We're only a few months away from a long anticipated sequel to "Blade Runner". As much as I enjoyed the novel from which it was adapted (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? for those not in the know) and the film, which covers about a third of the book, I have not been eager to see a sequel. There's a lot of material in the book and it can be hard to get all of a novel into a single movie. We all know that. I accept that. I don't fault the film for that. Even with its flaws, it's still a delight. My problem with it and a sequel predicated on it can be placed squarely at the feet of its director, Ridley Scott.
The decision by Ridley Scott to have Rick Deckerd, our hero of the Blade Runner division, be a replicant is one I've always dismissed as absurd. Scott's clung to it for over thirty years now, but the idea doesn't fit with Dick's book and it certainly doesn't fit with reality. The amount of scrutiny one would have to undergo, which Dick's novel does confirm happens, to become a cop is specifically designed to prevent unsuitable candidates from being hired. Sure, we get unfit hires in all levels of government in the military and law enforcement and their support services, but they're at least human. Remember that "permanent record" they used to threaten you with when you got in trouble at school? Well, it's going to be checked. To cast Deckerd in the role of a replicant is to suggest that the Blade Runner unit is incapable in the most extreme degree of fulfilling its primary functions: detecting and retiring replicants on Earth (as it was made illegal for the synthetic humans to be functioning outside of their manufacturer's facility since a bunch of them went rogue).
Anything more than a superficial examination is enough to out a replicant. Scott's decision to foist that mantle onto Deckard's shoulders never felt like anything more to me than the director's attempt to seem clever, like changing "Watchmen" but creating a weaker resolution in doing so. It certainly doesn't show someone who's read and respected the source material. It certainly doesn't scream of cleverness.
As always, though, I'm willing to field counter-points.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
18482--Being Fierce and Influencing People
No! No! No! There goes another another villain who, while crazy as a bag of cats, somehow seems to have their shit together enough to make our valiant heroes look like a bunch of circus clowns. It's frustrating to read and aggravating to watch when put to a screen. How has this social defective managed to leave our champions with their pants around their ankles and spanked like a frat pledge? Sure, we're talking about a criminal mastermind, and one who's prepared for pantsing protagonists as part of the evil plan, but also who's been artfully crafted to be a challenge. Mental aberrations aside, I think this may be why some people develop a love for certain villains.
Villains driven by emotional anguish (often some perceived tragedy they've overreacted to or, worse, caused) tend toward focus and intensity. This makes them more on their game than the average person and that dark intensity draws an audience emotionally. You know who else benefits from this? Batman. Yeah, a big shock, I know. What a lot of people forget is that Superman used to enjoy that same sort of mojo.
Superman's spent a lot of years as a symbol of law and order, but he started out as a crusading rebel for truth and justice. Before his powers grew to levels that allowed him to perform large scale rescues, he spent a lot of his time battling social injustice and corruption. Without the restraint he would develop after a few years on the job (which would also bring on a full origin; his first radio show, in fact, had him arriving on Earth as an adult), Superman fought criminals and championed the common man against systemic oppression with less concern for law than for justice and truth. It was the patriotic rallying cry of war that shoved him into the role of boy scout. He was polished into a partner of the establishment, given to a softer touch. On the cover of Action Comics #1, he's smashing criminal's getaway car (a move actually depicted in the story). Almost seventy years later, when Superman Returns pays homage to that iconic moment, that scene is sort of replicated, but with a runaway car that's rescued and goes from being hoisted overhead to being gently set on the ground.
Technically, the same thing happened to Batman and Wonder Woman, but it was necessary to help them all survive the post-WWII era that saw psychiatry and Congress try to turn the people against them. Since bringing Robin in to sidekick for Batman had backfired by triggering claims of homoerotica rather than paternalism, many efforts were made to normalize the heroes. The less-than-edgy dark knight was even given a platinum badge to show how great an establishment supercop he'd become. The influential 60s TV show added the character of Dick Grayson's aunt, Harriet Cooper, to Wayne Manor's residency to break up the sausage party with a wholesome, family friendly image.
Still, Batman being who and what he is was the easiest to drag back across the line, out of the light and into the dark from whence he came just as they had spawned The Shadow before him. In the 70s, Denny O'Neill re-established him as a grim, nightstalking detective in a dangerous, dark Gotham. After Crisis on Infinite Earths, Frank Miller was tapped to turn the caped crusader into a rebel again. He still had Jim Gordon as a friend in law enforcement, but that was about it. Relegated to the shadowy fringes of society once again, he gave the imperfect world around him the help it needed whether it was wanted or not. And it was decided, of course, that he and Superman should no longer be buddies.
It's a hard thing to make Superman feared while he's publicly saving lives, abating disasters, and then racing off to save the world again. Powerhouse that he has become, he also has to be instilled with copious levels of restraint so he's not portrayed as a bully who does whatever he wants whenever he pleases. Being superhumanly good is simply a better fit with the narratives of Wonder Woman and Superman.
Still, I was thinking that if the loss of Krypton were to keep the Man of Steel more focused on saving Earth and its people, even from themselves, it would be easier to paint the picture of a Superman intensely determined to save the world. Superman jumping in to help whether it was wanted or not, concerned more about truth and justice and Freedom yet little about law or the desires of government, would force discussion of issues touched upon in half-assed fashion in Dawn of Justice. Indeed, how would the world cope with a man of Superman's capacities after he's shifted alignments from Lawful Good to Chaotic Good with a passionate drive to save us from our own self-destructiveness?
Villains driven by emotional anguish (often some perceived tragedy they've overreacted to or, worse, caused) tend toward focus and intensity. This makes them more on their game than the average person and that dark intensity draws an audience emotionally. You know who else benefits from this? Batman. Yeah, a big shock, I know. What a lot of people forget is that Superman used to enjoy that same sort of mojo.
Superman's spent a lot of years as a symbol of law and order, but he started out as a crusading rebel for truth and justice. Before his powers grew to levels that allowed him to perform large scale rescues, he spent a lot of his time battling social injustice and corruption. Without the restraint he would develop after a few years on the job (which would also bring on a full origin; his first radio show, in fact, had him arriving on Earth as an adult), Superman fought criminals and championed the common man against systemic oppression with less concern for law than for justice and truth. It was the patriotic rallying cry of war that shoved him into the role of boy scout. He was polished into a partner of the establishment, given to a softer touch. On the cover of Action Comics #1, he's smashing criminal's getaway car (a move actually depicted in the story). Almost seventy years later, when Superman Returns pays homage to that iconic moment, that scene is sort of replicated, but with a runaway car that's rescued and goes from being hoisted overhead to being gently set on the ground.
Technically, the same thing happened to Batman and Wonder Woman, but it was necessary to help them all survive the post-WWII era that saw psychiatry and Congress try to turn the people against them. Since bringing Robin in to sidekick for Batman had backfired by triggering claims of homoerotica rather than paternalism, many efforts were made to normalize the heroes. The less-than-edgy dark knight was even given a platinum badge to show how great an establishment supercop he'd become. The influential 60s TV show added the character of Dick Grayson's aunt, Harriet Cooper, to Wayne Manor's residency to break up the sausage party with a wholesome, family friendly image.
Still, Batman being who and what he is was the easiest to drag back across the line, out of the light and into the dark from whence he came just as they had spawned The Shadow before him. In the 70s, Denny O'Neill re-established him as a grim, nightstalking detective in a dangerous, dark Gotham. After Crisis on Infinite Earths, Frank Miller was tapped to turn the caped crusader into a rebel again. He still had Jim Gordon as a friend in law enforcement, but that was about it. Relegated to the shadowy fringes of society once again, he gave the imperfect world around him the help it needed whether it was wanted or not. And it was decided, of course, that he and Superman should no longer be buddies.
It's a hard thing to make Superman feared while he's publicly saving lives, abating disasters, and then racing off to save the world again. Powerhouse that he has become, he also has to be instilled with copious levels of restraint so he's not portrayed as a bully who does whatever he wants whenever he pleases. Being superhumanly good is simply a better fit with the narratives of Wonder Woman and Superman.
Still, I was thinking that if the loss of Krypton were to keep the Man of Steel more focused on saving Earth and its people, even from themselves, it would be easier to paint the picture of a Superman intensely determined to save the world. Superman jumping in to help whether it was wanted or not, concerned more about truth and justice and Freedom yet little about law or the desires of government, would force discussion of issues touched upon in half-assed fashion in Dawn of Justice. Indeed, how would the world cope with a man of Superman's capacities after he's shifted alignments from Lawful Good to Chaotic Good with a passionate drive to save us from our own self-destructiveness?
Monday, May 1, 2017
18467--Dinosaurs Are Not the Problem
P: Now...
J: Uh-oh.
P: ...if you're Dr. Ian Malcolm...
J: From...? Oh, Jurassic Park.
P: ...then the last place you want to be is...
J: Jurassic Park.
P: Anyplace with freakin' dinosaurs!
J: Well, duh.
P: Yet, somehow, they've managed to sign Jeff Goldblum for Jurassic World 2.
J: This I knew. They're making a fifth movie.
P: His third. Somehow, they're going to have to come up with a plausible way to get him back among the dinosaurs.
J: Like the other guy, the doctor from the first and the third ones.
P: Sam Neill.
J: Get me off this damned island.
P: Oh, it's OK, this is a different island. Of course, there are still dinosaurs on it, so...
J: Damn it!
P: We have to have an expert scientist to ignore who also wasn't dumb enough to make the dinosaurs trying to kill everyone.
J: So all Malcolm has to offer is telling everyone not to go be part of the damn buffet?
P: Well, there's the running and screaming. And we have to assume all the chaos is a big draw for him.
J: Why am I on the island of dinosaurs and not wearing a tank to cover all my delicious meat?
P: No, that's not the perfect weapon. You know what the perfect weapon is. Same as for zombie hordes.
J: A baseball bat?
P: AC-130.
J: The Hercules thing? With the 50-cal?
P: 105mm Howitzer! 40mm cannon! 25mm machine gun, front-mounted! Most importantly, you are not down there with them.
J: Is that going to work? Something always goes wrong. It's like they've got somebody on the inside making things go wrong. In the first movie, it was...the computer guy...
P: Wayne Knight. Neuman.
J: Yeah, him.
P: He wasn't actually trying to sabotage the place, just shut down security long enough to cover his escape. Either through bad programming or just mechanical inefficiency, things didn't switch back on like they were supposed to.
J: Either way, time to get the damn shotguns! And that didn't even help.
P: They were way understaffed. The place wasn't open yet.
J: Right, running a skeleton crew.
P: At least, they would be after the feeding frenzy.
J: Jurassic World was fully staffed and open for business. What's the point of putting all those people around apex predators designed to kill us?
P: Well, they're not really, not the natural ones anyway.
J: They're not natural anymore.
P: Certainly not. And in the last one, well, people really were trying to sabotage the place. We had our head scientist from the first movie poking his head back up from the lab..."Hi, I've been trying to weaponize the critters for the last few years." Because humans try to weaponize everything.
J: And working with the government. They put raptor DNA in it.
P: And chameleon.
J: It tore out its own tracking device and went hunting for fun. They can't control that. Your plane might not be able to shoot it either.
P: It has infra-red tracking gear.
J: That might not be enough with that thing.
P: In which case, I'm still in a plane. OK, so maybe they just let it loose someplace unfriendly and leave it to hunt. Admittedly, it's about as responsible as planting minefields and leaving them behind to see who they kill. If it doesn't get a taste for ISIS, set off the brain bomb buried deep, deep in its head.
J: Unless it digs that out, too.
P: It's buried really deep.
J: They've got to have all kinds of good nanotech in that lab. They should have some way to control them.
P: Sure, control the nervous system, the endocrine system, or even just clog up the bloodstream with graphene clots.
J: Well, that might work. It has to get hungry some time and actually hunt for food.
P: Better still, go beyond the lysine option and just program in a termination date. Figure out their maximum travel range and turn them loose. As long as they don't learn to drive or hop a boat, they're under limited control.
J: Of course, the government's still going to want controllable soldiers. How long till they're putting together human hybrid dino-soldiers?
P: And how long till the hybrids decide to find a way to increase their numbers and take over?
J: They always turn on you.
P: Of course, intelligent dino-soldier slaves isn't the real problem. The problem is all the clowns who want to keep making dinosaurs in the first place.
J: Step one, don't make dinosaurs.
P: There you go. That nanotech bio-lab could probably come up with some nifty superpowers. Failing that, there's always omelettes.
J: I want cookies.
P: Fine, omelettes and cookies.
J: Uh-oh.
P: ...if you're Dr. Ian Malcolm...
J: From...? Oh, Jurassic Park.
P: ...then the last place you want to be is...
J: Jurassic Park.
P: Anyplace with freakin' dinosaurs!
J: Well, duh.
P: Yet, somehow, they've managed to sign Jeff Goldblum for Jurassic World 2.
J: This I knew. They're making a fifth movie.
P: His third. Somehow, they're going to have to come up with a plausible way to get him back among the dinosaurs.
J: Like the other guy, the doctor from the first and the third ones.
P: Sam Neill.
J: Get me off this damned island.
P: Oh, it's OK, this is a different island. Of course, there are still dinosaurs on it, so...
J: Damn it!
P: We have to have an expert scientist to ignore who also wasn't dumb enough to make the dinosaurs trying to kill everyone.
J: So all Malcolm has to offer is telling everyone not to go be part of the damn buffet?
P: Well, there's the running and screaming. And we have to assume all the chaos is a big draw for him.
J: Why am I on the island of dinosaurs and not wearing a tank to cover all my delicious meat?
P: No, that's not the perfect weapon. You know what the perfect weapon is. Same as for zombie hordes.
J: A baseball bat?
P: AC-130.
J: The Hercules thing? With the 50-cal?
P: 105mm Howitzer! 40mm cannon! 25mm machine gun, front-mounted! Most importantly, you are not down there with them.
J: Is that going to work? Something always goes wrong. It's like they've got somebody on the inside making things go wrong. In the first movie, it was...the computer guy...
P: Wayne Knight. Neuman.
J: Yeah, him.
P: He wasn't actually trying to sabotage the place, just shut down security long enough to cover his escape. Either through bad programming or just mechanical inefficiency, things didn't switch back on like they were supposed to.
J: Either way, time to get the damn shotguns! And that didn't even help.
P: They were way understaffed. The place wasn't open yet.
J: Right, running a skeleton crew.
P: At least, they would be after the feeding frenzy.
J: Jurassic World was fully staffed and open for business. What's the point of putting all those people around apex predators designed to kill us?
P: Well, they're not really, not the natural ones anyway.
J: They're not natural anymore.
P: Certainly not. And in the last one, well, people really were trying to sabotage the place. We had our head scientist from the first movie poking his head back up from the lab..."Hi, I've been trying to weaponize the critters for the last few years." Because humans try to weaponize everything.
J: And working with the government. They put raptor DNA in it.
P: And chameleon.
J: It tore out its own tracking device and went hunting for fun. They can't control that. Your plane might not be able to shoot it either.
P: It has infra-red tracking gear.
J: That might not be enough with that thing.
P: In which case, I'm still in a plane. OK, so maybe they just let it loose someplace unfriendly and leave it to hunt. Admittedly, it's about as responsible as planting minefields and leaving them behind to see who they kill. If it doesn't get a taste for ISIS, set off the brain bomb buried deep, deep in its head.
J: Unless it digs that out, too.
P: It's buried really deep.
J: They've got to have all kinds of good nanotech in that lab. They should have some way to control them.
P: Sure, control the nervous system, the endocrine system, or even just clog up the bloodstream with graphene clots.
J: Well, that might work. It has to get hungry some time and actually hunt for food.
P: Better still, go beyond the lysine option and just program in a termination date. Figure out their maximum travel range and turn them loose. As long as they don't learn to drive or hop a boat, they're under limited control.
J: Of course, the government's still going to want controllable soldiers. How long till they're putting together human hybrid dino-soldiers?
P: And how long till the hybrids decide to find a way to increase their numbers and take over?
J: They always turn on you.
P: Of course, intelligent dino-soldier slaves isn't the real problem. The problem is all the clowns who want to keep making dinosaurs in the first place.
J: Step one, don't make dinosaurs.
P: There you go. That nanotech bio-lab could probably come up with some nifty superpowers. Failing that, there's always omelettes.
J: I want cookies.
P: Fine, omelettes and cookies.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
18195--Do We Get Bonus Points for Engineering Our Doom with Style?
Leonardo DaVinci gets credit for starting things rolling, I suppose. He might be impressed with the developments we've made in robotics since his own, but I can't help but think he'd be asking what's been taking so long in the same sentence. Some animatronic show pieces are delightful to watch go through the motions of mimicry, but they're still far short of the levels of integrated, functional, practical technological tools we imagine when we conceive of ubiquitous cyborgs and robots.
There are advances being made, to be sure, but the pace seems to be painfully slow. Military thought drives a lot of development. When those particular deep pockets are absent from involvement, though, we're left with whatever innovations can be wrought from curiosity, altruism, or commercial potential.
Even if the military doesn't want to explore the robo-mule further, there's no reason not to license it out to the private sector. There are already amazing bird and insect robots that have been made. If people would stop focusing on flying drones over their neighbors or trying to figure out hoverboarding for a few minutes, they'd probably realize that there are (I'm guessing) probably a lot of people who'd enjoy riding their own robot unicorn around. Or maybe a robot dire wolf. Either way, it'd have to be better than a Segway. Without much alteration, "Big Dog" could carry a passenger or two on a mountain trail hike...seat warmer and Bluetooth speakers optional. How many cupholders would you like?
Welcome to the 21st century. The future is upon us.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
18190--No, Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Owe Any Apologies
Fresh on the heels of Michelle Obama expressing her amazement over living in a prestigious national symbol (the White House) built by slaves, the Fox News pontificator felt compelled to downplay the slavery reference by offering that said slaves were well-fed and decently housed. This is America, so he has the right to do so, of course.
Now, to many of us, the very notion of slavery is sufficiently chafing, but Mr. O'Reilly finds it to be of a higher priority to step to the defense of American slavery rather than focus on the political aspect of what Mrs. Obama was actually talking about. I'm sure that his theft of focus to make a point of his own has drawn the ire of many. Despite its wildly successful history (it utterly crushed indentured servitude in its time), slavery continues to carry a tremendously unpopular stigma.
Rather than spend time and energy on directing anger toward Mr. O'Reilly (you knew who he was already and that's not about to change), I would instead offer a challenge to Fox News and its management that is trying to refurbish the organization's image. Try this: before Mr. O'Reilly starts trying to suggest that the Third Reich offered Jews efficient mass transit and free housing, reassign him to a special field project. Bear with me. This would not be a punishment, rather an opportunity for Mr. O'Reilly to prove his point. Under the scrutiny of Fox News cameras, Mr. O'Reilly will be given "decent" housing and food commensurate with the status of a menial laborer. Over the course of a television season, he could live in someone's shed, for example, and perform yard work, field work, and other chores during the day. Perhaps, following the construction theme, he could build with Habitat for Humanity. I'm sure the management at Fox will know how to make it interesting.
Most importantly, Mr. O'Reilly would be able to show everyone how happy he can be on minimal wages (slavery is still illegal, after all), subsistence nutrition, and "decent" housing so long as his days are filled with the reward of purposeful labor. Then, he'd have nothing but solid footing from which to stand tall and never ever apologize for any thoughtlessly diminishing comment he might ever choose to make.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
18169--You Think You're So Smart?
Ruling the planet for over a hundred million years just wasn't enough.
Evolving from savage violence, growing into civilization and philosophy...
There's more religious iconography at this site than the last. Huge multi-ton stones are surrounded by sculptures of creatures no one alive has ever seen. Still, they were never really able to find contentment.
The engraved tableau we uncovered earlier this week says they modified the genetic code of their mammal food source to increase the meat yield. No one foresaw the drastic side effects that would come from that.
One step too far? I suppose. It backfired on them, after all. Their whole civilization seems to have imploded on itself after that.
So many achievements over so many centuries spent taming their world and now we still haven't found more than a couple of their cities and random fossil remains.
"Hey, Dave! You done with lunch? We want to get back to the dig while there's still daylight."
"Sure. Just making some notes."
"What about?"
"Thoughts about the dinosaurs, what else? We've got a lot to learn from them."
"Whatever you want to learn from the past better come from all the pictures you take. Bulldozers come through in three days, remember?"
"Right. Can't stop progress, after all."
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
17902--Is A Sequel Worth Destroying the World?
Spoiler alert: the "groundbreaking" Watchmen limited comic series (1986-1987) was already beyond relevance when finally adapted to film (2009).
Now, that's not to say the grim, gritty superhero intrigue isn't fun to watch and re-watch, man (sorry), but deconstructing comic book icons is even less striking in a post-antihero age than positing the notions of revised geopolitics and a multi-term Nixon administration. Hell, in 2007, a fairly bright college student was asking me to explain the significance of "this Ayatollah Khomeni" she had never heard of outside her history class.
Beyond all that, including even Alan Moore's disowning of Zack Snyder's product, I guess I still have a lingering problem with the implications of the rewritten ending. In the original, Adrian Veidt's machinations culminated in the psychic death scream of a genetically engineered octopus mutation fooling humanity into believing Earth was at risk from interdimensional invaders when the one-off creature exploded onto Times Square (a result of being on the business end of Veidt's technological approximation of Dr. Manhattan's powers). The result of the mastermind's brilliant hoax, as he expected, was the world uniting to survive, albeit at the price of paranoia-fueled PTSD and a few deaths. He didn't consider it a perfect solution, but one preferable to watching billions die in thermonuclear immolation.
In the movie, Adrian Veidt's altered plan completely sidesteps the genetic engineering aspects of the original and instead of using the research into Manhattan's powers to craft an unstable teleporter weaponizes the tech to create discrete intrinsic field subtraction effects in eighteen cities. The destructive energy attacks kill millions and do tremendous damage around the world, rallying Earth against what they believe is a Dr. Manhattan who has turned against them. When the immortal chooses to leave Earth behind, he also leaves the powerful technology with Veidt and the weight of what he has done to save the world from its political madness.
What doesn't appear to have been considered, though, is that it originally took Dr. Manhattan about a year to learn to control his energetic form and recreate a cohesive body for himself after being disintegrated. Now, Veidt has recreated that original disintegration with millions of subjects. Should even one or two of those torn apart as collateral damage find the focus to re-embody their consciousness, a real clash of superhumans could result. What about dozens or hundreds or thousands of Manhattan-like superbeings bumping shoulders? Even if they learned only a fraction of his mastery in their youth (remember, we saw Manhattan develop over decades from a man who started as a physicist to one who could reform his disintegrated body almost instantly), the potential impact theses newly empowered beings would easily have tremendous impact on a very tense world.
As of this month, there's been an announcement that a potential TV series set in the Watchmen world is being considered. I guess we'll have to wait and see how they'll choose to burn it down.
Monday, August 10, 2015
17837--You Paid How Much?
I try to avoid going to movies at the theater.
It's not that I don't enjoy watching movies or spending time with friends. My issue is that I don't like to encourage a system that seems designed to take increasing amounts of money out of my pocket for products of increasingly uncertain quality. When I do go, I count myself fortunate that I'm stubborn enough about eating healthy that I don't pay for the overpriced snacks they consider edible.
As far as the movie goes, though, my rising ticket price is going to pay back the money that a studio has invested in the production of whatever latest cinematic escapism they've chosen to throw a bigger budget at than any of the 99% will see in a lifetime. Sadly, when you put a bunch of studio decision makers in a room with supposedly creative people, what comes out is seldom new or innovative. What they tend to gravitate toward in the great piecemeal of ideas will be things that look familiar. Those ideas will look like the sort that have made money before, to which will be attached a twist or two that seems clever at the moment and the names of some acting-types that seem like they can help sell the product. (This happens in TV, too, but it usually isn't something the masses have to pay to see.)
When this process works, you end up with another successful rom-com or espionage thriller or whatever puts asses into padded theater seats for a few months. When it doesn't, another Fantastic Four or The Lone Ranger gets dumped into our laps like the hot mess the dog left steaming on the kitchen floor before skulking off in shame. Those particular missed shots still baffle me. Did Hollywood not invent westerns? The studios have years of experience making them yet they can't seem to pull off a proper "Who was that masked man?" no matter how much cash they sacrifice at the altar. Hell, the character was even based on a real-life western hero. If Clayton Moore didn't seem like such a darn nice guy, I might think he had commissioned a curse against Klinton Spillsbury and any other Lone Ranger films.
The Fantastic Four films are another mystery. They're a modern, scientific superhero family with fifty years of comic history under their stretchable onesies. Still, while the other super-misfits are lining up to swim with Scrooge McDuck, the ol' FF continue to have as much fun at the theater as Abe Lincoln. They don't seem to be tapping the right vein to strike the gold that other world-savers are hitting. It'd be easy enough to snipe from the sidelines and say it's because they aren't interpreting the source material properly or reading it at all (more than a few film productions of comic adaptations have had key personnel crow about how they would proudly ignore the comic books that inspired the movie deal they were supposed to be fulfilling), but there's no simple formula for putting a winner onto the big screen. Just ask the Wachowskis. Of course, there are also a lot of simple things that shouldn't be done if experienced filmmakers don't want to shoot holes in their own boat. Just ask the Wachowskis.
It'd be nice if they could get a system perfected before asking us to pay for their fiascos. That's incredibly unlikely, though, which is why a movie pitch won't get any nibbles in the Shark Tank. All too often, a good movie idea and a bad movie idea can look an awful lot alike until after the money's been spent.
It's not that I don't enjoy watching movies or spending time with friends. My issue is that I don't like to encourage a system that seems designed to take increasing amounts of money out of my pocket for products of increasingly uncertain quality. When I do go, I count myself fortunate that I'm stubborn enough about eating healthy that I don't pay for the overpriced snacks they consider edible.
As far as the movie goes, though, my rising ticket price is going to pay back the money that a studio has invested in the production of whatever latest cinematic escapism they've chosen to throw a bigger budget at than any of the 99% will see in a lifetime. Sadly, when you put a bunch of studio decision makers in a room with supposedly creative people, what comes out is seldom new or innovative. What they tend to gravitate toward in the great piecemeal of ideas will be things that look familiar. Those ideas will look like the sort that have made money before, to which will be attached a twist or two that seems clever at the moment and the names of some acting-types that seem like they can help sell the product. (This happens in TV, too, but it usually isn't something the masses have to pay to see.)
When this process works, you end up with another successful rom-com or espionage thriller or whatever puts asses into padded theater seats for a few months. When it doesn't, another Fantastic Four or The Lone Ranger gets dumped into our laps like the hot mess the dog left steaming on the kitchen floor before skulking off in shame. Those particular missed shots still baffle me. Did Hollywood not invent westerns? The studios have years of experience making them yet they can't seem to pull off a proper "Who was that masked man?" no matter how much cash they sacrifice at the altar. Hell, the character was even based on a real-life western hero. If Clayton Moore didn't seem like such a darn nice guy, I might think he had commissioned a curse against Klinton Spillsbury and any other Lone Ranger films.
The Fantastic Four films are another mystery. They're a modern, scientific superhero family with fifty years of comic history under their stretchable onesies. Still, while the other super-misfits are lining up to swim with Scrooge McDuck, the ol' FF continue to have as much fun at the theater as Abe Lincoln. They don't seem to be tapping the right vein to strike the gold that other world-savers are hitting. It'd be easy enough to snipe from the sidelines and say it's because they aren't interpreting the source material properly or reading it at all (more than a few film productions of comic adaptations have had key personnel crow about how they would proudly ignore the comic books that inspired the movie deal they were supposed to be fulfilling), but there's no simple formula for putting a winner onto the big screen. Just ask the Wachowskis. Of course, there are also a lot of simple things that shouldn't be done if experienced filmmakers don't want to shoot holes in their own boat. Just ask the Wachowskis.
It'd be nice if they could get a system perfected before asking us to pay for their fiascos. That's incredibly unlikely, though, which is why a movie pitch won't get any nibbles in the Shark Tank. All too often, a good movie idea and a bad movie idea can look an awful lot alike until after the money's been spent.
Monday, August 3, 2015
17830--I Know What I Did This Summer
I hate going so long between making fresh blog entries.
And yet, here we are. The writing goes well; targeting September to release the next THEOBROMA book. The following installments should come along faster, but it's turning out to be much longer than I'd thought it would be. Still, I enjoy the work.
Not that the work cares, but we're in it together all the same.
That reminds me of my other working partner: weights.
This summer, I've shifted some of my considerable inertia toward exercising more. That has involved elevating my moderate maintenance level activities to workouts geared toward increasing strength and stamina while simultaneously burning fat. It's weights one day, body weight exercises the next, plus martial arts and walking every day. Like writing, I workout without other people. I think that's probably for the best. I keep odd hours and I don't stroke egos.
Weights don't care about your ego.
Stopwatches don't care about your ego.
I don't care about your ego.
Performance is what matters to me, whether that's producing quality writing or lifting more weight. Energy and will united to make changes happen. Better, stronger, faster are the goals. That's a strategy that intentionally lacks an endgame. It's using that inertia to keep on moving, continuing that personal journey of self-improvement.
On the downside, I'm having to push to eat a lot more and, as I stubbornly refuse to join another gym, I'm going to have to invest in more weights. C'est la vie. Onward and upward, keeping the fires burning hot.
And yet, here we are. The writing goes well; targeting September to release the next THEOBROMA book. The following installments should come along faster, but it's turning out to be much longer than I'd thought it would be. Still, I enjoy the work.
Not that the work cares, but we're in it together all the same.
That reminds me of my other working partner: weights.
This summer, I've shifted some of my considerable inertia toward exercising more. That has involved elevating my moderate maintenance level activities to workouts geared toward increasing strength and stamina while simultaneously burning fat. It's weights one day, body weight exercises the next, plus martial arts and walking every day. Like writing, I workout without other people. I think that's probably for the best. I keep odd hours and I don't stroke egos.
Weights don't care about your ego.
Stopwatches don't care about your ego.
I don't care about your ego.
Performance is what matters to me, whether that's producing quality writing or lifting more weight. Energy and will united to make changes happen. Better, stronger, faster are the goals. That's a strategy that intentionally lacks an endgame. It's using that inertia to keep on moving, continuing that personal journey of self-improvement.
On the downside, I'm having to push to eat a lot more and, as I stubbornly refuse to join another gym, I'm going to have to invest in more weights. C'est la vie. Onward and upward, keeping the fires burning hot.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
17749--Dark Knight Perspective
"I got yer neverending battle, right here!"
Take this as you will, but I really do like Batman. I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know when I say he has no superpowers. Part of his appeal to most people is that he is so very human.
He is possessed of great intellect and will that he has applied to great personal development academically, physically, and practically. He is also a man driven by powerful emotion, fueling his ongoing war against crime and injustice. Also making his unique lifestyle possible, Batman is possessed of epic wealth. Among other things, that's how he gets those wonderful toys.
Still, there's a segment of the population that doesn't think splitting time between his day job and night job is enough to keep him busy. Some want to see the differences in operational styles and philosophies as friction for fight club action with Superman of all people. Superman!
It's an insane idea in my book. Bad enough to think Batman, known for being as single-minded and relentless as a shark, would find grappling another caped orphan to be a productive use of his time. Add to that, Superman has more power than Batman has money, so you make Batman look more like Wile E. Coyote going after the Road Runner.
Now, this I could get behind. Imagine Batman making use of millions of dollars of specialized equipment and his supreme confidence in his genius to put guys like Superman and Flash to the test as they go zipping around...saving people. They might even notice him. And not leave him standing in his cowl and boxer shorts in Gotham Square before he has time to register he's even moved.
Maybe Batman could just stick to being helpful.
Where I really enjoy seeing Superman and Batman go head-to-head is over on the How It Should Have Ended website. They have coffee and spar verbally. Far more plausible.
Take this as you will, but I really do like Batman. I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know when I say he has no superpowers. Part of his appeal to most people is that he is so very human.
.png)
He is possessed of great intellect and will that he has applied to great personal development academically, physically, and practically. He is also a man driven by powerful emotion, fueling his ongoing war against crime and injustice. Also making his unique lifestyle possible, Batman is possessed of epic wealth. Among other things, that's how he gets those wonderful toys.
Still, there's a segment of the population that doesn't think splitting time between his day job and night job is enough to keep him busy. Some want to see the differences in operational styles and philosophies as friction for fight club action with Superman of all people. Superman!
It's an insane idea in my book. Bad enough to think Batman, known for being as single-minded and relentless as a shark, would find grappling another caped orphan to be a productive use of his time. Add to that, Superman has more power than Batman has money, so you make Batman look more like Wile E. Coyote going after the Road Runner.
Now, this I could get behind. Imagine Batman making use of millions of dollars of specialized equipment and his supreme confidence in his genius to put guys like Superman and Flash to the test as they go zipping around...saving people. They might even notice him. And not leave him standing in his cowl and boxer shorts in Gotham Square before he has time to register he's even moved.Maybe Batman could just stick to being helpful.
Where I really enjoy seeing Superman and Batman go head-to-head is over on the How It Should Have Ended website. They have coffee and spar verbally. Far more plausible.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
17730--What're you looking at?
It’s still a little early yet, so I won’t say the lines have
been clearly drawn. I do feel it’s safe
to say they’re being drawn, though.
Anyone who’s spent a bit of time reading from this site might expect that
I have an opinion of my own.
Now, don’t think Batman and I don’t get along. We do.
I also think it’s crazy to go looking for a fight with Superman. Friends don't let friends...do things that colossally stupid. That’s a choice best left to bad guys...who have no friends (which might have something to do with why they're bad guys). I feel this way because when I ask “What
would Superman do?” (WWSD), the answer is easy: the right thing. When the harshest thing that comes out of
name-calling the big farm boy is “boy scout”, it’s hard to argue this.
Lots of people like to credit Batman’s extreme preparedness
tendencies for a large part of his successes.
Sure, that’s got to go a long way, especially when combined with his
resources, intellect, and relentless drive.
Certainly, if he were going to even dream of fighting Superman (the
place he’d have the best odds of victory, btw), Batman would need to make the
most of all he has. Even Superman doesn’t
do that anymore. Those of you too new to
the characters probably don’t realize how much the comic book creatives have
taken away from Superman over the years, attempting to play up more of the man
and less of the super. I think they’d
developed not only a fear of their own inability to challenge the hero
effectively, but also that audiences were having trouble relating to him as a
superhuman. Diminishing his physical
abilities wasn’t enough, though.
Superman’s intellect and scientific prowess were also greatly reduced,
while Batman’s were increased. Tipping
those scales is significant to how the characters are portrayed, but I’d still
advise Batman to stay on Superman’s good side. Honestly, met with even minimal resistance, how hard would it be to disable someone with even a fraction of Superman's powers or using only a few of them. Imagine having powers available that you have to always be careful not to use at anywhere near their full potential because of all the incidental damage they could cause. This is why Godzilla can't go to the mall and the Powerpuff Girls can't play tag in Townsville.
Superman’s not a character usually shown as being
arrogant. If anything, his levels of
lawfulness and self-discipline often have him labelled as boring. Even so, which seems to be what’s played upon
in the upcoming confrontation that has the internet abuzz, many people fear
him. In a recent interview, when a
pro-Superman Jon Stewart asked Neil deGrasse Tyson about his take on the coming
clash, Tyson’s opinion was that Superman is feared because he is accountable to
no authority and “does what he wants”.
Sadly, that attitude, far from unique to Mr. Tyson, is one that
discounts the fact that what Superman wants to do is apparently help
people. Again, WWSD? You know.
When I don’t trust the NSA or the CIA, you can probably put
together a list as to why. If you boil
it down to a summation that says their capabilities give their people the power
to “do what they want”, it’s not hard to imagine a number of dark results that
go with that. If I were to say that I
don’t trust Santa because his power and position let him “do what he wants”, at
some point you have to acknowledge that that seems to result in handing out
toys to children and encouraging socially acceptable behavior. When Lex Luthor “does what he wants”, people
die. When Superman “does what he wants”,
the world is a better place: lives get saved, wrongs get righted, bad guys soil
themselves. Sometimes, he even hands out
toys to children and encourages socially acceptable behavior (without the
questionable bits about exploiting animals, spying on you while you sleep, sneaking into your home, or using a racially homogenous minority
workforce). Unless you’re a bad guy, fear
of Superman is misguided at best.
The Dark Knight’s own darkness is merely something he has
embraced to fight the darkness around him.
Never forget that the Wayne Foundation does a lot of good works. Batman (and by extension, his cover ID of
Bruce Wayne) really does want a better world where children don’t grow up as
orphans of murdered parents; where Batman is unneeded. As for Superman, though he was raised here,
he’s alien and that does make him different.
Some people want to hang their fears on him rather than their
hopes. Just as Batman dwells in the dark
and looks for the darkness in others, Superman is of the light. He draws power from the light. He seeks the good in others. Those who would fear him need to ask
themselves, are they truly afraid of Superman or of what he might find? The truth many people have to deal with is
that the real problem they have with those they would denigrate as being “too
good” isn’t the goodness, but the fear of being measured as “bad” in
comparison to it.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
17695--Don't Make Me Angry, Mr. McGee
I'm raising my head from the writing desk to turn my scowl upon an issue that's ignited debate, derision, and controversy. It isn't the first time, but with the current trends dominating the mainstream media it is a topic that's caught more general notice than in years past. I want to talk about what's making nerds so fussy.
Now, I don't want to presume a level of arrogant pontification that insists I speak for all nerds nor imply that the nerd collective is a homogeneous group. From a mass psychology standpoint, though, I think I may have a few insights.
What are nerds bitching about?
Usually, it's about change. Most often debates arise over the merits of some minor tweak or a new development in the mythos of a beloved character. That's to be expected. Seldom does a creative decision garner universal praise. That's alright, though. It should be welcomed by the creative forces. It means readers care.
Ostensibly, that's what any creator seeks for his work: an audience that cares about, perhaps even understands, what's been presented. Where works of fiction are concerned, especially the flights of the fantastic, a reader is expected to BYOSuspension-of-disbelief. It's such a given that printing it on the invitation isn't even necessary. Opening a comic book or sitting down to watch a movie, you've entered into a tacit social contract to be open to accepting the world of the story within the parameters of its reality.
Where do things go wrong? Well, like with any set of quantum realities, every change creates the possibility of branching in at least two different paths. Crossing from one medium to another is fraught with hazard enough, but the change of creative teams is inevitably going to result in a lot of fans getting their imaginary spandex in a twist. I don't think I have to tell you how painful that can be, so I'll just go on with the reasons for it.
Fans of a character are such because they enjoy and embrace the mythos built and handed to them. They accepted it on a psychological/emotional level as an alternate reality as the aforementioned tacit social contract asked them to do. Most of the realms of movies and comics, unfortunately for the fans, are not populated with creator controlled characters. This means that new, sometimes frequently changing, hands are going to be pulling the strings of whatever hero is out to save the world this time. Harry Potter and his fellow students may have made popular reading, but I'm pretty sure that if JK Rowling had stepped aside and allowed Zack Snyder, McG, and finally Tim Burton to take the creative helm on the movie adaptations, the on-screen products would've turned out very differently and we'd still be hearing echoes of the fan outcries.
There's an advisory bit that writers dole out that says "Kill your darlings." It isn't actually advocating wholesale slaughter of your most beloved characters, but is a reminder not to make things too easy for them. To challenge a protagonist and keep readers interested, a writer needs to find someplace in the middle to work adversity into the story. A character's creator is intimately connected to the character's odyssey in a way that fresh hands and minds are not. Attachment to the character's journey inspires a creator to build upon what has come before rather than to abandon it for a new shiny. When a character's fate changes hands, that intimate connection rarely survives the transition. Likewise, the social contract with the fan is often set by the wayside in favor of market forces.
"Market forces" is a fancy way of saying "the company needs to be fed money". To keep the feed coming, a publisher or a studio will often set sights on new, potential fans even at the risk of losing those already established. How does this drive the abandonment of the original social contract? Elements of the previously established mythos are often altered, sometimes eradicated, to allow radical, attention-getting changes to be introduced. It's the murder of the darlings, but...they're somebody else's darlings, so only the people who were attached to them would mind. The last creators are gone, so that just leaves the loyal fans. Feeling betrayed at the theft of the reality they agreed to embrace, they cry out. Some pack up and leave. Destroying the tacit social contract, compounded with the realization that no amount of hard-earned cash will keep it from happening again (if anything, the hunger seems to accelerate the cycle), is just more than some wish to bear.
Can nerds not handle change?
They aren't crying out because they can't handle change or because they're racists or hate women and puppies. The problem is that the fan collective was asked to treat the mythos as real and they did. Then, stuff was changed. Why is that bad? One, because that's not how the real world works; yes, life is rife with change, but you don't just erase your history when you're tired of dealing with it. Two, because they fell in love with it; then, their bait was switched. That's how they feel, anyway. The creation they came to respect and adore was altered rather than built upon. If you shoot Old Yeller and force a new puppy into the story while saying "just go with it", somebody's going to be upset because of the bad storytelling.
Sadly, the trampling of continuity only seems to have grown more blatant, even callous, over the last several years in comics. Reboots and retcons are almost regularly scheduled events. This violates one of the reminders I picked up years ago when I got started writing. It goes "If anything can happen, who cares what does?" and I keep it in mind to remind me to play out a story within a set of established parameters, to give characters limits. No matter how many stories we're given to show us that genies and time machines will cause at least as many problems as they may solve, the comic book and movie people seem to have devolved into a rut of wiping slates and altering realities whenever it suits them. Luring as large a group of readers as you can attract into a new reality, telling them to get comfy with bacon and hot chocolate, and then eradicating the place before they're done with it ("It's a trap!") just isn't cool.
If you're going to create stories for a mythos, try to respect that you're a guest in somebody else's house. If you can't do that, maybe you should build your own.
Now, I don't want to presume a level of arrogant pontification that insists I speak for all nerds nor imply that the nerd collective is a homogeneous group. From a mass psychology standpoint, though, I think I may have a few insights.
What are nerds bitching about?
Usually, it's about change. Most often debates arise over the merits of some minor tweak or a new development in the mythos of a beloved character. That's to be expected. Seldom does a creative decision garner universal praise. That's alright, though. It should be welcomed by the creative forces. It means readers care.
Ostensibly, that's what any creator seeks for his work: an audience that cares about, perhaps even understands, what's been presented. Where works of fiction are concerned, especially the flights of the fantastic, a reader is expected to BYOSuspension-of-disbelief. It's such a given that printing it on the invitation isn't even necessary. Opening a comic book or sitting down to watch a movie, you've entered into a tacit social contract to be open to accepting the world of the story within the parameters of its reality.
Where do things go wrong? Well, like with any set of quantum realities, every change creates the possibility of branching in at least two different paths. Crossing from one medium to another is fraught with hazard enough, but the change of creative teams is inevitably going to result in a lot of fans getting their imaginary spandex in a twist. I don't think I have to tell you how painful that can be, so I'll just go on with the reasons for it.
Fans of a character are such because they enjoy and embrace the mythos built and handed to them. They accepted it on a psychological/emotional level as an alternate reality as the aforementioned tacit social contract asked them to do. Most of the realms of movies and comics, unfortunately for the fans, are not populated with creator controlled characters. This means that new, sometimes frequently changing, hands are going to be pulling the strings of whatever hero is out to save the world this time. Harry Potter and his fellow students may have made popular reading, but I'm pretty sure that if JK Rowling had stepped aside and allowed Zack Snyder, McG, and finally Tim Burton to take the creative helm on the movie adaptations, the on-screen products would've turned out very differently and we'd still be hearing echoes of the fan outcries.
There's an advisory bit that writers dole out that says "Kill your darlings." It isn't actually advocating wholesale slaughter of your most beloved characters, but is a reminder not to make things too easy for them. To challenge a protagonist and keep readers interested, a writer needs to find someplace in the middle to work adversity into the story. A character's creator is intimately connected to the character's odyssey in a way that fresh hands and minds are not. Attachment to the character's journey inspires a creator to build upon what has come before rather than to abandon it for a new shiny. When a character's fate changes hands, that intimate connection rarely survives the transition. Likewise, the social contract with the fan is often set by the wayside in favor of market forces.
"Market forces" is a fancy way of saying "the company needs to be fed money". To keep the feed coming, a publisher or a studio will often set sights on new, potential fans even at the risk of losing those already established. How does this drive the abandonment of the original social contract? Elements of the previously established mythos are often altered, sometimes eradicated, to allow radical, attention-getting changes to be introduced. It's the murder of the darlings, but...they're somebody else's darlings, so only the people who were attached to them would mind. The last creators are gone, so that just leaves the loyal fans. Feeling betrayed at the theft of the reality they agreed to embrace, they cry out. Some pack up and leave. Destroying the tacit social contract, compounded with the realization that no amount of hard-earned cash will keep it from happening again (if anything, the hunger seems to accelerate the cycle), is just more than some wish to bear.
Can nerds not handle change?
They aren't crying out because they can't handle change or because they're racists or hate women and puppies. The problem is that the fan collective was asked to treat the mythos as real and they did. Then, stuff was changed. Why is that bad? One, because that's not how the real world works; yes, life is rife with change, but you don't just erase your history when you're tired of dealing with it. Two, because they fell in love with it; then, their bait was switched. That's how they feel, anyway. The creation they came to respect and adore was altered rather than built upon. If you shoot Old Yeller and force a new puppy into the story while saying "just go with it", somebody's going to be upset because of the bad storytelling.
Sadly, the trampling of continuity only seems to have grown more blatant, even callous, over the last several years in comics. Reboots and retcons are almost regularly scheduled events. This violates one of the reminders I picked up years ago when I got started writing. It goes "If anything can happen, who cares what does?" and I keep it in mind to remind me to play out a story within a set of established parameters, to give characters limits. No matter how many stories we're given to show us that genies and time machines will cause at least as many problems as they may solve, the comic book and movie people seem to have devolved into a rut of wiping slates and altering realities whenever it suits them. Luring as large a group of readers as you can attract into a new reality, telling them to get comfy with bacon and hot chocolate, and then eradicating the place before they're done with it ("It's a trap!") just isn't cool.
If you're going to create stories for a mythos, try to respect that you're a guest in somebody else's house. If you can't do that, maybe you should build your own.
Monday, December 29, 2014
17613--Do you know Elf-fu?
I'm sure Peter Jackson will find more work.
Now, with the last of the Hobbit movies unleashed upon us and being readily consumed, we are free to take the time to reflect. I'll assume by now that you've either read the books or have familiarized yourself with the material. From this point on, though, I'll speak freely.
You've been warned.
Picking up where The Desolation of Smaug had left us, we were treated to the final flight of His Resplendence, Smaug the Magnificent. Inappropriately or not, I laughed my ass off watching him blaze a path from one end of Laketown to the other in a single pass. Frankly, though, those barrel-riders were asking for it. If they didn't want to be targets for the dragon, they shouldn't have lived within sight of Lonely Mountain. There was a town outside Erebore, sitting on Smaug's doorstep. If they weren't going to live over the horizon under aerial camouflage, they might as well have lived out there. They could've chatted up the old fellow over the years, offered up some cattle...
Oh, well, hindsight. Laketown had no chance. The next best move would've been moving into...Smaug's doorstep. Outer Erebore? Whichever you like. Anyway, move in and tell anyone who comes in response to Smaug's death that he's still alive. "Shhh...His fearsome majesty has just gone back inside to sleep." Maybe they could even get through Thorin's gold fever and get the dwarves to make some convincing grumbling sounds.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not out to squelch the story. Good stories come from bad choices, so the characters have to be allowed at least a few. Too much logic has people moving out of haunted houses as soon as the walls start to bleed and where's your movie then? Using logic to avert a war doesn't get you The Battle of Five Armies.
Were we entertained? Damn straight. If you liked the other dozen-plus hours of barefoot hobbits, staff-wielding wizards, and sword-swinging fighters, then you've already seen this one at least once.
What did we learn? Always bet on the fifth army--the last ones to show up to a fight always have an edge; air-dropped cave bears rock; as in Star Wars, armor isn't always as useful as you might think it's going to be; Billy Connolly just can't help being funny; and as every installment has shown us, Elf-fu will jack a sucker up--Legolas, bitch!
Once again, well done. Certainly better than time spent on another bit of tripe from Hollywood's rom-com division.
Now, with the last of the Hobbit movies unleashed upon us and being readily consumed, we are free to take the time to reflect. I'll assume by now that you've either read the books or have familiarized yourself with the material. From this point on, though, I'll speak freely.
You've been warned.
Picking up where The Desolation of Smaug had left us, we were treated to the final flight of His Resplendence, Smaug the Magnificent. Inappropriately or not, I laughed my ass off watching him blaze a path from one end of Laketown to the other in a single pass. Frankly, though, those barrel-riders were asking for it. If they didn't want to be targets for the dragon, they shouldn't have lived within sight of Lonely Mountain. There was a town outside Erebore, sitting on Smaug's doorstep. If they weren't going to live over the horizon under aerial camouflage, they might as well have lived out there. They could've chatted up the old fellow over the years, offered up some cattle...
Oh, well, hindsight. Laketown had no chance. The next best move would've been moving into...Smaug's doorstep. Outer Erebore? Whichever you like. Anyway, move in and tell anyone who comes in response to Smaug's death that he's still alive. "Shhh...His fearsome majesty has just gone back inside to sleep." Maybe they could even get through Thorin's gold fever and get the dwarves to make some convincing grumbling sounds.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not out to squelch the story. Good stories come from bad choices, so the characters have to be allowed at least a few. Too much logic has people moving out of haunted houses as soon as the walls start to bleed and where's your movie then? Using logic to avert a war doesn't get you The Battle of Five Armies.
Were we entertained? Damn straight. If you liked the other dozen-plus hours of barefoot hobbits, staff-wielding wizards, and sword-swinging fighters, then you've already seen this one at least once.
What did we learn? Always bet on the fifth army--the last ones to show up to a fight always have an edge; air-dropped cave bears rock; as in Star Wars, armor isn't always as useful as you might think it's going to be; Billy Connolly just can't help being funny; and as every installment has shown us, Elf-fu will jack a sucker up--Legolas, bitch!
Once again, well done. Certainly better than time spent on another bit of tripe from Hollywood's rom-com division.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
17609--Do You Get It?
"What'd you get?"
How many Christmases have we heard that question dominate the day? Sure, there's always a lot of talk about spiritual enlightenment, but we seem to keep falling back into this quagmire of "buying Christmas" and getting stuff.
Whichever side of the line you're on, well, I'm not here to tell you how to live. People have tried more than enough times to lay out some universal path to happiness.
I say you need to find your own. It may be a longer journey than walking some prescribed path suggested by another, but it's the one that'll work best for you.
Me? I don't ask for stuff. I try to be happy with what I am and what I have. When I'm not, I work to change it.
We still have war and injustice. They're part of humanity's path and we may be struggling against them as long as we're around. We still have love and pain. Same spiel, though we all experience them to differing degrees. That's all part of our individual journeys.
I make it a point to get some exercise and plenty of water, eat a three-egg omelet with a pancake, indulge in some chocolate, and write. Any day with all that has plenty of potential.
Today, was a four-egg omelet day and I'm breathing well.
How're you?
How many Christmases have we heard that question dominate the day? Sure, there's always a lot of talk about spiritual enlightenment, but we seem to keep falling back into this quagmire of "buying Christmas" and getting stuff.
Whichever side of the line you're on, well, I'm not here to tell you how to live. People have tried more than enough times to lay out some universal path to happiness.
I say you need to find your own. It may be a longer journey than walking some prescribed path suggested by another, but it's the one that'll work best for you.
Me? I don't ask for stuff. I try to be happy with what I am and what I have. When I'm not, I work to change it.
We still have war and injustice. They're part of humanity's path and we may be struggling against them as long as we're around. We still have love and pain. Same spiel, though we all experience them to differing degrees. That's all part of our individual journeys.
I make it a point to get some exercise and plenty of water, eat a three-egg omelet with a pancake, indulge in some chocolate, and write. Any day with all that has plenty of potential.
Today, was a four-egg omelet day and I'm breathing well.
How're you?
Saturday, December 13, 2014
17597-- Bloody Ala
Hurry, scurry! Get to bed!
Bloody Ala wants your head!
Tuck in the covers;
Quick, hide your neck!
Cover your heart,
Then, be still...
Silence hides you from white fang's flash.
Swiftness protects against steel's cold slash.
Hurry, scurry! Do what you must!
Your veins she seeks for her only lust.
-- bedtime tales of Clan Isharien
"Child of Fire and Blood"
Monday, November 24, 2014
17578--Are You Responsible?
I say you are. In fact, if you're reading this, I know you are.
I wanted to make a note to mark today, because after a couple of hundred plus posts since April of 2011 this is the first day that this site has received over a thousand views in a day. I think I'd personally prefer that the short stories and chapter samplings from my novels were the major draw, but it's mix of those and my ramblings (I guess we can call them articles or just blog posts). That's fine. I'm not so picky as to turn away readers.
You probably know this already, but writers love readers. Tell your friends. My door's always open.
Yes, I attribute the responsibility, at least in part, to you for coming here to read. I'm going to write whether people show up or not and I'm not forcing anyone to come look at it. You chose to come here and love what you read (hey, it's my hypothetical--go with it) and then tell the world about it through retweets and shares and whatever, so the hundreds of thousands of visits that have taken place over the years and continue relentlessly around the clock (go with it) are on you.
Thanks for stopping in, even if it's just to see whether or not I've lost my mind yet.
I'm going to get back to plotting and scheming and stringing words together.
Don't live wanting. Don't die wondering.
I wanted to make a note to mark today, because after a couple of hundred plus posts since April of 2011 this is the first day that this site has received over a thousand views in a day. I think I'd personally prefer that the short stories and chapter samplings from my novels were the major draw, but it's mix of those and my ramblings (I guess we can call them articles or just blog posts). That's fine. I'm not so picky as to turn away readers.
You probably know this already, but writers love readers. Tell your friends. My door's always open.
Yes, I attribute the responsibility, at least in part, to you for coming here to read. I'm going to write whether people show up or not and I'm not forcing anyone to come look at it. You chose to come here and love what you read (hey, it's my hypothetical--go with it) and then tell the world about it through retweets and shares and whatever, so the hundreds of thousands of visits that have taken place over the years and continue relentlessly around the clock (go with it) are on you.
Thanks for stopping in, even if it's just to see whether or not I've lost my mind yet.
I'm going to get back to plotting and scheming and stringing words together.
Don't live wanting. Don't die wondering.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
17569--Entertainment is for Enjoying
If you're a long-time comic book aficionado and you were watching ARROW this week(11/12/14 "Guilty"), then you likely caught a glimpse of the return of the classic boxing glove arrow, subject of long-running debate. It gave me a laugh, but I'm still among those who think its unwieldy nature should prohibit its presence in the quiver. Still, where better to use it than in a story featuring the boxing hero Ted "Wildcat" Grant?
Also good for some laughs was BIG HERO 6. I haven't read the source material, but the film was fun. The plot was simple enough to be predictable. While that doesn't leave you with a lot of surprises, it's still entertaining. And even though the hero, Jiro, could've and should've used a far more elegant and obvious solution to their supervillain problem (easily cutting down the run time by a third...which also means having to listen to my tactical analysis if you've gone to watch it with me, but if you know me, then you know that's the risk you take in dragging me to a superhero movie), it was still really entertaining.
Don't worry about it. A lot of people finally started realizing that Indiana Jones serves little purpose in Raiders of the Lost Ark but it's still a very enjoyable film. Like The Incredibles, you just don't want to go tugging at threads.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
17562--This May Count as Monologuing
I'm going to be direct about this
and just tell you straight that I enjoyed The Incredibles tremendously. It's a well-made piece of entertainment. I know this isn't a bold, out-on-a-limb position. Lots of people share it, after all.
If you're among those of us who are fans, you're probably glad they're finally working on a sequel. Creator Brad Bird said he wasn't going to work on a second unless he could produce something worthy of the first, so that's cool to know he's concerned with quality. He's built himself a decent track record of films, so I imagine he doesn't want to start fouling up the list with stinkers.
As much as I enjoyed it and still enjoy it, the film has still left me with a couple of nagging problems. Believe it or not, they have nothing to do with the amazingly atypical body count for a Disney film. That part I can live with. Those characters knew they were getting into dangerous jobs when they signed on.
No, the first thing to bug me were the legal issues that drove the heroes underground. First, Mr. Sansuite was attempting to commit suicide. This is a serious matter and typically illegal. No matter how much he wanted to end his life and blame Mr. Incredible for messing up his plan, he'd still have little legal traction in court and would more likely have ended up under protective observation. The litigious train passengers would likewise have found themselves with little support as their hero would have been shielded by the Good Samaritan doctrine and any good lawyer should've been able to coherently argue that he wasn't responsible for their injuries.
Still, with all those tricky maneuvers having to take place to force the heroes out of action being allowed, we're still left with the next issue. My follow-up is that I want to know why the super-villains dropped out of sight. What happened to the major crime sprees that should've erupted to take advantage of the hero vacuum? Where was the subsequent clamoring for the return of the heroes? Fifteen years? By that standard, it took virtually no time at all for people to beg for Hancock to get back off the sidelines. Hancock! And that was before he'd been able to redeem his public standing.
These things make me ponder.
Comments welcome, especially from Mr. Bird ;)
and just tell you straight that I enjoyed The Incredibles tremendously. It's a well-made piece of entertainment. I know this isn't a bold, out-on-a-limb position. Lots of people share it, after all.
If you're among those of us who are fans, you're probably glad they're finally working on a sequel. Creator Brad Bird said he wasn't going to work on a second unless he could produce something worthy of the first, so that's cool to know he's concerned with quality. He's built himself a decent track record of films, so I imagine he doesn't want to start fouling up the list with stinkers.
As much as I enjoyed it and still enjoy it, the film has still left me with a couple of nagging problems. Believe it or not, they have nothing to do with the amazingly atypical body count for a Disney film. That part I can live with. Those characters knew they were getting into dangerous jobs when they signed on.
No, the first thing to bug me were the legal issues that drove the heroes underground. First, Mr. Sansuite was attempting to commit suicide. This is a serious matter and typically illegal. No matter how much he wanted to end his life and blame Mr. Incredible for messing up his plan, he'd still have little legal traction in court and would more likely have ended up under protective observation. The litigious train passengers would likewise have found themselves with little support as their hero would have been shielded by the Good Samaritan doctrine and any good lawyer should've been able to coherently argue that he wasn't responsible for their injuries.
Still, with all those tricky maneuvers having to take place to force the heroes out of action being allowed, we're still left with the next issue. My follow-up is that I want to know why the super-villains dropped out of sight. What happened to the major crime sprees that should've erupted to take advantage of the hero vacuum? Where was the subsequent clamoring for the return of the heroes? Fifteen years? By that standard, it took virtually no time at all for people to beg for Hancock to get back off the sidelines. Hancock! And that was before he'd been able to redeem his public standing.
These things make me ponder.
Comments welcome, especially from Mr. Bird ;)
Monday, November 3, 2014
17557-- Winter is Coming
Don't tell me you're the only one who didn't know.
I know I see a lot of things ahead of others, but I usually try not to be the spoiler guy. At this point, I felt it was safe to say something.
I'm not sure, but I think it may have been because of the changing weather. I had a dream. It was one of those vivid and unusual dreams that stood out...for whatever reasons dreams stand out.
Well, I suppose that the reasons already cited should make it clear enough: vivid and unusual. This one had a lot to do with water. I don't usually spend much of my waking time or dreamtime around water, so watery dreams tend to stand out. There was nothing supernatural about it either.
The situation I seemed to find myself in was that of being a covert military intelligence operative. I had infiltrated a Russian command with a partner and we were preparing to implement our exit strategy, which involved an underwater swim through icy water. See? There was a winter connection. At least that's my speculation. It was a dream. Who knows? For all I know, it could've had something to do with the dream I had about the Georgian spy eight months ago.
These things need to come with notes or some kind of map. Half the time I feel like I'm tuning into the middle of a movie. Must be what quantum leaping is like.
It's good pay for sleeping. If it were less interesting, I'd probably fight it more. Lord knows I probably don't need to spend any more time awake than I do already. Still, it gives me time to write and connect those dots.
I know I see a lot of things ahead of others, but I usually try not to be the spoiler guy. At this point, I felt it was safe to say something.
I'm not sure, but I think it may have been because of the changing weather. I had a dream. It was one of those vivid and unusual dreams that stood out...for whatever reasons dreams stand out.
Well, I suppose that the reasons already cited should make it clear enough: vivid and unusual. This one had a lot to do with water. I don't usually spend much of my waking time or dreamtime around water, so watery dreams tend to stand out. There was nothing supernatural about it either.
The situation I seemed to find myself in was that of being a covert military intelligence operative. I had infiltrated a Russian command with a partner and we were preparing to implement our exit strategy, which involved an underwater swim through icy water. See? There was a winter connection. At least that's my speculation. It was a dream. Who knows? For all I know, it could've had something to do with the dream I had about the Georgian spy eight months ago.
These things need to come with notes or some kind of map. Half the time I feel like I'm tuning into the middle of a movie. Must be what quantum leaping is like.
It's good pay for sleeping. If it were less interesting, I'd probably fight it more. Lord knows I probably don't need to spend any more time awake than I do already. Still, it gives me time to write and connect those dots.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
17549--Sound of Thunder
You didn't just hear that...you felt it.
It rumbled, resonating through your flesh, your bones and everything around you.
Whether through lore or science, many people have attributed the effect of lightning's passage to many different supernatural actors. Accordingly, the kinetic disturbance has also picked up a host of names. Among the more enduring is "Donar" or "Thor". Thanks to the modern mythology of comic books and the films they have inspired, the force of nature embodied as a ferocious warrior has enjoyed a popularity as a modern superhero that he hasn't seen since before the changing of the religious guard started cutting down oak trees and nailing up wood crucifixes.
Thor was created from a union of Odin's power with that of Mother Earth, resulting in one of the most powerful beings ever known to Asgard. One curious development at the core of Thor's comic book characterization, though, has the guardian of Earth and Asgard bound by his father to the immortal's legendary weapon. To teach his son humility (and humanity, ironically), Odin created an enchantment that tied the power of the storm-who-walks-like-a-man-god to the hammer Mjolnir. Whomever holds the hammer and is deemed by its enchantment to be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor. Usually, possession is acquainted with more malefic intentions, but I suppose we'll let that one slide for now. As a father-figure, Allfather Odin is usually regarded as one geared more toward doing good than harm. Still, y'know, gods can be capricious and their ways can seem quite harsh to mortal sensibilities. Either way, the hammer was put in charge, a sophisticated leash for the power of Thor.
Now, one of the other great challenges some of you may remember being sent against Thor was the magical automaton called The Destroyer. I've never liked that. In my head, I've always tried to re-label it as The Annihilator. I've never understood why they chose the name they did at Marvel. The name of the hammer, star of Thor's show, is Mjolnir. Mjolnir means "The Destroyer". Bad enough that the robot's super-tough because it's made from the same metal (Uru) as the hammer, but they gave it the same name as the hammer. That's got to get a little confusing in the heat of combat.
Oh, well, maybe they can work on it during their next retcon. It can't be too far off. What time is it?
It rumbled, resonating through your flesh, your bones and everything around you.
Whether through lore or science, many people have attributed the effect of lightning's passage to many different supernatural actors. Accordingly, the kinetic disturbance has also picked up a host of names. Among the more enduring is "Donar" or "Thor". Thanks to the modern mythology of comic books and the films they have inspired, the force of nature embodied as a ferocious warrior has enjoyed a popularity as a modern superhero that he hasn't seen since before the changing of the religious guard started cutting down oak trees and nailing up wood crucifixes.
Thor was created from a union of Odin's power with that of Mother Earth, resulting in one of the most powerful beings ever known to Asgard. One curious development at the core of Thor's comic book characterization, though, has the guardian of Earth and Asgard bound by his father to the immortal's legendary weapon. To teach his son humility (and humanity, ironically), Odin created an enchantment that tied the power of the storm-who-walks-like-a-man-god to the hammer Mjolnir. Whomever holds the hammer and is deemed by its enchantment to be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor. Usually, possession is acquainted with more malefic intentions, but I suppose we'll let that one slide for now. As a father-figure, Allfather Odin is usually regarded as one geared more toward doing good than harm. Still, y'know, gods can be capricious and their ways can seem quite harsh to mortal sensibilities. Either way, the hammer was put in charge, a sophisticated leash for the power of Thor.
Now, one of the other great challenges some of you may remember being sent against Thor was the magical automaton called The Destroyer. I've never liked that. In my head, I've always tried to re-label it as The Annihilator. I've never understood why they chose the name they did at Marvel. The name of the hammer, star of Thor's show, is Mjolnir. Mjolnir means "The Destroyer". Bad enough that the robot's super-tough because it's made from the same metal (Uru) as the hammer, but they gave it the same name as the hammer. That's got to get a little confusing in the heat of combat.
Oh, well, maybe they can work on it during their next retcon. It can't be too far off. What time is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)