Not trying to get too impatient here...I know they're giving the songs away and all and -trust me- I couldn't be happier and more appreciative of that fact... ...but... It's been nearly two months since The Smashing Pumpkins released their last free song (you can download, free and legally, all five songs at http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/). Originally the idea was to release a new song each month for something like 40 months. But the last couple of songs have taken a little longer to come out. Will the others follow, albeit not quite on the monthly schedule, or has this experiment been successful enough to make Mr. Corgan consider releasing a legitimate (ie for sale) album? I hope so, because the alternative, that the experiment wasn't successful, would really suck. While The Smashing Pumpkins may not be in the mainstream of modern music as they were in the 1990's, I still enjoy Mr. Corgan and his work, and would welcome more of it...
Click on the link below for some absolutely fascinating examples of some common usage words that originated in the works of famous authors: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-peters/made-up-words-neologism_b_703977.htmlObviously, "Orwellian" couldn't exist without George Orwell and his novels as inspiration. Other examples, such as where "nerd", "pie-hole", "yahoo", and "agnostic" came from are equally fascinating. Of the examples presented, the one I was most aware of (ie, that it was an invention of a specific author in a specific work) is "cyberspace".
I've mentioned it before but it bears repeating: One of the most fascinating things about the internet is that if you look around, you can find articles concerning just about everything. With the upcoming release of the George Clooney film The American (wherein he plays a killer for hire), Brain Palmer at Slate magazine examines a question that bears some investigating...Do freelance assassins such as the one George Clooney portrays in the movie really exist? If so, can that really be their only career? http://www.slate.com/id/2265748/
The show features a bunch of people bringing in their (usually) old items and seeing if they're worth anything. While many of them, at least those that are displayed on TV, wind up being worth a few hundred, even a couple of thousand dollars, many of the items that do not make it to the actual TV show fall on the lower side. But there are exceptions. Are there ever! Have you ever wondered what were the most expensive items they have appraised? Wonder no more! Click on the link below and see them for yourself... http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/the-antiques-roadshows-five-most-valuable-finds/19609763/
...at least according to Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20417046,00.htmlBut I have to say, after looking over the list, that this could well have been a list of a 100 shows as easily as 15. The fact of the matter is that not everything "works" for everyone. What to you is a fun/serious/interesting/engaging "classic" TV show might be, to someone else, a bore. Or worse. And that's what is, at its heart, "wrong" with doing a list like this. Nonetheless, there are some fun observations. I loved the person who wrote something to the effect that Bonanza was a show " about a 50 year old father and his three 47 year old sons". Of the shows listed, I find some better than others, but only one would fit my list of "TV Classics You Just Don't Get": M.A.S.H.I really loved the original movie, but I just never could get into the TV series, despite giving it several tries. I think the main problem wasn't so much the writing or production. The fact of the matter is that several of the cast members (but not all) just rubbed me the wrong way. I simply couldn't justify devoting my spare time to them. But that's just me. 50 year old father and his three 47 year old sons. Heh.
...at least according to Charlie Jane Anders: http://io9.com/5619137/25-classic-science-fiction-movies-that-everybody-must-watchWith a list this large, it is hard to refute many of his choices. In that respect, I would certainly agree that these films should be on any science fiction lover's list of "must watch" films: Metropolis
The Day The Earth Stood Still (the original)
Forbidden Planet
The Planet of the Apes
2001: A Space Odyssey
Alien
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Blade Runner
Brazil
Robocop
The Matrix
PrimerWhich leaves some 12 films on his list that I don't believe are quite as good as he does. That's not to say many of the films included aren't good -perhaps even great- to many people. The Empire Strikes Back, indeed the first three Stars Wars films are obviously viewed very positively by many and would make many of their lists. Just not mine (different strokes, folks). So, what would I add? To begin with, I would substitute Terminator 2 with the far, far superior (IMHO) original The Terminator. And I wouldn't be hesitant about adding multiple films by a director. Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange would both fit into my top 25 along with the included 2001: A Space Odyssey. And while we're on the subject of 2001, note what the author says about the film Moon: As much as it's true that we're drowning in a sea of derivative garbage,
as Hollywood tries to churn out as many cookie-cutter films and sequels
as possible, some really original and clever films have sneaked through.So, Moon is "really original"? Now, don't get me wrong: I like the film. Not enough to put it on my top 25 list, but the fact of the matter is that this film is quite derivative of 2001, especially with regard to the moon-base and the eerie computer company our protagonist has. It is a clever film, I'll give it that, but like District 9 (another good, but not quite up there for me film), it presents old/recycled concepts into a somewhat new and interesting milieu. However, both films are hardly works of incredible originality. I also have to question putting The Incredibles onto this list but not the original Superman film. If you want to include "superhero" films into the sci-fi mix, then that would be my choice well above the amusing (but no where near good enough to make my Top 25 list) Incredibles. So, what's missing? I know Alien is on the list, deservedly, but I'd also put Aliens in there. While director James Cameron's more recent films haven't done all that much for me, the one-two punch of Terminator and Aliens remains a highlight for me of great white-knuckle sci-fi entertainment. I would also include the classic "giant animals/insects on the attack" film Them! to the list. Great, great excitement. Like Stanley Kubrick, a trio of John Frankenheimer directed sci-fi themed thrillers also belong on my list. You simply can't beat the trio of The Manchurian Candidate (the original), Seven Days In May, and Seconds for "near future" sci-fi. I would also include the original The Thing as well as John Carpenter's remake. Both are incredibly effective horror sci-fi films. Finally, I would include the original Dawn of the Dead to my list. Granted, it is considered more of a horror film than a sci-fi film, but it does concern the end of the world and remains one of the best films to deal with an apocalypse. Whatever your choices are and however your taste goes, you can't beat a great science fiction film! Update: I feared that as soon as I wrote the list, my mind would start working on other films and I'd recall something that I probably should have included on this list but didn't. So far, there are only two films that have come to mind: Five Million Years to Earth aka Quatermass and the Pit: Love this eerie British film. Invasion of the Body Snatchers: One of those properties that has been re-filmed many times. The original is a classic.
...are examples of various stars' "first gigs". It's always interesting, to me anyway, seeing a now familiar face in a very small role in TV or the movies or commercials. Click on this link and you'll see 9 examples of comedians that are quite well known today in (for the most part) commercials during their early, lean days: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/29/comedians-first-gigs_n_698698.htmlOne of the more memorable "early" turns for me was Bruce Willis as villainous Tony Amato in " No Exit", the seventh aired episode of Miami Vice (1984). I thought his performance as a wife-beating villain was truly memorable. I suspect others did as well, as he soon landed several other gigs. (BTW, if you click on the "No Exit" above, you're directed to IMDB.com and the full episode is there, available to be seen).
One of the more intriguing things to ponder is the concept of "what if?" You can go any number of ways here...what if John F. Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? What if the American Revolution failed? What if Hitler had chosen not to invade Russia? But there are other, less serious "what if?" scenarios to ponder, such as movies with alternate casts, as presented here: http://wildammo.com/2010/06/03/if-movies-followed-their-original-casting/A couple of my favorite original movie castings aren't included on this list, but some astute readers have noted those alternate castings in the commentary section. One of my favorite original casting ideas was for Dirty Harry. For a while, it looked like the role would go to...Frank Sinatra! Paul Newman was also in the running, but turned the role down. And then there's poor Tom Selleck. He was Steven Spielberg's original choice for Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Arc. The story behind this story is that Mr. Selleck couldn't free himself from his Magnum P.I. role, that the producers insisted he finish off the work assigned to him before running off to make Spielberg's film. Alas, Spielberg and company couldn't wait and they went in a different direction, and Harrison Ford landed the coveted role. I can only imagine the thoughts that cross Mr. Selleck's mind now and again. While Magnum P. I. made him a world-wide star, Harrison Ford arguably became a HUGE movie star following his work in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Could Mr. Selleck's career followed a similar path? Alas, we'll never know.
Haven't written too much about this show recently, and since last night they aired " Guilty as Charged", the 12th, and last, episode of the "summer" season. The series resumes in November, whereupon they'll play six more episodes before calling an end to season 4 of this show. I am a big fan of the series, but I have to admit that some familiarity is starting to creep into the show, and I suspect the people behind the cameras feared this might be the case as well. To "stir things up", they added fellow burned agent Jesse Porter (played by actor Coby Bell) to the cast. The catch? It was protagonist Michael Weston who "burned" Porter, and Porter, not knowing this is the case, has openly sworn he would put a bullet in the head of the person who burned him. Michael (being the white knight and all), of course works toward getting Porter of the burn list and back in the agency's good graces, but he must do so, obviously, by lying to and using the burned agent. Weston and his pals' goals are good, but (and here creeps in the familiarity) I felt it was obvious we would eventually reach a point where Porter stumbles onto the truth and all hell (maybe) breaks loose. This happened, alas, pretty far down the line, in the second to last episode of the summer season. A resolution -of sorts- to all this drama was thus initiated in the summer finale and will likely be further resolved in the episodes to come. Now, don't get me wrong here: I still enjoy Burn Notice. I would recommend it to anyone interested in watching a breezy, exciting, and quite humorous TV show. But the facts are the facts: After four seasons, the formula behind the show has become rather clear. We have the "meta" story which pokes its way into each episode (in this season, its the people who burned Michael, a code bearing bible, and Jesse Porter and his situation), and then we have the " A-Team" meets " Mission: Impossible" part of the show, wherein some citizen encounters trouble and Weston and his pals solve their difficulties. It's not a bad formula, but it is a formula nonetheless. Perhaps its time to switch it around a little...
Unlike some of my other (belated) reviews, I've seen Ghost Ship before. Years ago, perhaps on video or when it was on cable, but not in theaters (I think I'd remember that). My original impression of the film: It was terrible. But after a few years and a mellowing attitude toward others' works, I gave the movie another try. I recalled only bits and pieces of the film and, as it was on AMC and I had nothing better to do, I figured why not give it another try. So how did the movie fare this time around? About the same, with some caveats. To begin, the whole concept of a "ghost ship" can draw my attention just about any time. I love the concept of a ship sailing without guidance, corroded and mysterious, in the high seas (or space, or wherever). What happened to the ship and, especially, its crew? So you start with that concept and work your way around the movie itself. The plot (and villain) of the piece were
interesting enough, and the justification for all the ghostly
appearances was fine. The cast and budget were also good, and the film
had Joel Silver and Robert Zemekis as producers. So what went wrong? Why didn't the film succeed? Ultimately, the blame lies in the storytelling.
As the film began, I had a recollection of the first few minutes being really, really gory and over-the-top. This opening sequence was presented, I think, uncut (Ouch. Sorry for the pun), and it was just as over-the-top...no, even more so...than I recalled, to the point where it was downright silly. But say what you will, a great deal of effort was put into that sequence and, sadly, the same creativity was not shown in the rest of the film. I've often heard it said that one should plan a book or movie's story as a series of events that lead to a smashing conclusion, something that, if done right, will take people's breath's away (if this is your goal). Unfortunately, Ghost Ship delivers its most shocking sequence right off the bat, and everything that follows is interesting but never quite up to that level. I suspect that had there been a revision of the movie's story and a changing around of some of the events (the fact of the matter is that they didn't have to show that sequence at the start. They could have built up to it and shown it toward the end), Ghost Ship could have been a perfectly good, even perhaps great, horror story. But, as it is, I can't help but feel that the film was a missed opportunity.
...At least according to HuffingtonPost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/mockingjay-science-fiction_n_694507.html#s131180This one intrigues me. I'm familiar with several of the works, have heard of others, and a couple were completely unknown to me. I think back to some of the science fiction I've read in the past, especially when a "young adult", and I wonder what I would recommend. 1984 and Brave New World? Both dealing with the idea of a dystopia. But for pure imagination (nothing necessarily "heavy", theme-wise) I might recommend Isaac Asimov's original Foundation Trilogy. Then there are the best known classics by H. G. Wells: War of the Worlds, The Invisible Man, and The Time Machine. To one degree or another, these three books were/are ground zero for just about every major science fictional concept present even today. As for more "modern" science fiction, alas, the books I've read tend to be skewed for more adult audiences. I've enjoyed the works of Alistair Reynolds and Richard K. Morgan most recently.
Seriously, I thought this story was already done. Guess not: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/ansel-adams-trust-sues-ov_n_692750.htmlTo recap (you can read my previous posts here, here, and here), man finds photograph negatives at garage sale 10 years ago, buys them for $45. Sees similarities between negatives and famous photographer Ansel Adams' work. Has them checked out, and the people checking them out state that, yes, these are Ansel Adams photographs, early photographs the man took which were thought lost forever. Photographs are appraised at $200 million. Yes, $200 million. For a $45 investment. But heirs of Ansel Adams voice doubts about photograph authenticity. Is it sour grapes? Are they unhappy they do not have all of their famous relatives works under their control? Then the shocker: A lady from Oakland comes forward claiming the photographs were taken by her Uncle years before. Her Uncle, alas, is not Ansel Adams. She presents other photographs that pretty much prove her point, and I figure the story is over. Not so fast! It appears our garage sale investor is selling prints and posters from the negatives he bought over the internet, and claiming they are works by Ansel Adams! Needless to say, the Ansel Adams Trust is not happy and wants him to stop. If everything I've read so far is true, he should do so. It seems pretty clear he's not selling actual Ansel Adams works.
About a month ago AMC premiered the first two hours of their new series Rubicon. The reviews were good, so I put it on the DVR to record but, alas, haven't had a chance to catch the show until now. The reviews for the show were good, noting that it delivered an uneasy mix of paranoia and government conspiracy. It sounded right up my alley, but I was worried. AMC botched the remake of The Prisoner, a show that originally had a good deal of both elements. While the first couple of episodes were OK, the mini-series spiraled downward, ultimately ending with a thud. How would Rubicon fare? Pretty well, at least so far. Granted, I've so far only seen those original two hours (the other three hours are patiently waiting in the recorder), but so far so good. While the show does feature intriguing paranoia and (thus far) an implied massive conspiracy, Rubicon isn't so much The Prisoner as a variation on the 1975 Robert Redford film The Three Days of the Condor. In that film, Redford plays a member of a team of very intelligent government information gatherers, and so too does our protagonist in Rubicon. In Condor, Redford's office and staff are wiped out, assassinated for something they have uncovered, something Redford's character needs to uncover before he too is killed (this is hardly SPOILER material as it happens in the movie's opening minutes). In Rubicon, similar devious plots are at work, leading to the suicide of one character (this too is hardly spoiler material as it is also presented in the show's opening minutes) and a possible governmental plot. While I'm a bit uncomfortable about the similarities in style and subject between Rubicon and Condor, the show is intriguing enough to give it a look. But if Max Van Sydow shows up in Rubicon as an assassin, I might just check out...  Worth a look.
Interesting article from The Baseline Scenario regarding housing values, both before, during, and after the housing "bubble": http://baselinescenario.com/2010/08/23/housing-in-ten-words/Thinking back to only a couple of years ago, when the housing market was in full swing, one can't help but shake their heads at the irrationality of it all. I mean, what were we thinking? People buying one home to live in and another (or two or more) as an "investment" and, surprise surprise, they were actually able to turn around and sell them at a profit, then buy another and so on and so forth. Somewhere in the madness, I thought: If everyone has one home to live in and another one (or two or more) as "investment", what happens when everyone decided to get rid of their investment? I mean, there are more homes, apparently, than people actually living in them. We obviously have a glut of homes and if people suddenly, at the same time decide to sell... Well, I didn't have to wonder too long about what might happen then. Sadly.
Over at /Film, they explore the failure to ignite for Scott Pilgrim vs. the success of The Expendables: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/22/box-office-the-expendables-stays-1-scott-pilgrim-drops-to-10/I can't argue with many of the points made, but will offer the following: Say what you will about the quality of The Expendables, but that film knew what it was about and marketed itself in a proper way. We had a bunch of aging (and some not so aging) action stars together in a film that promised mayhem, explosions, and, duh, action. The timing for such a project was just right: Sylvester Stallone, after a string of box-office failures, had achieved some redemption with both Rocky Balboa and Rambo. Both films were reasonably well accepted (the former critically a little more than the later), which made audiences curious as to what Mr. Stallone would do next. He didn't disappoint, striking while the iron was hot and assembling a monstrous cast to play in what was touted as a throwback film. As I said, audiences were primed and ready for this. On the other hand, Scott Pilgrim was hurt by a terrible promotional push. As I said before, of the commercials I saw (and there were many), I laughed at only one joke. One. For an alleged comedy, this is alarming. Add to that the fact that, unfortunately, Michael Cera may have appeared in too many recent films and audiences may have simply had enough of him AND the fact that the audiences this film was intended for may be a little too proficient at downloading films and you have the makings of a lackluster box-office. Will the film gain audiences/respect as the years go by? It is certainly possible. There have been plenty of films whose initial release was met with disaster or mediocrity only to rise up in public estimation over the years, and the fact is that those who saw the film liked what they saw may well aid its eventual rehabilitation. As for me, looks like I'll give it a try when it eventually arrives on DVD/Blu Ray, as I intend to do with The Expendables. How I wish there were more hours in the day...
I have a few copies of my latest novel, The Last Flight of the Argus, available. If you're interested in the book, I'm giving away 10 copies to the first 10 people to email me at atrocket@aol.com
Further proof that what you think might be a success doesn't necessarily become so... http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/21/expendables-and-vampires-suck-vie-for-first-place-on-a-lackluster-weekend/Or, as I've mentioned before, screenwriter William Goldman famously said: Nobody knows anything. Even though the commercials were dreadful, I thought Scott Pilgrim would make more money than it did last week. The reviews were mostly positive and I figured word of mouth might help it. Looks like that wasn't the case. This week, I figured for sure Piranha 3D or The Switch would do decently. Again, I based this more on reviews, which have been generally positive, for both pictures (and, unlike Scott Pilgrim, the commercials for both films were pretty decent...at the very least you knew what you were getting). So, what happens? The Expendables and Vampires Suck, the later a film that had not even a single commercial (that I'm aware of) and was made by the same people who were responsible for some pretty poor "comedies" in the past couple of years, are vying for top dollars this week. Granted, the "top dollars" they're vying for are pretty weak...it seems like people decided not to bother with the films too much over the past few days, but still. I suppose its a matter of timing. Twilight is still quite popular, so rushing a parody of the film/genre makes good sense. But still...
Another fascinating article, this one from Slate Magazine, concerning the last survivor of an isolated Brazilian tribe: http://www.slate.com/id/2264478/pagenum/allThe article makes mention of the " Lone Woman of San Nicolas", who became the subject of the bestselling (and quite moving) novel Island of the Blue Dolphins. It is this mention in the article that really clicked with something deep inside me. I've always been drawn to the idea of isolation, something that is found to various degrees in literature and mythology. The hero that is somehow alone, whether it be psychological (Dirty Harry, the "rogue cop," people who can't get along with society in general) or be it physical ( Robinson Crusoe and Island of the Blue Dolphins to more extravagant forms of isolation like those resulting from nuclear war, etc.). Only a curious observation, but the article is, as stated before, quite fascinating. Give it a read if you're curious.
Yet another fascinating article that points out yet another of the obstacles NASA and other space agencies have to overcome if, one day, we are to seriously attempt a long range, Mars-type space mission: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/astronaut-strength-in-spa_n_689866.htmlI've always been aware of the muscle atrophy, but the effect of weightlessness on a human body for an extended period of time is truly brutal, according to this article. Makes one realize how correct Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick were when they devised 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the movie, the space station orbiting Earth is shaped like a carousel, its spin creates gravity. Likewise, the exploration craft Discovery One features a rotating "globe" at its front, which also creates gravity for the two astronauts aboard.
Pretty good review of the conspiracy theory minded "documentary" Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison: http://www.dvdmg.com/paulmccartneyreallyisdead.shtmlI've always found the whole "Paul McCartney is dead" stuff, despite its obviously morbid subject matter, a real hoot. I can't help but think the Beatles, and in particular Paul McCartney himself, had some good laughs regarding the subject. Anyway, if you hadn't heard of this before, there is some interesting information to be found about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney_Is_DeadAnd if you're really, really interested, this website provides much of the details/clues to indicate the famous singer died and was replaced by a duplicate so exact that he not only sang and played the instruments exactly like the "deceased" Paul McCartney, but went on to have a fabulous career in his place: http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/index.html
I mention this article, from Entertainment Weekly, mostly because it always fascinates me when a movie winds up sitting around on the shelf (so to speak) for a long time before it is actually released. In this case, the horror film Case 39 starring Renee Zellweger and Bradley Cooper is being released after a two year wait: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/19/renee-zellwegerbradley-cooper-film-case-39-finally-gets-a-release-date/Now, the theatrical trailer (viewable in the article linked above) is actually pretty good, IMHO, but one wonders why a film winds up not being released for so long, especially when it features pretty big names in its cast. And that whole "internal management changes" excuse usually doesn't wash. Even more interesting, however, are the comments posted below the article. Not only was the film released in foreign countries, but note the people who have already seen it through - ahem- other means. I recall someone noting that movies may start to skew to an older audience. Scott Pilgrim, for example, skewed to a younger audience and at least part of the reason it has failed at the box office so far (other than the fact that the commercials were horrible) could be that people interested in the film, the younger crowd, might well have downloaded it rather than spend the money in these tough economic times to see it in the theaters. A possibility, certainly, given that several posts indicated people had already seen Case 39 by similar means.
This list, from Time Magazine, gave me pause. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2011482_2011480,00.htmlWhile I think some of the things they feel are gone are still hanging on, if only tenuously, the fact that they're dead right about other things (like cameras that use...film!) made me recognize the reality of our changing landscape. I believe that both Chevrolet and Toyota release their first electronic cars this year. If they succeed, as I'm hoping they will, perhaps the days of going to a gas station to fill up will be in the past, as well.
When you voraciously consume entertainment in its various forms for as many years as I have (and will for many more years to come, one hopes!), certain patterns start to emerge. From 1993-2002 there existed a very popular TV show called The X-Files. If you haven't seen it, it featured the exploits of two FBI agents, male and female, who encountered paranormal or super-scientific threats to humanity. It was a damn fun show, at least for a good chunk of its run (don't get me started on how it eventually ended) and was a strong favorite of mine. A few years later, I'm finding those patterns emerge. First up there's Warehouse 13. In its second season on the Sy-Fy network, the show focuses on finding and storing away paranormal or cursed or super-scientific items littering the world which may cause great harm to humanity at large. The principle protagonists of the show are a male/female duo (both federal agents) who do the dirty work of finding these items (and, no, I'm not forgetting the various other characters in the show). Male/Female duo. Searching for oddball, paranormal/cursed/super-scientific items...Hmmm... There's also Fringe, a show that features three principle characters: A female FBI agent and a father/son duo. Their job is to look into odd, paranormal, or super-scientific stuff that may cause great harm to humanity at large. Then there's Haven, a show that is really, really, really tenuously tied in to Stephen King's mystery novel The Colorado Kid. It features a female FBI agent teaming up with a male police officer in the small northeast coastal town of Haven. There, they look into odd, paranormal, or super-scientific... Echo? Ok, so its obvious these three shows share a certain commonality, both in plot/theme and the buddy cop (male/female) characterizations/interactions, both of which were prominently displayed in (ta da!) The X-Files. Heck, Fringe went so far as to give a very clear shout out to that show (see below). The three mentioned shows also share one other commonality: They're all quite enjoyable and, yes, I watch all three. In a way I'm torn. On the one hand, as a viewer I couldn't be happier. I've rarely been disappointed whenever I sit down to see either of these three shows. On the other hand, a part of me is uncomfortable with the ease with which idea appropriation (or theft, if one wants to be blunt) is performed. Of course, this is nothing new. Matt Groening, if memory serves, expressed a certain annoyance with Seth McFarlane's entire oveure. As I mentioned before ( you can read about that here), what was then DC Comics frowned on any superheroes that held any similarities to Superman. And if you check around, you'll see a whole industry -both on TV and in the movies- built in particular during the 1960's around variations on the James Bond theme. So I guess there's nothing new under the sun. What ultimately matters is that the similarities from product to product don't stray, at least too belligerently, into outright theft. And, of course, that the shows remain entertaining. To not be so would be the ultimate sin.
Another interesting list from Entertainment Weekly (two in a row!), this time focusing on TV shows that people might have discovered, and enjoyed immensely, when/after their fate was sealed: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20413581,00.htmlAs is the case with just about every TV show every made, the length of its run depends purely on the amount of audience it pulls in. Thus, there are some shows that in retrospect receive plenty of love, but during their actual lifetime never paid the bills enough to last very long. Firefly, on this list is one of the shows that pulls in a lot of positive fan word of mouth but barely limped through a single season (I think the show was OK, but never really found it as amazing as some others... Serenity, the movie/conclusion to the series, similarly fared poorly at the theaters. It was an intriguing conclusion, although too many storylines were compressed -by necessity- into its relatively short run time. That was a case where I would have liked to see the story given more room to flow). A show not included on the list is Starz' channel's Head Case. A hilarious romp involving a self-absorbed psychologist and her "star" clients (played by the actors playing alternate reality versions -I hope!- of themselves). Then again, I caught the show from the very beginning so I guess I can't say I "discovered it too late". Too bad more people didn't discover it.
A short while back ( you can read about it here) Entertainment Weekly offered and intriguing list of opening lines from famous books. Here, they go to the other extreme -literally- (two puns! Ouch!) and offer 20 Classic Last Words in Books... http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20413402,00.htmlOf the ones listed, the one most familiar to me is from Gone With The Wind. This despite the fact that I've never read the novel (Just saw the film, which if memory serves, uses that very line at the end, after the other famous line uttered by Clark Gable)!
I've been fascinated with "director's cuts" or "alternate versions" of films for a while now. Matt Zoller Seitz at Salon.com offers an overview of the recent spate of "director's cuts" of films, and offers categories that the fixed films fall into: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/08/16/not_so_final_cuts/index.htmlI've added some commentary to the article, as have several other people. Off the top of my head, some of the best "director's cuts" (or quasi "director's cuts") have been Touch of Evil (mentioned in the article itself), Blade Runner (ditto), Payback, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. In most of these cases, the original theatrical cut of the film was usually inferior -sometimes far inferior- to the reworking. Payback and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, in particular, were dreadful as originally released and a revelation when re-released in their director's cut. Some of the worst re-imaginings, however, feature films that were perfectly fine when they were originally released and, when re-released in a director's cut, were worse. In that category, I would nominate The Warriors as one of the very worst of the bunch. I love, love, love director Walter Hill, and I really, really love The Warriors...at least the original theatrical cut. But the director's cut of the film is/was a BIG mistake. Granted, Mr. Hill notes that this was the way he originally intended the film to be, with its more "comic booky" elements. However, these elements unfortunately detract rather than strengthen the film. Even worse, only the "director's cut" is available on Blu Ray. This is the unpardonable secondary sin, which Star Wars fans are only too aware of: The "director's cut" becomes the only version available, and audiences have to kick and scream until the original version finally becomes available. Other misses: Donnie Darko (the original is, again, superior to the director's cut, IMHO) and, after all is said and done, Superman: The Movie (while I actually love most of the very many extra scenes. However, the fact remains that the theatrical version of the film was better than the "director's cut"). Anyway, it is an interesting article, if like me you're into that stuff.
Absolutely fascinating (although perhaps a little too hysterical) article by Johann Hari for Slate magazine concerning Jack London, the man behind the books: http://www.slate.com/id/2261928/pagenum/allI say hysterical because there is some rather...umm...sexualized imagery used by the author that is both in questionable taste and, frankly, unnecessary. You have a fascinating article, Mr. Hari, no need to go to those extremes! I especially like his very first points, found in the article's very first paragraph: The United States has a startling ability to take its most angry, edgy
radicals and turn them into cuddly eunuchs. The process begins the
moment they die. Mark Twain is remembered as a quipster forever floating
down the Mississippi River at sunset, while his polemics against the
violent birth of the American empire lie unread and unremembered. Martin
Luther King is remembered for his prose-poetry about children holding
hands on a hill in Alabama, but few recall that he said the U.S.
government was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
Isn't that the truth for just about everyone famous? We have a tendency to take the "best" of them and, Cliff's Notes style, write a narrative about these individuals which sanitizes whatever ugly elements surrounded them. However, I fault Mr. Hari for one thing: This isn't something done in the United States alone. As I mentioned a long time before, while living in Venezuela in the 1980's, I recall getting into a very heated discussion in High School with a fellow student about their national hero, Simon Bolivar. The man was viewed, rightly for the most part, as the great liberator. The man who freed almost all of South America from Spanish occupation. But the argument I had was regarding their hero's eventual death. You see, Bolivar was born in Venezuela and was, for a time, the country's leader. However, he died in Columbia. Why? I pointed out to this fellow student that Bolivar was effectively forced to leave Venezuela. He had become, due to his dictatorial rule, a persona non grata in his country of birth. My fellow student was indignant at that notion that the great liberator could be anything but saintified. There was no way in hell he could have been expelled from Venezuela. No way. Our argument got heated, and could well have become physical, but either the school bell rang or I just let it go (trust me, he wasn't about to) and we went our separate ways. It was only after studying the matter some more that I realized Bolivar's end was even worse than I had thought: Not only was he exiled from Venezuela, but there was even an attempt to assassinate him while in power (I can only imagine what that fellow student would have thought of that!). Ultimately, Bolivar's dissatisfaction with South America reached the point where, after being exiled to Columbia, he planned to leave for Europe. He died before doing so. In the end, all the good Bolivar accomplished is in the texts and are part of the culture's verbal folklore, while the bad is conveniently brushed under the proverbial rug. And so it goes...
Fascinating -and scary- article from the Los Angeles Times regarding a treatment for babies, in the womb, to treat the possibility of " ambiguous genitalia": http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815,0,5576220.storyThe controversy lies in the fact that this may also be used to "treat"...homosexuality?! I suspect our future will be loaded with stories like these. How long before we can make sure our next baby is a boy...or girl? Then what? Will we be able to determine a child's intelligence? Looks? Athleticism? I recall reading a while back that we have, effectively, already defeated Darwin's natural selection. This may be another example of this fact.
Inevitably, it had to arrive...the link includes a (by now) well distributed "cut scene" from Return of the Jedi: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/14/star-wars-blu-ray-announced-for-fall-2011-deleted-scene-revealed/If you've read around here for a while, I'm sure I've already mentioned the fact that, despite my age and general sci-fi interests when the original Star Wars was released, I never really got into the film. I was eleven years old and recall the theater I went to to see the film. I recall this just as I recalled the drive in theater showing Jaws a year or two before. It was a circus (and I say this in a good way!). People were jubilant and eager to see the film. It must have been released only a few days before, and I was eager to see what all the fuss was. Even at that young age, it was obvious to me that Star Wars was taking hold of the nation's -indeed the world's- imagination. I sat somewhere toward the back of the theater, probably with my father or mother or friends or all the above, and the film came on and... ...it did nothing for me. Yes, people were cheering at all the right parts and ohs and ahs rained down during the more extravagant effects. But throughout the feature I felt curiously detached. The film simply wasn't speaking to me. Perhaps I was different than other kids...I lived off a steady stream of pulp adventures, both in comic books and films, and instantly recognized the Flash Gordon-like elements present in the movie. By that time I had also seen a great deal of Japanese anime, so seeing flashy space opera/combat wasn't that "new" an experience. Indeed, the "effect" I found the most intriguing in the film was the weird colored drinks (if memory serves, they were blue) the Skywalkers had at their dinner table. I also had a hard time sympathizing with the leads, and the non-ending "end", wherein Darth Vader gets away, angered me. Bear in mind, back then the concept of a movie "sequel" was very new. Other than James Bond, films generally were self-contained and very, very few had sequels. I thought it galling that the makers of this film would be so bold as to all but shout out the fact that they wanted, indeed intended, to make sequels. It was a testament to how little I thought of Star Wars that, when Empire Strikes Back was eventually released, I didn't bother seeing it in the theaters. The first time I saw it was when it was played on television a few years later (but before, I believe, Return of the Jedi was released). So it seems obvious: I won't bother with the Blu Rays, right? Well...maybe. But not this first round of releases. When they remaster the original cuts of those original films and include a good deal of the outtakes/deleted scenes, I might, for the sake of curiosity, give them a whirl. The fact is that, as the years have passed, my impressions of those original three Star Wars films has improved. Mind you, I'm still far, far from a fanatic, but there is stuff there, particularly in the earlier sequences of Empire, that are worth re-watching.
Sorry for the advertising at the start, but this is from CNN and they love to put that stuff there. What follows is just about the most ridiculous thing you're likely to see (well, today anyway!): A jet powered school bus...
A part of me has always wondered why people have become so fixated on how well a film does, box office-wise, in its opening. Which scored better, which disappointed? Does it really, in the end, matter to you or me as potential clients? After all, in its day Blade Runner was a pretty big box office disappointment, yet today is rightly recognized for its groundbreaking visuals and eerie story (as well as its multiple versions). And didn't The Phantom Menace make a ton of money when it was released, only to be viewed today as a pretty big disappointment, at least from a story standpoint? And then there's that other part of me that is just like everyone else, and is curious as hell as to what tickled the audience's fancy. So, how did the three way matchup of The Expendables, Scott Pilgrim, and Eat Pray Love do on their first day of release? Check it out for yourself: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/14/expendables-eat-pray-love-scott-pilgrim-box-office/Interestingly, of the three films, Scott Pilgrim scored the highest -far and away- of positive critical reaction. Yet audiences clearly weren't all that interested in seeing the film, at least based on the first day's receipts. After the performances of both Watchmen and Kick-Ass, I'm starting to see a theme emerging. Comic book based films can be very popular, but I suspect some of the edgier, off the beaten path concepts simply don't fare quite as well when turned into features. All three films received generally good reviews, yet audiences seemed to shy away from them, something that could well be happening with Scott Pilgrim. I think there's still plenty of life (and money to be made) in adapting comic books to movies, but perhaps the studios should tread a little more carefully in works that aren't quite so easily defined. After all, Watchmen (the comic book) came after decades of evolution in storytelling and art, and Kick-Ass (the comic) came many years after that. Maybe when dealing with the public outside of comic books, we need to understand that they're not quite as up to speed on these concepts and may find them alien when they show up on movie screens. Then again, as I also suspect is the case with Scott Pilgrim, maybe they just need to make better commercials. (I believe it was George Clooney that said a film's success or failure lay squarely in how good the commercials for it were).
School begins (for some) next week already, and the 2010 summer movie season, derided for being more miss than hit, is going out with a bang. Not one, not two, but three pretty highly advertised films make their way to the theaters, only one of which I'm genuinely curious to see. That would be The Expendables, the Sylvester Stallone project that seems to feature just about every major action hero around (omitting, alas, a few notables). What says Rottentomatoes.com about the film? As of this writing, the film is scoring a slightly below mediocre 42%: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/Next up, the film that it seems impossible to get away from: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. I know there are those who can't stand actor Michael Cera, and one could (successfully) argue that perhaps he's appeared a little too often in movies recently playing, essentially, himself. But I enjoyed his work in Arrested Development and would be willing to give this movie a try. Alas, of the many, many commercials for the film shown on TV, none have really made me terribly eager to see it. Indeed, the exact opposite has happened: I feel less inclined to see the film now that when I first heard about it. To be fair, of all those many commercials, the one that featured that "lesbian/lesbians" bit was humorous. Anyway, the movie, directed by Edgar Wright, who has earned a good reputation with his previous work, is currently earning a quite good 79% at Rottentomatoes.com: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scott_pilgrims_vs_the_world/Then there's Julia Robert's latest, the romantic Eat, Pray, Love. Is it me or is the release of these three films on this day a prime example of counterprogramming? One is for the "guys", one is for the younger audiences, and this one is for the women. Alas, of the three this is the one polling the worst, at 35%, on Rottentomatoes.com: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eat_pray_love/So there ya go.
|