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.html

Obviously, "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".

...at least according to Entertainment Weekly:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20417046,00.html

But 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-watch

With 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
Primer

Which 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.

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#s131180

This 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.html

To 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.

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.

...funny, too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/google-earth-pictures-the_n_690836.html

Just goes to show...something.  Or another.

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...