The sad reality of being an individual who creates (be it music, books, stories, films, etc.) is that if you're not careful, there are literally millions of ways you can lose the rights, and more importantly, the royalties for whatever it is you've done. Recall the sad fate of Bill Finger, the co-creator and writer of Batman (and the man who came up with much of this famous character's lore), who died poor while Bob Kane, the artist of the strip (and most certainly the character's co-creator), received all the credit and fame for Batman's creation. Robert Heinlein, certainly a famous enough author in his own rights, created many wonderful science fictional concepts, many of which were "borrowed" and showed up in other works and movies, without Henlein being recognized for his contributions (ever read Heinlein's The Puppet Masters? Curious about its similarities to Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Heinlein's book was first published in 1951. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the book by Jack Finney) was first serialized in 1954 and the first film version was released in 1956. By the time The Puppet Masters was made into a feature film in 1994, I recall at least one critic mistakingly feeling this film was a pale "imitation" of Invasion of the Body Snatchers!) Similar things happen in music, but in this case, organist Matthew Fisher is getting his due (credit and cash): http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/30/procol.harum.royalties/index.html
I'm of two minds here...I truly loved Ridley Scott's work in the original Alien (1979). They took a simple, even somewhat cliched idea (the haunted mansion) and moved it into space and, instead of a ghostly entity haunting/killing the cast, you had a fearsome creature that was the very definition of "alien" attacking the crew. I enjoyed James Cameron's sequel, Aliens, but the "look" of that film feels dated now compared to that of Alien. The sequels that followed, including those featuring the creature from Predator, were a case of rapidly diminishing results. So, its interesting to read that Ridley Scott is returning to the franchise he started. It certainly raises my hopes. However, so much time has ellapsed since the original Alien (and his involvement in the work) that I can't help but wonder if he's truly interested or even capable of delivering on something that will inevitably be compared to the original. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that hopes were really high for Spielberg's return to Indiana Jones, or George Lucas' return to the Star Wars universe. Regardless, for now I'll be (cautiously) optimistic... http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/30/ridley-scott-to-direct-alien-prequel/
One of my all time favorite television shows is The Prisoner. There has been talk for a while of remaking the show, either for film or television. At one time, I seem to recall there was talk that Mel Gibson was considered for the title role. Didn't happen. AMC is releasing their remake of The Prisoner, and while it looks intriguing, it seems to be going its own way, too, specifically in stating that people within the village seem to think that there is no world outside it. A strange conceit, as is the fact that Number 6 (the lead) appears more confused about things than the original, who appeared to be the type that always landed on his feet:
You're in the police department and decide, what the hell, let's run a computer background check on Obama and see what we get. How about a suspension? http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20218458/detail.htmlSeriously, I can't see what they hoped to gain by doing this. If there was something "bad" in Obama's background they hoped to find, don't you think the Republicans (or rival Democratic candidates, for that matter) wouldn't have made an issue of it in the election? If they did it "for the hell of it", didn't they consider the very real possibility that this would raise some flags? Guess not. A side topic: For those out there (and I mean out there) who subscribe to the "birther" movement and openly wonder if Obama is a "legitimate" U.S. born citizen, the same goes for you guys. If this were a genuine issue, don't you think others would have exploited it BEFORE Obama was elected? Btw, you "birthers" do know that Republican presidential candidate John McCain was born in Panama, right? From Wikipedia: John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr.Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[2] At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.[3]
I don't think there's been a show that has made me vacillate as much on its merits as Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. The first season was, for the most part, a train wreck. The show crawled out of the gate sporting silly storylines and what appeared to be a great lack of focus. Word was that Fox studio suits were interferring with the final product, but a part of me was willing to give the show far more rope than I would have any other, if only because I wanted to see more (successful) Joss Whedon stuff. There were some good episodes in the first season, but overall I felt that the late, lamented Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles deserved to be renewed over Dollhouse, yet it still stands (and will return next season) while TTSCC is history. Having said all that, I'm intrigued by the unaired episode featured in the DVD set of Dollhouse's first season. First presented at the San Diego Comic Con, the episode flash forwards to a post-apocalyptic Earth and the culmination/aftermath of the events presented in the series. Also included in the DVD and almost as intriguing is the original pilot, which some have commented is better than what eventually aired. However, one really, REALLY big caveat: The first season boxed set is priced at a ludicrous $44.99 for the Blu Ray edition at Amazon ($28.49 for the standard DVD edition) and I certainly didn't like the skimpy 13 episode season enough to spend that much on it... So, until I rent it or find it on sale (cheap) somewhere, this review of the first season's box set will have to do:
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/07/28/dollhouse-dvd-released-today-is-it-worth-your-time-and-money/
A while back (see it here) I mentioned the fact that someone had made a zombie movie for $70 (yes, that's seventy dollars. Not seven hundred, not seven thousand. Seventy). My note was brief because the article offered little information other than the fact that the film was named Colin and was made by a budding British director named Marc Price and it was "wowing" folks at Cannes. Anyway, here's a more in depth article regarding the film and the fact that, at least in England, it has made it to the movie theaters and will, eventually, make it to DVD: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/28/70.dollar.movie.distribution/index.html
William Shatner does Sarah Palin's "farewell" speech. Hilarity ensues:
There was a time I didn't care at all for sports. You couldn't have forced me to sit through a game (didn't matter which) even with a gun to my head. Then, suddenly, I became a sports fanatic, and started watching all the major sporting events on TV (baseball, football, basketball, and hockey). That lasted for maybe two or three years, and now I've leveled out. I catch games here and there, but hockey is hard to watch on TV, and both baseball and basketball present such loooong seasons that the only compelling games come at the end, in the playoffs. But Football seems to have been created for TV. We get one burst of activity followed by several "dead" seconds, even minutes that the networks can fill with glorious, mythologically enhanced slow motion multiple angle views of the very same play we just saw. Rinse, shampoo, and repeat. Still, Football intrigues me the most of all the sports and, for what it's worth, here you have a pre-season analysis of team strengths. Of course, once the first game begins, all bets may well be off... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/07/28/pre-camp-rankings/index.html
According to this article, 2009 was bad for states and municipalities, but 2010 is shaping up to being even worse. So, what do cash strapped cities and counties do to fill the rather large deficits? Some creative ideas are included in this article, from legalizing and taxing marijuana to taxing strip clubs to... Well, see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/states.budget.crunch/index.htmlWhen I was younger, I lived in a conservative Republican's idea of a wet dream: A country where there were basically no taxes and government services were pretty much non-existent. Corruption, alas, was high (and why not? There were no governmental watchdog groups), and you haven't wouldn't believe the shape of the public roads. There were also all those pesky panhandlers, sometimes kids not much older than I was at the time, to deal with, as well as military checkpoints (without any great police force, you had some scary looking fellows with machine guns manning posts here and there). Also to be feared were the packs of wild dogs (and, no, I'm not kidding about this). The fact is that no one (me included) likes to pay taxes, and we all bitch about them. However, I'd rather live here paying taxes for the various services we enjoy than not pay any taxes and face the situation I saw when I was younger. Nowadays it's political suicide to propose raising everyone's taxes, so we're left with the (ahem) creative attempts to make up for the tax shortfalls.
I picked up the paper today and, like other days, noted its getting awfully thin. It started, of course, when the local papers which were beefed up with Real Estate advertisements (among many others) suddenly had almost no advertisements for property sales. Both local and national papers, I'm noting, are getting awfully smaller. And here's another sign of the changing economy: Harvey Schwartz, owner of 20th Century Props, has run out of money and is forced to auction off his collection of movie props. Seems Hollywood is losing out on film work (other states are offering tax incentives to bring productions there, and you must have read by now the economic problems within California) and Mr. Schwartz is another example of the weakened economy: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/07/28/hollywood.prop.sale/index.html
Absolutely fascinating article regarding Amelia Earhart. Appears that there may be a way to recover DNA from objects that these searchers hope to find on Nikumaroro Island (they previously found objects which suggested there may have been someone stranded on the island, but these objects were "contaminated"). Anyway, if they find what they hope to find, the very, very old mystery could finally be solved: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8160365&page=1
The above heading appeared on another BBS board (you can find it here) and I thought it was a fascinating subject matter, although I must admit to having a hard time recalling any films that fit into this subject matter. Usually, if I hate a film (or find it mediocre), there is usually nothing that appeals to me about it. However... I have to agree that the "Bad" Superman versus "Good" Superman/Clark Kent from Superman III was a pretty good scene in an otherwise horrible film. The movie Cannonball Run was excruciatingly bad, IMHO, but I have to admit the Roger Moore "fight" scene was hilarious. In fact, I remember when Siskel and Ebert were reviewing the movie, that was the scene they showed. Both Siskel and Ebert laughed after the clip was shown, then went on to talk about how abysmal the film was. If I recall any others, I'll post 'em. Meanwhile, feel free to post your own!
Yesterday was the first day in quite some time I posted absolutely nothing...and not for lack of trying. The fact is that, for the next while, I'll be in a very limited internet connectivity area and, because of this, I may not be able to connect to the internet at all. Meanwhile, I'll try to post as often as possible (like today), but I appreciate your patience.
Interesting quote from the San Diego Comic Con about the possibility that the sequel to the new Star Trek movie might be a two parter or, equally possible, they may want to film them back to back...It's an odd quote: http://io9.com/5322654/star-treks-third-movie-being-plotted-out-alreadyHopefully the new film(s) will present a more original story versus a retread of many of Star Trek's most memorable bits.
If my postings in the next few days is a little patchy, blame it on the internet connection I currently have. Wasn't able to get online for most of the day (the horror!). Meanwhile, another fascinating article concerning a very, very old gentleman who just passed away. He happened to be the last British Army Veteran of WWI and he died just a few days after another WWI vet (and, up to that point the oldest man in the world) also passed away. I wonder if any German, American, French, or other veterans of WWI still live. I suspect if they do, there are not very many... http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/25/uk.last.veteran.obit/index.html
The fifth and final episode of Torchwood: Children of Earth just aired tonight on BBC America and I figured, since I had spoken about this mini-series and my interest in the show's previous two seasons, I might as well offer some opinions. Briefly: This miniseries was well worth watching. Even if you don't know a thing about Torchwood or its cast of characters, you'll be fine. The story is fully self contained and the five episodes of this series air again, I believe, on Sunday. A little bit longer (beware SPOILERS): The show has a definate Quatermass-vibe going on. The plot: One day, the children of earth begin speaking in unison...all in english...and it sounds like they're telling the people of Earth that something is coming. What is this being that communicates through Earth's children? What is this being's purpose? And why has its impending arrival triggered such alarming reactions from those high up in the British government, actions that include sanctioning murder? High on the government's list for extermination is Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman), the immortal who happens to be the leader of Torchwood, a (somewhat) secret agency whose job it is to deal with alien threats. During the course of the next five episodes (each representing, a la 24 a passing day), we'll see a cadre of villains and heroes, people whose loyalties and motivation change with the situations confronting them. We'll see heroism and cowardice, and we'll see the worst humanity has to offer as we'll see the best (even if sometimes it might not seem that way). But be warned: This is not a cheery Independence Day sci-fi action extravaganza. Indeed, its generally downbeat tone might turn away some viewers. For others, though, you may cherish the Greek style tragedy that permiates the main story. The sins of the past come back to haunt the present and threaten the future. To set things right, more than one character will atone for his sins by making an unbearable sacrifice. It can be a rough trip, but it's one well worth taking. The only quibble against the show: Hour four of the five is probably the weakest of the lot. While still pretty good, this was the hour (before the incredible wrap up of Day 5) that felt the most stretched out. Within that episode Captain Jack and his partner/lover Ianto (Gareth David-Lloyd) do something awfully...foolish. They rush into a very dangerous situation without any plan other than to crack wise to their enemy. The results, given the downbeat tone of the show, are predictable. However, this is a minor problem when looking at the show as a whole. While the ending of this mini-series suggest a rather heavy final finale, I'm hoping we'll get more Torchwood in the future. For characters as good as these, I can't help but hope for happier endings.
I must be one of the only people in the world that hasn't had any big (or even little) problems with Microsoft Vista. Nonetheless, the early word on Windows 7 (note how Microsoft is forever banishing the world "Vista" with this title...this operating system, after all, could have been called Vista 2.0, had Vista been popular!  ) is a good system that improves on Vista and offers a quicker running platform. I already pre-ordered my copy when it was first available for the cheap price of $50, but if you want it now, you're going to have to pay the full price. Regardless, for those curious about Windows 7, the article follows: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/23/cnet.microsoft.windows/index.html
I've generally enjoyed Greg Rucka's comic book work (his novels aren't too bad either). Perhaps his best work is Queen and Country, but Whiteout was pretty good, too. I suspect that the film, based on that comic book and whose trailer is presented below, has its story broadened or expanded from the comic book. Don't get me wrong: The comic book story was good, but rather slight, IMHO, for a full length film. On the plus side, it appears they've kept the rather gruesome "finger" sequence:
As great as the internet is, it most certainly has its dark side: Internet piracy. We're talking, of course, about music and, lately becoming more prominent ( Wolverine being a fine example), movies. However, books and (yes) even comic books are popping up in illegal downloadable form. There are those who are very open about their support of internet "piracy". They hold to some strange (in my opinion) idea that information should be free, not realizing that their view of what is "free" is another person's hard work given away to anyone who wants it without the artist(s) receiving a penny for said hard work. No one wants to work for "free". Everyone wants to -hopes to- make something off whatever they do, be it selling shoes or songs or movies. If all their hard work and monetary investment made to produce a product subsequently results in that product being distributed for free on the internet, then what is the incentive to continue pursuing their work? At some point in the future, I fear we will stifle an emerging act that could rival the Beatles or a director who might become the next Steven Spielberg because those individuals found their hard work illegally spread across the internet and, because they couldn't make a decent profit from their works, they were forced to pursue a more stable job to pay the bills. So, what's the solution? Illegal downloading is a fact at this point, and I suspect creative individuals will have to find a way to work around it, although I freely admit not being smart enough to offer any worthwhile solution. Anyway, the article about pro-internet piracy parties gaining a foothold across Europe follows: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/pirate.party.christian.engstrom/index.html
I first saw one of these gizmos (I suppose that's the best way to describe them) a few months ago and thought: what the hell? Seriously, an electronic cigarette? The person using it stated that it didn't smell as bad as a real cigarette and was a healthy alternative to those terrible "cancer" sticks. He was, of course, a seller of the product, though didn't press me on purchasing it. We were, at best, casual acquaintances and, if he knew anything about me at all, it was that I didn't smoke nor had any interest in doing so. However, now it looks like maybe the e-cigarette isn't quite as innocent a product as he made it out to be: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/22/ecigarettes.fda/index.html
Back in 1985 director Guy Hamilton (best known for directing such as Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun, Funeral In Berlin, Battle of Britain, etc.) was involved with another action adventure movie, one the producers viewed as a potential series of films that might, just might, become the U.S. version of the James Bond franchise. The movie, starring Fred Ward as the title character, was optimistically named Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins. As a movie, it wasn't bad, although I feel Leonard Maltin's assessment is dead on: ( Remo Williams) comes close to scoring bull's-eye but misfires too many times.The movie, based on The Destroyer series of novels, proved less successful than the producers hoped, and the adventure, at least in the theaters, began and ended right there. But the adventure, as it turned out, continued one more time, on television. Released in 1988, Remo Williams, the television series pilot, boasted the acting juggernaut team of Jeffrey Meek as Remo Williams and Roddy McDowall as Chiun, his mentor. Up until a couple of nights ago, I didn't know such a creature existed, and after having seen it, I'm not entirely surprised. Not surprised, that is, I never heard of it. Just for the record, the TV pilot features the same music from the film and, in the opening credits, it also featured clips of what was probably the most famous scene from the movie (Remo Williams fighting and swinging around the Statue of Liberty). What the TV show lacks, however, is an engaging protagonist and a coherent, engaging plot. When the show opens, "the adventure begins" is over, but Chiun is still a smart ass who continuously insults and berates our all-American hero Remo. But his contract to teach Remo is done and he's packed up and ready to return to Korea. But, just as he's about to board the plane, he's convinced to stay behind a little while longer (streeeetch the show's time). He returns to train Remo some more, but is distressed by Remo's pride and decides to hire a killer to "injure" Remo. To teach Remo some much needed humility. The killer, however, seeks to become Chiun's pupil, so he takes his task a couple of steps too far and kills Remo, but Remo is revived which fulfills Chiun's prophecy of... Oh what's the use? The show was a complete mess. To be honest, the only thing that stuck in my mind about this brief 45-50 minute show was the fact that Jeffrey Meek not once, not twice, not three times...but FOUR times looked directly at the camera, thus breaking the fourth wall, and offered the one or two viewers still watching this show a "can you believe this shit?" look. I only wish he could see the look I was giving him right back.
Ok, so why should you care about a direct to video film released way, way back in 2002? Two words: The cast. When I first heard about D-Tox/Eye See You being released to video, I was surprised. Back then, the idea of a fairly big name actor starring in a film that subsequently is passed by the theaters was almost unheard of (since then, its a whole other thing). Sylvester Stallone stars as a rough and tumble cop who's on the trail of a serial cop killer, a man who appears to have seen Se7en one too many times. He takes out a cop friend of Stallone's and then, adding insult to injury, rather gruesomely takes out Stallone's girlfriend/fiance. But, immediately after, the police surround the killer in a warehouse district, and Stallone apparently takes the hated serial killer out. All this happens in the movie's first ten or so minutes. Unfortunately, its a lot to take, and its hard to develop much sympathy for Stallone (who's not bad in playing a man who is far from the indestructable "Rambo" type). Anyway, after all this, Stallone's character becomes a heavy drinker and, ultimately, suicidal. No longer able to take any more of it, he slits his wrists, but does not die. He's taken by another cop friend to a very isolated cop-centric detox and therapy center way, way up north (the place looks like it could have been used in John Carpenter's The Thing). When a very heavy snow fall occurs and people within this place start dropping like flies, we're suddenly into Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians/ And Then There Were None territory. Ok, so we're not dealing with the most original of plots but, again, look at that cast: There's Stallone, of course, and Tom ( Platoon) Berenger, Kris ( Blade, Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia) Kristofferson, Robert ( Terminator 2) Patrick, Sean Patrick ( Young Indiana Jones, The Boondock Saints) Flanery, and Polly ( Patriot Games) Walker. Sadly, most of those wonderful actors, with the possible exception of Robert Patrick and (in only one scene) Sean Patrick Flanery, get all that much to do. Everyone else seems to hang around, acting in turns nutty or suspicious or defeated (remember: the bulk of the cast are playing fellow drunk/burnt out cops). In a shocking revelation that should be no shock to anyone at all, the killer turns out to be the serial cop killer from the beginning of the film. He wasn't dead, after all, and the way Stallone figures out who he is falls squarely in the realm of Nancy Drew-like detective work (SPOILER! I'll give it this one away because I just can't help myself: The killer kept a match book -yes, a freaking match book- from way back at the start of the film in his room, and Stallone happens to find it). Silly, silly silly. And yet I couldn't entirely hate the film. Don't get me wrong: There's good reason it didn't make it to theaters, but I've paid for and seen far worse. What we have here is something that got away from the creators. The plot, while not the most original, might have worked better if most of the opening act (the most predictable part of the film) had been cut and, instead, the film focused on getting to the "meat" of the matter: The detox center. Further, several of the actors in this movie are given next to nothing to do. The biggest waste of screen time is shared between Tom Berenger, who is very capable of being interesting on screen, and actress Angela Alvarado. Berenger plays the detox center's maintenance man and does very, very little. But at least he's got a few lines here and there. Poor actress Angela Alvarado, who plays a burnt out female cop, does so little she makes Tom Berenger's role in this film look like Hamlet. She does absolutely nothing. Why bother having her there at all?! Anyway, a missed opportunity, for sure, all the more frustrating because it could have - should have- been better.
Interesting article about Facebook, which is now in its fifth year of operation and, in turn, all the other social network type websites. Facebook has an incredible amount of traffic and users. However, the bottom line with this business, as with every business out there, is how much revenue it produces. How much profit has Facebook made to date? Apparently none at all. What are the odds that Facebook still exists five years from now? http://www.newsweek.com/id/207843
In the wake of Michael Jackson's death, a fascinating article focusing on music released posthumously, and whether these releases honor, or desecrate, the original musician's intentions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31968870/ns/entertainment-music/I'm of two minds here. The example of John Lennon songs getting beefed up and "officially" released as Beatles music (in the Anthology collections) seems (to me anyway) coldly calculated to increase interest in the release of those Anthology works. Nothing can get fans of the Beatles more revved up than to hear that a "new" Beatles song is included. However, was it really that? Yes, Lennon had songs in the studio he never completed. But maybe Lennon viewed the songs as weak and ultimately didn't release them because the didn't think they were worth the bother. But having said that, and granted that the two songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) weren't all that great IMHO (even in the beefed up Anthology versions), I'm glad that an effort was made to release them. Even with a group of powerhouse musicians like the Beatles, not all of their songs, even when they were together, were winners, and I appreciate the effort to allow the public to hear more songs.
It's always been a source of curiosity to me, perhaps since Jaws premiered but certainly by the time the original Star Wars appeared in theaters, what makes people "herd" around something. I recall the long lines of cars waiting to enter a drive-in theater (in Venezuela no less), and people actually standing on roofs of their cars, to catch a glimpse of the earlier showing of Jaws on theater screens. Fast forward to the arrival of Star Wars, and the incredible hoopla that suddenly turned almost everyone into a fan. I admit to being fascinated by this sudden need to be part of some thing...be it music (the Beatles, when they first appeared, sent fans screaming), books ( Harry Potter and, now, Twilight), TV (most recently American Idol), and, of course, movies. As customers, we lurch from one product to another, without any visible rhyme nor reason. Sometimes, we herd around one particular product, to the point where its a...frenzy. I still recall hearing vague whispers, after Harry Potter's final book appeared in the stores, that the "next" hot series might be this one written by a Mormon mother, a series that involved a young girl and vampires and first love. I didn't think much about it, but it seemed like the very next day everyone heard of Twilight. Anyway, the Twilight frenzy is taking up the San Diego Comic Con... http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/twilight.fans/index.html
I've written about this twice before ( here and here): You want marijuana legalized? Forget all that crap about it not being nearly as bad as alcohol or how it can help people suffering from debilitating diseases, etc. etc. In these tough economic times, stress the fact that if you tax it, you can make plenty of revenue, something California especially could use much more of: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/california.pot.tax/index.html
This is an interesting article (even if it is from *shudder* Oprah.com, via CNN) (sorry, my male hormones are kicking in!) about the differences between men and women. A curious question they ask early on: Why do some men have no problem living in a filthy house yet keep their car squeaky clean? Why do some women do the exact opposite, ie keep their homes squeaky clean while not worrying about how filthy their cars become? Just one of the interesting questions posed in this article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/07/21/o.the.male.brain/index.html
Love him or hate him, John Byrne, veteran comic book artist and writer, has been around the field long enough to draw some interesting observations regarding where comic books were and are. Now, I don't always agree with him. Sometimes, I find his ego does get in the way of his opinions and at other times he seems to go out of his way to slam fellow creators. Then there are the many other times he hits a subject and offers some commendable criticism and/or observation. Like he does here: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32296&PN=1&totPosts=20A little backstory: The Onion offered a list of artists that "changed" comic books. Mr. Byrne goes at this topic in a slightly different way, offering his opinion of the events/circumstances that have brought on the current comic book market conditions. It's been a while since I've worked in the field (and I don't know if I'll ever venture back), but comic books still interest me. If you're into the subject, you might find the above link fascinating.
Like a moth drawn to a flame, I enjoy these "top-whatever" lists. In this case, we're presented with five artists that the article's author, Tony Sclafani, feels "ruined" pop music. And its not because these artists were necessarily "bad" at what they did (Mr. Scalfani considers only one of the four people in this group a weak artist: Paula Abdul), but because they were so good they influenced other, weaker artists to emulate them: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32011060/ns/entertainment-5top/The first singer mentioned is David Bowie, perhaps my personal favorite (if you've read these posts) musician. I've long thought that most of the pop music of the late 70's and '80s (much of it the so-called "New Wave") was directly influenced by David Bowie, and it appears that Mr. Sclafani thinks along these same lines. The problem, as he states:
Sadly, others copped (David Bowie's) affectations without his intelligent approach.
For a while in the 1980s, it seemed as if nearly every singer drew more
from Bowie’s European theater tradition of singing than the tradition
of rock singing itself. I also found his comments regarding Jim Morrison (another favorite of mine) and Steve Marriott quite intriguing.
There is a great cheese factor to such films as Meteor or Armageddon or Deep Impact, etc. etc. And then the sudden realization that something like that could happen, and we could never see it coming: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/21/jupiter.nasa.meteor.scar/index.htmlIt's downright frightening that an object of considerable size slammed into Jupiter, and we didn't see it, we don't know what exactly it was (meteor, comet, asteroid, etc.), and are only now able to note an earth-size impact mark. And it was fortunate we did! I suspect we're also fortunate to have such enormous planets as Jupiter and Saturn at our planet's "rear". Over the many, many years, these two massive planets have probably "collected" plenty of floating debris that might have eventually come our way.
I noted in the obituary to Mr. Henry Allingham that he was probably one of the last of the WWI veterans (which he was) and maybe one of the last people alive (to that point) who could claim he was born in the 19th century. Well, meet Walter Breuning, now the world's oldest living man. He was born in 1896, and is surely among a very rare group that, until a few days ago, included Mr. Allingham: Alive and born in the 19th century... The most fascinating sentence from the rather short article I'm linking to has to be the following: (Mr. Breuning) learned to read by kerosene lantern, remembers his grandfather
telling him about fighting in the Civil War, and cast his first
presidential ballot for Woodrow Wilson.Wow. A man still alive who recalls hearing first hand testimonials from a relative about what he did during the Civil War is mindboggling enough, but then reading that he cast his first presidential ballot for...Woodrow Wilson? Simply amazing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/walter-breuning-montana-r_n_241062.html
Interesting interview with the hosts of Discovery's Mythbusters (the show started contesting urban myths but has moved on to other things) on their attempts to prove that we did indeed go to the Moon...
I suppose with the anniversary of Apollo 11's landing on the Moon today, it stands to reason I'd find plenty of interesting articles regarding that event and the future of NASA. I posted one such article a couple of days ago. This one has even more details on possibilities NASA might explore in the near future: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/17/2000359.aspx
Interesting list of items regarding the Apollo 11, the mission that delivered the first people to the Moon: http://news.aol.com/moon-landing?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fmoon-landingWhile some of the items are, at least to me, pretty irrelevant, I was amused by the very first entry...that the Moon had a smell. How did they determine this exactly? I don't think at any point they lifted their helmets off and took a wiff of the area around them. I'm guessing they must have smelled some of the rock/soil samples they brought into their lander. However, one of the other items presented states that the capsule developed quite an odor (2 passengers in cramped quarters for several days=foul smell) so I can't help but wonder if they were smelling something else... Still, fascinating stuff on the anniversary of their arrival to the Moon!
You may want to wait until December:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Directors-Digital-BD-Live-Blu-ray/product-reviews/B001FB55H6/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R21P0MT6KFDL8CThis is the review page of the Watchmen Blu Ray release, from Amazon. The first review on this page, by Todd A. Johnson points out: ...it was downright painful to open this (Watchmen) set only to discover the insert
announcing the "ULTIMATE" 5 disc super edition due in December. So, if
you're looking for the director's cut WHICH WILL INCLUDE the interwoven
Tales of The Black Freighter, plus director Snyder and original artist
Gibbon's commentary, etc.-bonus-this-special-that... WAIT UNTIL
DECEMBER.
You know, I've always hated the dreaded "double dipping" of movie releases via DVD. I was furious when Memento was released, thinking that that film, more than any other, would benefit with the DVD release. The studio had to include an option where we see the film in "normal" time, right? Nope. It wasn't until some four or five months later that a "special edition" DVD was released, much to my annoyance, which featured the option I expected on the first version. What was even more infuriating was that I KNEW the studios had the "better" edition already slated for release, yet chose to release the bare bones version without announcing the "special edition" was on its way to, I can only assume, get some quick cash from suckers like me. At least in this case it appears Warners was somewhat upfront that they were going to release a "ultimate" version of Watchmen. Of course, they chose to make this announcement inside the regular release...
I had/have no interest in seeing Dark Blue, the new TNT series. Looked like another one of those cop shows that try to be "edgy" and theatrical but come off as too much of a product and not enough reality. At least that's what it appeared to me from the commercials. As I sad, I had/have no interest in seeing it. Appears my instincts were correct, if we were to go by another very entertaining review by Heather Havrilesky. Did I mention I love her TV reviews? Oh, I did, didn't I, in the header. Well, indulge me. Let me mention it once again. Meanwhile, here's her latest review: http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/iltw/2009/07/19/dark_blue/
Vampires are all the rage of late (I worked, for a while, on an Independently published one back in the day, and it was the best selling work I ever had). With the success of Twilight, it appears many are searching far and wide for the next big vampire thing, and of late that seems to be True Blood on HBO. Now, I've never seen an episode of the series but, again, it appears to be a popular, well received show. So when I saw the headline posted at the top of this entry, I was curious why this particular reviewer thought the show "lost" him: http://www.newsweek.com/id/207087
Fascinating video from CNN about Yellowstone Park, a truly beautiful place that, quite literally just below its surface, is very, very dangerous.
...if you're an author, that is. It seems that George Orwell's 1984 was made available as a Kindle book through Amazon.com (I've used the service for my book, Mechanic, and was thinking of adding the others as well). Only problem? The people who own the rights to the book were not the ones selling it. Seems some shady third party sellers offered the book through the Amazon Kindle service, choosing 1984 because it wasn't available in that format and recognizing there might be a desire out there to purchase it as a Kindle book (I heard a rumor that the book was considered a literary classic or some such ). Anyway, the folks at Amazon realized they shouldn't be giving their clients the opportunity to purchase pirated material, so they have discontinued the listing and returned the money to those who bought the Kindle edition of this book... http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6696514&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hm
And, like the more in depth last one I pointed out (it can be found here), this one doesn't sound all that encouraging, either: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20291406,00.htmlThe main complaint I keep hearing about the film is that it simply goes on and on. The opening minutes are almost always cited as being the best part of the film, but the remainder meanders. I didn't catch the film in the theater and plan to pick up the DVD and give it a whirl (time permitting...I have soooo much to catch up on!). However, if director Zack Snyder was too slavish to the very dense story, I certainly understand people's ambivalent reactions to the film. The comic book was very dense, and even at 3 hours, I doubt anyone could fit in everything writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons presented. Perhaps, instead of being so devoted to presenting everything in the book on the screen (or as much as possible), this is one project that might have benefited from prudent cuts. I'll tell you when I finally see it!
It's called Spotify and, as noted in the article below, is only available in England. It sounds really, really good, and may lead to a decline in illegal downloading of music. Maybe. http://www.slate.com/id/2223018/I've used Pandora Radio ( http://www.pandora.com) and found it a fun streaming service. I'm curious about Spotify. But, until it shows up in the U.S...
It happens to everyone eventually. Probably the most eye opening line in the story was this: Allingham's wife, Dorothy, died in 1970. Their two daughters both died in their 80s.Imagine outliving your offspring, who die in their 80's!! But getting back to Mr. Allingham, the subject of the article: He lived to be 113 years old and, as noted in the article, was a veteran of WWI. I suspect he was the last living veteran of that war. He was probably the last person alive to be born in the 19th century (He was born in 1896). Some other notable dates: When WWI began in 1914, Mr. Allingham was 18. When it ended in 1918, he was 22. When WWII began in 1939, he was 43. When it ended in 1945, he was 49. When we reached the moon in 1969, he was 73. At the turn of the century, he was 104. Rest in peace, Mr. Allingham. The article follows: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/18/oldest.vet.dead/index.htmlIt won't be too long before the WWII generation leaves us, as well. Most of them are now
in their 80's or older (2009-1945=64 years since the year that conflict ended.
If you entered the military during the last year of WWII and were 18
years old at that time, today you would be around 82 years old).
You may have heard that J. D. Salinger successfully sued to have 60 Years Later, the unauthorized "sequel" to his famous novel Catcher in the Rye, taken off the shelves. I was unaware that it made it to the shelves in the first place! Well, here you have a review of the unauthorized sequel, and, if you go by this critic, it looks to be not worth your while: http://www.slate.com/id/2222831/
In this provocative article, Traci Watson looks back at the Apollo mission and wonders just what NASA is up to, if anything, now. Her answers are uncomfortable and, sadly, the truth: NASA scored incredible triumphs during its "golden age", urged on by a sense of nationalism (fighting to prove the US was superior, technologically, over the USSR) and a president's promise and support (most famous being John F. Kennedy's speech promising we would reach the moon). The problem came after the success. Nixon, a rival of Kennedy's, didn't appear to have much interest in the space program, even though the moon shot occurred under his watch (his hands were full with other issues, from Vietnam to China to, eventually, Watergate). Subsequent presidents didn't seem particularly interested, either. The arrival of the shuttle, startling though it was, in reality was a cost cutting measure: It was a cheap way to get up into orbit, but (of course) couldn't take us as far as the Apollo missions did. Robotic missions have proven successful: We've landed on Venus and Mars, we've closely explored almost all the planets in the solar system. But, unlike the Apollo missions, we've done these without human eyes looking on at those wonders. So, here we are today, with a NASA that has had some astonishing successes, but appears to be an agency adrift and without a very clear goal. What's our next step? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-07-16-nasamoon_N.htm
|