we're in a monster's mouth!!!" bit... only they're actually in it's butt.
Two TV Things You Should Know About
I'm not one of these people who'll try and tell you that TV is "better than the movies" right now because whatever handful of HBO/FX/AMC shows is the big thing at the moment. Please do not spam the comments with stuff I *NEED!!!* to see. Yes, I've seen and like "Community," internet - thank you.
In any case, remember that "Alias/Jessica Jones" series that was supposed to lead Disney/Marvel into the live-action TV biz? Well, it's going ahead, and today it was confirmed that this particular series will be directly-connected to the continuity of the Marvel/Avengers movie universe.
One assumes the main "point" of this connection is allowing Iron Man etc. to turn up as ratings-grabbing cameo parts, but I'm curious if this means it'll have the same commitment to the comic aesthetic as the films generally have had. The series it's based around was a "street-level" view of a superhero-saturated Marvel universe, the lead character being a depowered heroine turned embittered private eye; and the "hook" was seeing her world bumping up against the colorful costumed-hero world in often dark/ironic ways. Also, Luke Cage - a topper on Marvel's "to-do" movie list - is a supporting character, so call this a potential "back door pilot" for him and a host of others. Carol Danvers - aka Ms. Marvel - has also been cast, wonder if they plan on skipping Mar-Vell altogether for her...
Meanwhile, from the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" file: NBC is bringing back "The Munsters." And, in what sounds too much like a satire of everything wrong with the reboot/remake mentality, the franchise - a cartoonish sitcom spoof about a nuclear family made up of a Frankenstein (dad) Vampire (mom and grandpa) and Werewolf (son) who have a pet dragon - is being reconstituted as (I shit you not) a "dark" hour-long drama that will explore the "origins" of the family. Really.
In any case, remember that "Alias/Jessica Jones" series that was supposed to lead Disney/Marvel into the live-action TV biz? Well, it's going ahead, and today it was confirmed that this particular series will be directly-connected to the continuity of the Marvel/Avengers movie universe.
One assumes the main "point" of this connection is allowing Iron Man etc. to turn up as ratings-grabbing cameo parts, but I'm curious if this means it'll have the same commitment to the comic aesthetic as the films generally have had. The series it's based around was a "street-level" view of a superhero-saturated Marvel universe, the lead character being a depowered heroine turned embittered private eye; and the "hook" was seeing her world bumping up against the colorful costumed-hero world in often dark/ironic ways. Also, Luke Cage - a topper on Marvel's "to-do" movie list - is a supporting character, so call this a potential "back door pilot" for him and a host of others. Carol Danvers - aka Ms. Marvel - has also been cast, wonder if they plan on skipping Mar-Vell altogether for her...
Meanwhile, from the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" file: NBC is bringing back "The Munsters." And, in what sounds too much like a satire of everything wrong with the reboot/remake mentality, the franchise - a cartoonish sitcom spoof about a nuclear family made up of a Frankenstein (dad) Vampire (mom and grandpa) and Werewolf (son) who have a pet dragon - is being reconstituted as (I shit you not) a "dark" hour-long drama that will explore the "origins" of the family. Really.
Titanic 3D trailer
Disney just made a small fortune off of a 3D re-release of "The Lion King," fortelling what many had suspected and/or bet-on for a few years now. Our next big movie trend: 3D re-releases of movies that today's twentysomethings loved when they were in grade-school.
Next up, "Titanic"; which is conveniently JUST starting to end it's "cool to hate" phase of notoriety and begin it's "appreciated as nostalgiac kitsch" phase (see also: the Backstreet Boys/NKOTB tour). I hope you enjoy faux-ironic recollections of teen-heartthrob "manias," misty-eyed retrospectives of "first big date movie" experiences (both packed with "remember-that!?" references to questional high-school fashion choices) because the entertainment press is going to be soaked with them leading up to this release...
On the other hand - circa-1997 Kate Winslet topless in IMAX 3D? There are worse things...
I wonder, does having this back in public conscious help or hurt Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar push for "J. Edgar?" I mean, it's no secret that he's spent over a decade running as fast as he can away from Jack Dawson...
Incidentally, the next big "90s classic" re-release after this is "Phantom Menace 3D." Raise your hand if you're looking forward to butthurt "Star Wars" fans gravely grumbling about it like they're planning a pilgrimage to Auschwitz.
Next up, "Titanic"; which is conveniently JUST starting to end it's "cool to hate" phase of notoriety and begin it's "appreciated as nostalgiac kitsch" phase (see also: the Backstreet Boys/NKOTB tour). I hope you enjoy faux-ironic recollections of teen-heartthrob "manias," misty-eyed retrospectives of "first big date movie" experiences (both packed with "remember-that!?" references to questional high-school fashion choices) because the entertainment press is going to be soaked with them leading up to this release...
On the other hand - circa-1997 Kate Winslet topless in IMAX 3D? There are worse things...
I wonder, does having this back in public conscious help or hurt Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar push for "J. Edgar?" I mean, it's no secret that he's spent over a decade running as fast as he can away from Jack Dawson...
Incidentally, the next big "90s classic" re-release after this is "Phantom Menace 3D." Raise your hand if you're looking forward to butthurt "Star Wars" fans gravely grumbling about it like they're planning a pilgrimage to Auschwitz.
I Live In a Nation of Idiots
hat-tip BAD
American readers, do you ever read those wacky news stories about cuss words or cleavage or other random things being "hi-lariously" edited out of movies and TV shows in certain foriegn countries and have nice, good laugh at their silly, backward cultural taboos?
Well, stop it - because YOUR culture is now no better. Telegraph reports that a BBC nature documentary set to air on the Discovery Channel will be edited for it's American broadcast. The reason? The final chapter is about Climate Change - y'know, that thing that the smarties turned out to have been right about the whole time? - and that's considered "controversial" here.
I live in a country where the following things are true:
Knowing what you are talking about is considered a disqualifying characteristic for high office.
"Bruce Jenner's Stepkids Pretend Not To Know They're On TV" is considered a viable broadcast pitch.
The same people who fight for laws declaring that a blob of cell-tissue has human rights fight even harder to declare that adult homosexuals do not.
It is LEGALLY OKAY to bully someone... providing you claim that God told you to.
It is widely accepted as both logical and "moral" that guns be as easy to get as possible, but health insurance should be as difficult to get as possible.
Only 4 in 10 people "believe" in evolution... and almost no one bothers to point out that "believe" is exactly the wrong term to use when describing a proven scientific fact.
DISGRACEFUL.
It says on this blog, and it remains true, that I am proud to be an American. I am, however, utterly disgusted with what my country too often becomes - a collection of proudly-ignorant, self-righteous dolts who prize "gut feeling" above thought, belief above knowledge and regard a lack of intellect as evidence of some "purer" state of being. Superstitious denialists wishing to ignore facts and reason have, of course, a right to exist... but they should not have the influence that has been afforded them for far, far too long.
American readers, do you ever read those wacky news stories about cuss words or cleavage or other random things being "hi-lariously" edited out of movies and TV shows in certain foriegn countries and have nice, good laugh at their silly, backward cultural taboos?
Well, stop it - because YOUR culture is now no better. Telegraph reports that a BBC nature documentary set to air on the Discovery Channel will be edited for it's American broadcast. The reason? The final chapter is about Climate Change - y'know, that thing that the smarties turned out to have been right about the whole time? - and that's considered "controversial" here.
I live in a country where the following things are true:
Knowing what you are talking about is considered a disqualifying characteristic for high office.
"Bruce Jenner's Stepkids Pretend Not To Know They're On TV" is considered a viable broadcast pitch.
The same people who fight for laws declaring that a blob of cell-tissue has human rights fight even harder to declare that adult homosexuals do not.
It is LEGALLY OKAY to bully someone... providing you claim that God told you to.
It is widely accepted as both logical and "moral" that guns be as easy to get as possible, but health insurance should be as difficult to get as possible.
Only 4 in 10 people "believe" in evolution... and almost no one bothers to point out that "believe" is exactly the wrong term to use when describing a proven scientific fact.
DISGRACEFUL.
It says on this blog, and it remains true, that I am proud to be an American. I am, however, utterly disgusted with what my country too often becomes - a collection of proudly-ignorant, self-righteous dolts who prize "gut feeling" above thought, belief above knowledge and regard a lack of intellect as evidence of some "purer" state of being. Superstitious denialists wishing to ignore facts and reason have, of course, a right to exist... but they should not have the influence that has been afforded them for far, far too long.
Happy Birthday to Shigeru Miyamoto
The greatest video-game designer of all time was born today in 1952. Bow your heads and take notice.
Two Minutes and Thirty Seconds of Pain
It's been a good couple of days for Tarem Singh; as his "Immortals" - despite having no major stars and an R-rating - opened in first place ahead of presumed boxoffice-frontrunner "Jack & Jill." But now, the trailer for his follow-up "Mirror, Mirror" (set to be the first of next year's two competing Snow White movies to reach screens) has debuted and threatens to blast all that good will to smithereens; thanks to one of the all-time unstoppable forces of movie-sucktitude:
Julia Roberts.
The principal difference between this and "Snow White & The Huntsman" is tone: They're both dropping most of the workload onto a celebrated "actress of a certain age" in a broad villain turn versus a neophyte actress, and both are positioning the heroine as an action girl, but otherwise they're different beasts - "Huntsman" is aiming for LOTR-style high-fantasy, while this wants very (very!) badly to be "Shrek."
That's not necessarily a bad pitch, and I don't hate the idea of reworking the princess/wicked-queen relationship from vanity to romantic rivalry... but wow, does Roberts look awful in the part. She's not a terrible actress, but she's never been especially GOOD and the stuff asked of her here - physical comedy, mugging, some kind of unplaceable campy accent - is waaaaay the hell outside of her limited skillset. This looks like a disaster, though not necessarily an unprofitable one given that it'll be first to the gate.
Julia Roberts.
The principal difference between this and "Snow White & The Huntsman" is tone: They're both dropping most of the workload onto a celebrated "actress of a certain age" in a broad villain turn versus a neophyte actress, and both are positioning the heroine as an action girl, but otherwise they're different beasts - "Huntsman" is aiming for LOTR-style high-fantasy, while this wants very (very!) badly to be "Shrek."
That's not necessarily a bad pitch, and I don't hate the idea of reworking the princess/wicked-queen relationship from vanity to romantic rivalry... but wow, does Roberts look awful in the part. She's not a terrible actress, but she's never been especially GOOD and the stuff asked of her here - physical comedy, mugging, some kind of unplaceable campy accent - is waaaaay the hell outside of her limited skillset. This looks like a disaster, though not necessarily an unprofitable one given that it'll be first to the gate.
Doctor Who Gets a Movie
David Yates, the BBC TV workhorse who jumped to features for the final few "Harry Potter" movies, makes what can be called a lateral career move - signing on for a feature adaptation of "Doctor Who." The big news, of course, is that it will (apparently) be divorced from previous/current incarnations.
To be fair, this is a franchise that lends itself easily to a reboot. It's actually part of the "gimmick" - the title character is a nigh-immortal time-traveler who gets a fresh new body/personality every time he dies. The series has been running on and off (mostly on) for DECADES, but the overall "continuity" is generally more about recurring/remade characters, stories and motifs than sequence-of-events.
That says, let me lay some "how movies are made now" bets down:
1. It'll be an "origin story" a'la Abrams Trek or Casino Royale, with a new "first" Doctor and lots of big "oh, THAT'S where/why that came from/does that!" reveals for the TARDIS etc.
2. Youngest (in terms of casting) Doctor EVER.
3. Whoever the antagonist is, expect The Master to be hanging around at the margins for a "bad guy in the sequel!" reveal at the very end.
To be fair, this is a franchise that lends itself easily to a reboot. It's actually part of the "gimmick" - the title character is a nigh-immortal time-traveler who gets a fresh new body/personality every time he dies. The series has been running on and off (mostly on) for DECADES, but the overall "continuity" is generally more about recurring/remade characters, stories and motifs than sequence-of-events.
That says, let me lay some "how movies are made now" bets down:
1. It'll be an "origin story" a'la Abrams Trek or Casino Royale, with a new "first" Doctor and lots of big "oh, THAT'S where/why that came from/does that!" reveals for the TARDIS etc.
2. Youngest (in terms of casting) Doctor EVER.
3. Whoever the antagonist is, expect The Master to be hanging around at the margins for a "bad guy in the sequel!" reveal at the very end.
Meryl Streep Seizes Control of British Empire; Demands Oscar as Ransom
British readers, help me out here: It's been my impression that Margaret Thatcher at this point is really only still lionized by the American right-wing; and that her "legacy" isn't looked upon favorably by anything approaching a majority of her own country. Yes? No?
I mean, is there ANY market for what appears to be a gauzy, mostly-favorable biopic boiling Thatcher down to a "tuff broad takes on the Boys Club" story? Or is this another "British" movie only Americans (well, American AMPAAS-voters) will care about?
I mean, is there ANY market for what appears to be a gauzy, mostly-favorable biopic boiling Thatcher down to a "tuff broad takes on the Boys Club" story? Or is this another "British" movie only Americans (well, American AMPAAS-voters) will care about?
"Hunger Games" looks like... a movie... I guess...
"Hunger Games" - which is basically a U.S./European version of "Battle Royale," which was in turn a Japanese-schoolchildren version of "The Running Man," which was in turn a Reaganomics-era "Rollerball" - now has a trailer, embedded below.
Pro-tip: You do NOT want to be eating or drinking anything around the 1:53 mark...
Seriously; what the FUCK is up with Wes Bentley's beard??
Okay, so I'm the LAST possible person who should be giving anything but the benefit of the doubt to adaptations of niche properties with fiercely-devoted fans; but while I'm sure the various flashes of characters, names, banners, logos, outfits, distinguishing-hairstyles etc. is all "ooh! it's _______!" for HG fans... I'm sorry, this looks pretty underwhelming as a movie. ::ducks::
I've not yet read the series myself, so I don't know whether to blame the material or filmmakers first for this. Are the descriptions of the "futuristic" society in the book ALSO as bland, cheap and "generic dystopia" as they appear here?
This is, of course, another adaptation greenlit largely because someone has mistaken a passionate online fanbase (which means deceptively-MASSIVE traffic numbers) for genuine overall interest... the books sell well, but not "Twilight" or "DaVinci Code" well. Sometimes that kind of thinking works out - in the greater-good "a great movie gets made" sense, certainly not in the financial sense - and we get a "Scott Pilgrim" or a "Watchmen" out of the deal. This does not (so far) look like one of those times.
Pro-tip: You do NOT want to be eating or drinking anything around the 1:53 mark...
Seriously; what the FUCK is up with Wes Bentley's beard??
Okay, so I'm the LAST possible person who should be giving anything but the benefit of the doubt to adaptations of niche properties with fiercely-devoted fans; but while I'm sure the various flashes of characters, names, banners, logos, outfits, distinguishing-hairstyles etc. is all "ooh! it's _______!" for HG fans... I'm sorry, this looks pretty underwhelming as a movie. ::ducks::
I've not yet read the series myself, so I don't know whether to blame the material or filmmakers first for this. Are the descriptions of the "futuristic" society in the book ALSO as bland, cheap and "generic dystopia" as they appear here?
This is, of course, another adaptation greenlit largely because someone has mistaken a passionate online fanbase (which means deceptively-MASSIVE traffic numbers) for genuine overall interest... the books sell well, but not "Twilight" or "DaVinci Code" well. Sometimes that kind of thinking works out - in the greater-good "a great movie gets made" sense, certainly not in the financial sense - and we get a "Scott Pilgrim" or a "Watchmen" out of the deal. This does not (so far) look like one of those times.
"Snow White & The Huntsman" Looks... Good?
Tim Burton's incredibly shitty "Alice in Wonderland" made a shit ton of money, so someone in Hollywood decided that "dark fairy tale" was the next big trend; so now we've got two TV shows running with the "fairytale people hiding in modern world" concept, and next year there'll be two seperate live-action "epic fantasy" re-dos of Snow White.
Below, the trailer for the first one - "Snow White & The Huntsman" - (the other is Tarsem Singh's "Mirror Mirror,") which doesn't seem to feature even one Dwarf but DOES feature Charlize Theron as The Wicked Queen, Chris Hemsworth as Thor But With An Axe Instead and Kristen Stewart as the (functionally mute?) title character. It looks, shockingly, not horrible...
What can I say? Recasting the Wicked Queen as a high-fantasy shine on Elizabeth Bathory (I'm literally astonished they were able to resist making her a straight-up vampire) is kind of inspired, the bald-faced LOTR-knockoff aesthetic works and I kind of love that the "X-TREEEEEEME!" version of The Magic Mirror is essentially a medieval T-1000.
Also, let's not be coy; Theron looks amazing. In fact - and there's just no way to say this without sounding mean, but it's true - the least plausible thing in this swords/sorcery/monster/fantasy is the idea that Charlize Theron is grousing around the palace jealous of Kristen Stewart's (or anyone else's, really) looks.
Below, the trailer for the first one - "Snow White & The Huntsman" - (the other is Tarsem Singh's "Mirror Mirror,") which doesn't seem to feature even one Dwarf but DOES feature Charlize Theron as The Wicked Queen, Chris Hemsworth as Thor But With An Axe Instead and Kristen Stewart as the (functionally mute?) title character. It looks, shockingly, not horrible...
What can I say? Recasting the Wicked Queen as a high-fantasy shine on Elizabeth Bathory (I'm literally astonished they were able to resist making her a straight-up vampire) is kind of inspired, the bald-faced LOTR-knockoff aesthetic works and I kind of love that the "X-TREEEEEEME!" version of The Magic Mirror is essentially a medieval T-1000.
Also, let's not be coy; Theron looks amazing. In fact - and there's just no way to say this without sounding mean, but it's true - the least plausible thing in this swords/sorcery/monster/fantasy is the idea that Charlize Theron is grousing around the palace jealous of Kristen Stewart's (or anyone else's, really) looks.
Someone will have to explain to me...
...Just what the FUCK are people rioting about at Penn State? I mean, yes - I know that they're ostensibly there because coach Joe Paterno was (justly) shitcanned after it came to light that he (and, apparently, what seems like the entire governing aparatus of the school AND the state) covered up multiple cases of child-rape over a period of several decades... but WHY the rioting? How can any thinking human possibly look at this scenario and be angry about about anything other than the fact that he didn't get the axe sooner?
I mean, I can almost understand why people wanted to go head-in-sand-denial when the Catholic Priest abuse scandals started to break - almost. After all, if you take religion at all seriously there's this kind of mystic "human representative of God" aura attached to The Clergy; so I get why that might've been a hurdle for some people.
But this guy? He's not a priest, or some kind of world-leader, or great civic figure, or uber-important doctor or engineer or something... he's just a fucking College Football coach - even without the child-rape scandal, his having or not having a job is literally the least important thing you could POSSIBLY pick to riot about. What the HELL is wrong with people?
Look... the most important thing - the ONLY important thing - is getting justice for the victims here... but if anything else can be taken away from this monstrosity; maybe it should be that the disgraceful lack of perspective being shown by the Penn State rioters is one of the clearest examples EVER of the shameful over-importance placed on the bloated, funding-sucking, resource-diverting institution of College Football. You want a picture of everything wrong with America? Look at these riots, look at what they're rioting FOR... and then look at how much is SPENT on what they're rioting for versus everything else at what are supposed to be institutions of Higher Learning.
I mean, I can almost understand why people wanted to go head-in-sand-denial when the Catholic Priest abuse scandals started to break - almost. After all, if you take religion at all seriously there's this kind of mystic "human representative of God" aura attached to The Clergy; so I get why that might've been a hurdle for some people.
But this guy? He's not a priest, or some kind of world-leader, or great civic figure, or uber-important doctor or engineer or something... he's just a fucking College Football coach - even without the child-rape scandal, his having or not having a job is literally the least important thing you could POSSIBLY pick to riot about. What the HELL is wrong with people?
Look... the most important thing - the ONLY important thing - is getting justice for the victims here... but if anything else can be taken away from this monstrosity; maybe it should be that the disgraceful lack of perspective being shown by the Penn State rioters is one of the clearest examples EVER of the shameful over-importance placed on the bloated, funding-sucking, resource-diverting institution of College Football. You want a picture of everything wrong with America? Look at these riots, look at what they're rioting FOR... and then look at how much is SPENT on what they're rioting for versus everything else at what are supposed to be institutions of Higher Learning.
"Immortals" is, apparently, very bloody
The continuing buzz I've heard on Tarsem's "Immortals" - which I've not seen yet - is that the trailers are unable to capture it's real selling point: namely, that it's excessively violent enough to the point of out-goring "300." Here's a newly-released clip (hat tip to io9) of the Gods (gold guys) versus the Titans (gray guys) that seems to suggest what we're in for...
Wait... is that... is that... COMPOSITION!? And... and a... CAMERA TRIPOD!!?? In a FIGHT SCENE!? What a novel approach :)
Wait... is that... is that... COMPOSITION!? And... and a... CAMERA TRIPOD!!?? In a FIGHT SCENE!? What a novel approach :)
Has The First Truly Great Video Game Movie Been Made?
Below, the trailer for "Gyakuten Saiban" - known to Western gamers as "Pheonix Wright: Ace Attorney" - directed by the legendary Takeshi Miike...
I've said it for years: Adapt the games that have their own wholly unique aesthetic and put it in the hands of filmmakers who "get it." If I'm to be proven right, all the better that it be by Miike.
I've said it for years: Adapt the games that have their own wholly unique aesthetic and put it in the hands of filmmakers who "get it." If I'm to be proven right, all the better that it be by Miike.
Let Go of Your Hate
It goes without saying that anyone who's reading/watching me should also be reading Drew McWeeny, once known as AICN's "Moriarty," one of the men responsible for "inventing" this ridiculous profession of mine. Drew is a living legend among "film geek" personalities - a onetime video store clerk who became part of the first wave of "name" writers to emerge from the nerd-gossip-site pack; went on to write screenplays for John Carpenter (among others) and has now settled into a star-columnist role at HitFix; where he still finds time to remind everyone why he broke out in the first place.
This is one of those times.
Presently, McWeeny is married with two young sons, and he's been writing up his experiences in sharing classic movies with the boys in a series of columns called "Film Nerd 2.0." It's always been a good read; but when he decided to start introducing them to the "Star Wars" films it became something else entirely - a series of six thoughtful, moving, excellent pieces that now comprise what I think is easily the definitive "Decade Later" look at "Star Wars" post-prequels and post-special edition.
Thus far, every appraisal of "later day" Star Wars has mainly been about older fans being disillusioned or dissapointed about Lucas, alterations and the series in general... and after awhile, it's all become rather irritating. The backlash during "Phantom Menace" was one thing - that what was always going to be a letdown on some level wound up being in fact a pretty lackluster movie overall touched off a combination of delayed-reaction rage ("Wow... I'm really NOT ten years-old anymore. Damn it.") and nerd-nitpick feeding-frenzy that has for good or ill (mostly ill) defined the fan/filmmaker relationship to this day.
Frankly, it got out of hand quickly and it's endurance at this point is kind of sad. Yes, I was as impressed as anyone with Mr. Plinkett's tenacity and attention to detail... but to be honest the REAL value of that series is that it's a TON of really good filmmaking/storytelling advice structured around the review of a movie everyone has seen... as yet another excuse to pass around the bile-bucket and spew about Lucas "raping your childhood?" Guys... it's time to give it a rest. And it's sort of fitting that THIS new appraisal comes from McWeeny, whose original semi-negative review of Phantom Menace as "Moriarty" was a major touchstone of the "wait... a Star Wars movie... sucks?" sweep of the era.
THIS, though, is a guy writing about the reactions of his kids - kids who don't have the weight of expectations and preconceptions that "Generation Zero" SW fans had; who've always known a world where it's ubiquitious and are familiar with it - at first - mainly from the "Clone Wars" cartoons. He made an interesting decision regarding the order in which to screen the films - New Hope and Empire first, THEN all three prequels, then wrapping up with Jedi - that overall seems to have paid off gangbusters.
You should read the whole thing yourself (links below) but what's really great about this is the way it cuts through both the obnoxious fanboy-entitlement AND the very real objective criticisms of the prequels etc. to find a more essential truth that's been ignored by many, myself included, for much too long: That the things that WORK about Star Wars - yes, even in the prequels - are A.) uncoincidentally the things that are bigger and more vital than who-shoots-first or whether this or that creature looks like a puppet and B.) perhaps best understood by children... who, at the end of the day, are who Star Wars has always been for.
GET READING, FOLKS:
A New Hope
Empire Strikes Back
Phantom Menace
Attack of The Clones
Revenge of The Sith
Return of The Jedi
When I see "Phantom Menace" on the big screen for the first time in over a decade in it's "3D" release next year, I'll be doing my damndest to try and watch it on it's own terms; outside the swirl of negativity it's existed in for so many years in the collective psyche. And this series will be the big reason why.
Well done, Mr. McWeeny.
This is one of those times.
Presently, McWeeny is married with two young sons, and he's been writing up his experiences in sharing classic movies with the boys in a series of columns called "Film Nerd 2.0." It's always been a good read; but when he decided to start introducing them to the "Star Wars" films it became something else entirely - a series of six thoughtful, moving, excellent pieces that now comprise what I think is easily the definitive "Decade Later" look at "Star Wars" post-prequels and post-special edition.
Thus far, every appraisal of "later day" Star Wars has mainly been about older fans being disillusioned or dissapointed about Lucas, alterations and the series in general... and after awhile, it's all become rather irritating. The backlash during "Phantom Menace" was one thing - that what was always going to be a letdown on some level wound up being in fact a pretty lackluster movie overall touched off a combination of delayed-reaction rage ("Wow... I'm really NOT ten years-old anymore. Damn it.") and nerd-nitpick feeding-frenzy that has for good or ill (mostly ill) defined the fan/filmmaker relationship to this day.
Frankly, it got out of hand quickly and it's endurance at this point is kind of sad. Yes, I was as impressed as anyone with Mr. Plinkett's tenacity and attention to detail... but to be honest the REAL value of that series is that it's a TON of really good filmmaking/storytelling advice structured around the review of a movie everyone has seen... as yet another excuse to pass around the bile-bucket and spew about Lucas "raping your childhood?" Guys... it's time to give it a rest. And it's sort of fitting that THIS new appraisal comes from McWeeny, whose original semi-negative review of Phantom Menace as "Moriarty" was a major touchstone of the "wait... a Star Wars movie... sucks?" sweep of the era.
THIS, though, is a guy writing about the reactions of his kids - kids who don't have the weight of expectations and preconceptions that "Generation Zero" SW fans had; who've always known a world where it's ubiquitious and are familiar with it - at first - mainly from the "Clone Wars" cartoons. He made an interesting decision regarding the order in which to screen the films - New Hope and Empire first, THEN all three prequels, then wrapping up with Jedi - that overall seems to have paid off gangbusters.
You should read the whole thing yourself (links below) but what's really great about this is the way it cuts through both the obnoxious fanboy-entitlement AND the very real objective criticisms of the prequels etc. to find a more essential truth that's been ignored by many, myself included, for much too long: That the things that WORK about Star Wars - yes, even in the prequels - are A.) uncoincidentally the things that are bigger and more vital than who-shoots-first or whether this or that creature looks like a puppet and B.) perhaps best understood by children... who, at the end of the day, are who Star Wars has always been for.
GET READING, FOLKS:
A New Hope
Empire Strikes Back
Phantom Menace
Attack of The Clones
Revenge of The Sith
Return of The Jedi
When I see "Phantom Menace" on the big screen for the first time in over a decade in it's "3D" release next year, I'll be doing my damndest to try and watch it on it's own terms; outside the swirl of negativity it's existed in for so many years in the collective psyche. And this series will be the big reason why.
Well done, Mr. McWeeny.
REVIEW: "J. Edgar"
Seems like everyone else is running their impressions of Eastwood's movie early; so I'll jump in. I may or may not have more in-depth to say in a colyumn at some point, but for now here goes...
SPOILER WARNING
"J. Edgar" is pretty much what one expects both from Eastwood as a director (great performances, terse no-bullshit direction, comprehensive "and then this happened..." plotting and a detached-to-the-point-of-"funerial" tone) and from a present-day biopic about J. Edgar Hoover (grim, scheming and bitter.) It doesn't have much "new" to say about the man or the era he lived, and the main selling-point will be DiCaprio's Oscar-worthy lead performance, but there's nothing "wrong" with it and it's a solid, thoroughly-engaging - if not precisely "entertaining" - work.
If it has an "issue" it's that it'd be difficult to make a "fair" biopic about Hoover that wasn't just a little bit unpleasant to sit through, since Hoover himself was - by even admiring accounts - a fairly unpleasant fellow to be around. The film doesn't deviate very far from the generally-accepted view of the late FBI-founder: Repressed, paranoid, obsessive, arrogant and opportunistic; and to it's credit it presents the sketchier aspects of his methodology - secret files, wiretaps, legal-circumvention, outright fraud and deception - as both innovative and effective (i.e. against the anarchist-bombings of the 20s and gangsters in the 30s) and as petty and fiendish (i.e. his fixation on MLK and The Kennedy Brothers.) Incidentally, somebody needs to tell Kevin Costner that "Burn Notice's" Jeffrey Donovan, as Bobby Kennedy, has stolen his title as owner of the worst New England accent ever committed to film.
It also doesn't reach too far outside the box for an "explanation" of the man - Dustin Lance Black's screenplay is couched comfortably in the widely-rumored thesis that Hoover was a profoundly-closeted homosexual, and that his innability to accept this (along with his myriad other "issues") stemmed from his relationship with his cold, controlling mother. The central relationship is between Hoover and his longtime companion Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) who is depicted as having a more self-aware grasp of the nature of their friendship than Hoover himself does.
Interestingly (and possibly without direct intent, since Eastwood has never been one for showy symbolism) it's the small scenes of Hoover breaking his own stone-cold facade in regards to said relationship (and/or his sexuality, such as it is) that the film itself briefly breaks free of the Eastwoodian straightforwardness and attains a kind of melodramatic earnestness; and it stands in such direct contrast to the rest of the film the effect is almost like minimalist-"camp" (critics at my screening compared it to "Mommie Dearest.")
The big showpiece scene, Hoover and Tolson having an unconsumate "lover's quarrel," is almost quaint (approaching caricature) in it's Eisenhower-era rendering of gay men - DiCaprio and Hammer dolled up in slicked-hair and monogrammed bathrobes (!) having a catty back-and-forth about their friends' taste in shoes (!) and escalating to a screaming brawl when one of them mentions a girlfriend (yes, brandy-glasses-hurled-at-the-walls; yes, big cowboy-style haymakers) complete with bloodied kiss and awkward backpedaling. In another, Hoover grieves his dead mother by donning her robe and pearls (you knew it was coming) and talking to himself "as mother" in the mirror, Norman Bates style, before crumpling up into a sobbig fetal position.
If there is ONE thing that doesn't work at all, it's some of the makeup. The film leaps back and forth through Hoover's life and career without the aid of subtitled dates; relying on multiple stages of old-age makeup to clue us in to where/when we are... and it only looks good some of the time. Naomi Watts (as Hoover's secretary Mrs. Gandy) has the most subtle work of it, though she seems to be aging about 1/2 slower than everyone else. DiCaprio actually fares best, which is appropriate, though given how differently the public tends to percieve him as an actor (re: an "eternally boyish" guy who's actually approaching middle-age and DOES look it sans makeup) it's possible that he NEVER appears fully "himself" over the course of it - his final "elderly" appearance makes him look an awful lot like John Voigt. Sadly, Armie Hammer is just a little too young (a DECADE younger than DiCaprio) a little too tall and in far too good a shape to be plausibly transformed into an elderly man for the later scenes. His performance is fine, but the makeup-appliances make him look like a zombie as opposed to "old."
Overall, it's one of those movies that's more "admirable" than "likable," but probably more worth seeing than a lot of what'll be out right now. Plus it's going to be up for a boatload of awards so you might as well.
SPOILER WARNING
"J. Edgar" is pretty much what one expects both from Eastwood as a director (great performances, terse no-bullshit direction, comprehensive "and then this happened..." plotting and a detached-to-the-point-of-"funerial" tone) and from a present-day biopic about J. Edgar Hoover (grim, scheming and bitter.) It doesn't have much "new" to say about the man or the era he lived, and the main selling-point will be DiCaprio's Oscar-worthy lead performance, but there's nothing "wrong" with it and it's a solid, thoroughly-engaging - if not precisely "entertaining" - work.
If it has an "issue" it's that it'd be difficult to make a "fair" biopic about Hoover that wasn't just a little bit unpleasant to sit through, since Hoover himself was - by even admiring accounts - a fairly unpleasant fellow to be around. The film doesn't deviate very far from the generally-accepted view of the late FBI-founder: Repressed, paranoid, obsessive, arrogant and opportunistic; and to it's credit it presents the sketchier aspects of his methodology - secret files, wiretaps, legal-circumvention, outright fraud and deception - as both innovative and effective (i.e. against the anarchist-bombings of the 20s and gangsters in the 30s) and as petty and fiendish (i.e. his fixation on MLK and The Kennedy Brothers.) Incidentally, somebody needs to tell Kevin Costner that "Burn Notice's" Jeffrey Donovan, as Bobby Kennedy, has stolen his title as owner of the worst New England accent ever committed to film.
It also doesn't reach too far outside the box for an "explanation" of the man - Dustin Lance Black's screenplay is couched comfortably in the widely-rumored thesis that Hoover was a profoundly-closeted homosexual, and that his innability to accept this (along with his myriad other "issues") stemmed from his relationship with his cold, controlling mother. The central relationship is between Hoover and his longtime companion Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) who is depicted as having a more self-aware grasp of the nature of their friendship than Hoover himself does.
Interestingly (and possibly without direct intent, since Eastwood has never been one for showy symbolism) it's the small scenes of Hoover breaking his own stone-cold facade in regards to said relationship (and/or his sexuality, such as it is) that the film itself briefly breaks free of the Eastwoodian straightforwardness and attains a kind of melodramatic earnestness; and it stands in such direct contrast to the rest of the film the effect is almost like minimalist-"camp" (critics at my screening compared it to "Mommie Dearest.")
The big showpiece scene, Hoover and Tolson having an unconsumate "lover's quarrel," is almost quaint (approaching caricature) in it's Eisenhower-era rendering of gay men - DiCaprio and Hammer dolled up in slicked-hair and monogrammed bathrobes (!) having a catty back-and-forth about their friends' taste in shoes (!) and escalating to a screaming brawl when one of them mentions a girlfriend (yes, brandy-glasses-hurled-at-the-walls; yes, big cowboy-style haymakers) complete with bloodied kiss and awkward backpedaling. In another, Hoover grieves his dead mother by donning her robe and pearls (you knew it was coming) and talking to himself "as mother" in the mirror, Norman Bates style, before crumpling up into a sobbig fetal position.
If there is ONE thing that doesn't work at all, it's some of the makeup. The film leaps back and forth through Hoover's life and career without the aid of subtitled dates; relying on multiple stages of old-age makeup to clue us in to where/when we are... and it only looks good some of the time. Naomi Watts (as Hoover's secretary Mrs. Gandy) has the most subtle work of it, though she seems to be aging about 1/2 slower than everyone else. DiCaprio actually fares best, which is appropriate, though given how differently the public tends to percieve him as an actor (re: an "eternally boyish" guy who's actually approaching middle-age and DOES look it sans makeup) it's possible that he NEVER appears fully "himself" over the course of it - his final "elderly" appearance makes him look an awful lot like John Voigt. Sadly, Armie Hammer is just a little too young (a DECADE younger than DiCaprio) a little too tall and in far too good a shape to be plausibly transformed into an elderly man for the later scenes. His performance is fine, but the makeup-appliances make him look like a zombie as opposed to "old."
Overall, it's one of those movies that's more "admirable" than "likable," but probably more worth seeing than a lot of what'll be out right now. Plus it's going to be up for a boatload of awards so you might as well.
