I first read The Mist (as a short story in Skeleton Crew) when I was in 7th grade or so, and it's always been my favorite Stephen King story. I've been wanting them to make it into a movie for years, so this movie had a lot to live up to. I'm glad to say that, for the most part, it matched (but didn't exceed) my expectations. The movie plays out on the screen almost exactly as it played out in my head. Even though I haven't re-read the story in a couple of years, I knew who some characters were right away from their first appearance, just by the way they looked. I don't know if that's a compliment to the casting director, or wardrobe, or even King's writing for being so easily interpreted.
The movie follows the book very closely (except for the ending, which I'll get to in a bit). You know, I think the story is the perfect length to make into a movie: they didn't have to cut much out (other than the ending, I can only remember one scene in the book that wasn't in the movie, and I bet it was filmed), and they didn't have to add much in. Even without the story fresh in my mind, I generally knew what was going to happen next. Because the movie is set in a somewhat rural area, even the setting hasn't changed much since the story was written. The movie could easily have taken place 20 years ago, except for one scene where someone uses a cell phone as a flashlight.
Some of the acting is a little flat, and the whole movie has a little bit of a "made for the Sci-Fi Channel" feel to it, but I'm okay with that. I do wish they'd had a slightly bigger budget, as some of the computer FX could have used a little polish. But that's just the jaded FX cynic in me; if this had come out a few years ago, we would have been amazed. A warning to the easily grossed-out: The Mist does contain a few very good gore effects, some of which made me cringe. KJ had to cover her eyes through some of the bloodier moments, and even complained of nausea at one point.
The monster designs are very cool, and the director really understood the spirit of the story - knowing what NOT to show being more important than what to show. This movie is everything I wished the "Silent Hill" movie had been. My favorite thing about the SH video game was how it felt like I was playing through The Mist short story, and now The Mist movie feels like a better film adaptation of the game than the actual SH movie. One thing I didn't like: If I remember correctly, in the book, the characters put forth a lot of theories about what happened up at the military base ("Project Arrowhead") that caused the mist and everything in it. But they're never really certain, and that adds to the mysteriousness of it all. The movie, on the other hand, has a scene that completely spells out what caused the mist. Sometimes it's just cooler to live with the mystery. It's as if someone said that the Force in Star Wars was caused by microscopic bacteria in a Jedi's blood cells. Or if the immortals in Highlander turned out to be space aliens. I mean, really, who would do that?
The ending... Ohhhhh, the ending... I'm not going to spell it out exactly, but if you want to stay spoiler-free, skip this paragraph. In a word, the ending is cruel. It has an ironic "Outer Limits"-style twist, or at least it tries to. Instead it comes off like the punchline to a sick practical joke. Remember that part in the Bible, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment an angel yells out, "April Fool!" (And people say God doesn't have a sense of humor.) Okay, now imagine the same joke if the angel had shown up a few minutes later. "Just kidding! You didn't really have to do that! Here, I'll help you clean up..." I realize the book's ambiguous ending wouldn't have translated well to the big screen, but I can think of a few alternatives that would have worked, IMO.
To sum up, I really enjoyed the movie. My favorite Stephen King short story turns into one of my favorite SK movies. I just hope the DVD has some alternate endings.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Host
And then the movie loses momentum. The next hour or so of the movie kind of drags, as it centers on the family of one of the victims. It has a lot of comic relief - it's originally Korean, and sometimes it's hard to tell if the tongue-in-cheek humor is intentional or just bad dubbing - but the humor can only sustain you for so long. Even the monster eventually gets boring, which is why most horror movies keep it hidden until the climax - this movie has no "payoff" scene. I kept hoping that they'd kill it, only to find a larger, weirder monster lurking in the shadows. Spoiler alert: Nope.
Basically, the whole movie feels backwards. It's as if you're watching one of those really slow, suspenseful horror movies, the kind filled with long scenes of exposition followed by quick flashes of monster killing someone, until the big-budget reveal scene right before they kill it. Except, you've decided to watch the ending first.
So rent this one, and rent it now. The opening is worth it. But if you start to get bored, and want to hit the fast-forward button, I promise not to tell anyone.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
...Does Whatever An Iron Can...
Yesterday I saw the trailer for Iron Man. So for the past 24 hours I've had Black Sabbath stuck in my head.
It looks a fun movie, but it is getting a little tiring watching them dredge up every super hero they can think of for a movie. Heck, I was surprised they made Ghost Rider. A lot of these movies are too similar to each other. Really, what was in Daredevil that wasn't already in Batman or Spiderman? What's going to be in Iron Man that wasn't in Superman? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely going to see it, and I'll probably like it very much. I don't really consider Iron Man the bottom of the barrel, but he's close. I just hope they don't get to Sub-Mariner - that's where I draw the line.
It looks a fun movie, but it is getting a little tiring watching them dredge up every super hero they can think of for a movie. Heck, I was surprised they made Ghost Rider. A lot of these movies are too similar to each other. Really, what was in Daredevil that wasn't already in Batman or Spiderman? What's going to be in Iron Man that wasn't in Superman? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely going to see it, and I'll probably like it very much. I don't really consider Iron Man the bottom of the barrel, but he's close. I just hope they don't get to Sub-Mariner - that's where I draw the line.
Monday, September 03, 2007
The Bourne Redundancy
We saw The Bourne Ultimatum today. To fully appreciate the movie and this review, you need to remember the details of all three movies. To recap:
The Bourne Identity - 2002
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Supremacy - 2004
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
Truly, there hasn't been such a wild variety of unexpected plot twists since the Rocky movies. Which is not to say that The Bourne Ultimatum is bad, but it sure isn't anything new. If you liked the first two, then you'll like this one... but you might not remember which is which. The Bourne Ultimatum is a perfectly adequate action movie. In fact, it's incredibly adequate, mind-bogglingly mediocre, and brain-bendingly bland. In fact, it's so fantastically average, that it would actually have to be worse just to be any better. The movie so unmemorable, that even if every actor had gone through the entire movie in the nude, painted blue, and on fire, I still would have forgotten what I'd just seen by the time I got to my car. And yet, it's still a decent movie. It's just so.... so.... "so-so".
Ben Aff- I mean, Matt Damon (MATT DAMON!!), a.k.a. overrated generic actor No. 235, does his usual adequate job in portraying the untouchable hero devoid of any personality. Since it's obvious they were going for "average" anyway for this series of movies, Damon is probably the best actor they could have gotten. Or "most appropriate" actor, I should say. The words "Damon" and "best actor" should never belong in the same sentence.
By the time I got out of there, I wasn't quite sure if I'd just seen the newest Bourne movie, or one of the earlier ones again. It doesn't really matter; they're pretty much interchangeable. Tell someone you're going to show them the Bourne trilogy, and you can either show them all three in a row, 1-2-3, or you can get creative and show them 2-3-2 or 3-1-1 or 2-2-2. They won't know the difference. You could probably even put them in one of those 3-DVD disc changers, and have it show scenes from all three in random order, maybe even mixed in with with Good Will Hunting or Saving Private Ryan just for the heck of it. Mix it up, it can only make it better.
An Open Letter To Filmmakers:
Using a hand-held shaky-cam was a nice little gimmick a few decades ago, but it's time to move on. Having the film shot by an epileptic Chihuahua doesn't make the movie any more immersive. It doesn't make the movie edgy or raw or interesting. All it does is make the action scenes harder to follow, and makes your audience nauseous. If you can afford to spend 100 million dollars on a movie, you can spend 50 bucks on a tripod. For Gawd's sake, now that the MPAA rating has gotten so detailed that they include every little offensive thing... "Rated R for Brief Nudity, Pervasive Crude Humor, Light Drug Use, Violence, Language, and a Bad Haircut"... could they not start listing things like "Vomit-inducing shaky-cam"? I find that a lot more offensive than nudity.
The Bourne Identity - 2002
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Supremacy - 2004
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
Truly, there hasn't been such a wild variety of unexpected plot twists since the Rocky movies. Which is not to say that The Bourne Ultimatum is bad, but it sure isn't anything new. If you liked the first two, then you'll like this one... but you might not remember which is which. The Bourne Ultimatum is a perfectly adequate action movie. In fact, it's incredibly adequate, mind-bogglingly mediocre, and brain-bendingly bland. In fact, it's so fantastically average, that it would actually have to be worse just to be any better. The movie so unmemorable, that even if every actor had gone through the entire movie in the nude, painted blue, and on fire, I still would have forgotten what I'd just seen by the time I got to my car. And yet, it's still a decent movie. It's just so.... so.... "so-so".
Ben Aff- I mean, Matt Damon (MATT DAMON!!), a.k.a. overrated generic actor No. 235, does his usual adequate job in portraying the untouchable hero devoid of any personality. Since it's obvious they were going for "average" anyway for this series of movies, Damon is probably the best actor they could have gotten. Or "most appropriate" actor, I should say. The words "Damon" and "best actor" should never belong in the same sentence.
By the time I got out of there, I wasn't quite sure if I'd just seen the newest Bourne movie, or one of the earlier ones again. It doesn't really matter; they're pretty much interchangeable. Tell someone you're going to show them the Bourne trilogy, and you can either show them all three in a row, 1-2-3, or you can get creative and show them 2-3-2 or 3-1-1 or 2-2-2. They won't know the difference. You could probably even put them in one of those 3-DVD disc changers, and have it show scenes from all three in random order, maybe even mixed in with with Good Will Hunting or Saving Private Ryan just for the heck of it. Mix it up, it can only make it better.
An Open Letter To Filmmakers:
Using a hand-held shaky-cam was a nice little gimmick a few decades ago, but it's time to move on. Having the film shot by an epileptic Chihuahua doesn't make the movie any more immersive. It doesn't make the movie edgy or raw or interesting. All it does is make the action scenes harder to follow, and makes your audience nauseous. If you can afford to spend 100 million dollars on a movie, you can spend 50 bucks on a tripod. For Gawd's sake, now that the MPAA rating has gotten so detailed that they include every little offensive thing... "Rated R for Brief Nudity, Pervasive Crude Humor, Light Drug Use, Violence, Language, and a Bad Haircut"... could they not start listing things like "Vomit-inducing shaky-cam"? I find that a lot more offensive than nudity.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!! ...and Stuff.
It's been an interesting wiik. Wii've been having troubles wiith our internet connection since Sunday (a wiik ago today). Every day, our internet has gone out for an hour or two. The cable TV hasn't gone out, so wii don't have a clue what's been causing it. Wii called Comcast a few times, and they gave us their typical newbie solutions (Did you try resetting the modem? Duh. Did you unplug the modem and plug it back in? Double duh. Did you try resetting the router? Duh.) And of course they still try to blame the router (because nothing is ever Comcast's fault), even though wii'd tried bypassing the router and plugging the modem into the computer directly, with no success.
They sent a tech out on Friday to look at it. He fiddled wiith my configuration settings, and declared it fixed. I left for work right as he left, and when I got there, I already had a voice mail from KJ... yep, it was out again. So wii had the tech come back. He gave us a new cable modem.
So this morning I woke up to find our internet out again. Wii called Comcast yet again, and they scheduled a "better" tech to come out this Wednesday (the first two were "basic" troubleshooters, this new guy would have been one of their techmasters). Then, later this afternoon, Comcast calls me back to tell me that there's been an outage in our area all day. So for once, it wasn't just our house (though they could have checked that when wii called this morning).
So wii cancelled the Wiidnesday appointment, whiich is a sure-fire way to guarantii it's going to go out again. Right now, wii're just waiting to sii how long our connection lasts.
Btw, as I mentioned in yesterday's blog: one other thing wii did this wiikend, is wii bought a Nintendo Wii. Whiich miins that now wii both have arm cramps, and I thiink iit's affectiing my spiich.
Seriously, though, I love the new system. If any of you also have one, let me know and we'll trade friend codes. For whatever that does.
Anyway, it's a great system, but it doesn't have a very good library yet. With it we bought Zelda, Metroid, and Wii Play (best way to get a second controller). We especially love the Bowling on Wii Sports, and the Pool on Wii Play, both of which are proof that fun gameplay beats good graphics any day of the week.
What I really don't like is the gimmicky use of the Wii's controls. It's the same speech I keep giving about the overuse of the stylus in DS games: Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it. The wiimote/nunchuck combo actually makes a very natural-feeling controller, and it's much more comfortable than classic gamepads because you can hold your arms apart and rest them however you like. So if a cross-platform game hits the Wii, they really don't need to tack on "shake the controller wildly to punch" functions; it actually makes the game feel less natural.
Which isn't to say I don't like swinging the wiimote around like an idiot. I love it. I love using it like a sword or a gun or what have you. But only if it makes sense in the context of the game. I'm really afraid that the gimmicky-ness is going to mean fewer cross-platform games hitting the system, because of this obligation to use the sensors.
Next gripe... I'm usually the first in line to argue for backwards compatibility. But in this case, I'm really not sure they needed it to play Gamecube games. There's a panel on the system that opens up to reveal four Gamecube controller ports, and another panel that hides a couple of Gamecube memory card slots. Since they were hyping the Wii as the cheapest of the next-gen consoles, surely they could've knocked a couple of bucks off the system if they hadn't included it. Also, the Gamecube wasn't that big a system anyway, at least when you compare it to its peers (PS2 & Xbox). Arguably they would've been better off giving the Wii a cartridge slot for SNES games.
Maybe if they'd left off the Gamecube emulation, they could have used the money to put in a DVD player. Seriously, I'm willing to bet there's more people out there who own DVDs than own Gamecube games. The Wii already uses normal-size discs, as opposed to the Gamecube's minidiscs. And then I wouldn't have to keep my PS2 in the living room along side the Wii just to watch movies. And I wouldn't have had to spend extra money solving the problem of hooking two systems up to my TV.
But anyway. For all that, the Wii is still my favorite of the systems out there. The X-Box 360 and the PS3 are just bigger, better, and prettier versions of what we've already been playing for years and years. I've been getting sort of jaded lately about video games. It just feels like I've played it all before, and most of it wasn't that interesting the first time. Graphics are getting better and better, but that just doesn't make things funner. I still have more fun with the 2D games of the 16-bit era than I do with most of the current stuff.
But that's just me.
Changing gears again...
The night before last I woke up screaming. I dreamed that for some reason, KJ and I were living in my old house on Long Hollow Pike. I don't know if we actually owned it or if we were just guests, but we were staying in the "green room" upstairs, which was a guest room last time I lived there.
I don't remember anything but the end, but I know it wasn't a nightmare until then. It was just a normal dream about us doing normal stuff. I remember I had been reading a Star Wars book, and I only had a couple of pages left. I had to use the bathroom, so I sat down on the toilet in the upstairs hall bathroom and opened my book. In the dream, the shower was to my left (which is the opposite of real life). I was looking at the book's pages, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw my legs. One hairy leg on the right, and one hairy leg on the right. And one more hairy leg on the left, next to mine. I screamed, in the dream and I think in real life.
The leg was sticking out of the shower, bent just like mine but slightly more outstretched, as if the owner was sitting on a chair in the shower. I craned my head around and opened the shower curtain, and my Dad was lying in the shower, dead. I remember his lips were blue-ish. I screamed again.
Then he very slightly started to twitch, and his lips started moving. I screamed until KJ woke me up. That was about 6 AM, and we didn't go back to sleep. On the plus side, there's no line at Pancake Pantry if you go early enough.
Well, I'm off to play some Wii. It's a nice thrii-day wiikend, the best tiime to buy a new system.
They sent a tech out on Friday to look at it. He fiddled wiith my configuration settings, and declared it fixed. I left for work right as he left, and when I got there, I already had a voice mail from KJ... yep, it was out again. So wii had the tech come back. He gave us a new cable modem.
So this morning I woke up to find our internet out again. Wii called Comcast yet again, and they scheduled a "better" tech to come out this Wednesday (the first two were "basic" troubleshooters, this new guy would have been one of their techmasters). Then, later this afternoon, Comcast calls me back to tell me that there's been an outage in our area all day. So for once, it wasn't just our house (though they could have checked that when wii called this morning).
So wii cancelled the Wiidnesday appointment, whiich is a sure-fire way to guarantii it's going to go out again. Right now, wii're just waiting to sii how long our connection lasts.
Btw, as I mentioned in yesterday's blog: one other thing wii did this wiikend, is wii bought a Nintendo Wii. Whiich miins that now wii both have arm cramps, and I thiink iit's affectiing my spiich.
Seriously, though, I love the new system. If any of you also have one, let me know and we'll trade friend codes. For whatever that does.
Anyway, it's a great system, but it doesn't have a very good library yet. With it we bought Zelda, Metroid, and Wii Play (best way to get a second controller). We especially love the Bowling on Wii Sports, and the Pool on Wii Play, both of which are proof that fun gameplay beats good graphics any day of the week.
What I really don't like is the gimmicky use of the Wii's controls. It's the same speech I keep giving about the overuse of the stylus in DS games: Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it. The wiimote/nunchuck combo actually makes a very natural-feeling controller, and it's much more comfortable than classic gamepads because you can hold your arms apart and rest them however you like. So if a cross-platform game hits the Wii, they really don't need to tack on "shake the controller wildly to punch" functions; it actually makes the game feel less natural.
Which isn't to say I don't like swinging the wiimote around like an idiot. I love it. I love using it like a sword or a gun or what have you. But only if it makes sense in the context of the game. I'm really afraid that the gimmicky-ness is going to mean fewer cross-platform games hitting the system, because of this obligation to use the sensors.
Next gripe... I'm usually the first in line to argue for backwards compatibility. But in this case, I'm really not sure they needed it to play Gamecube games. There's a panel on the system that opens up to reveal four Gamecube controller ports, and another panel that hides a couple of Gamecube memory card slots. Since they were hyping the Wii as the cheapest of the next-gen consoles, surely they could've knocked a couple of bucks off the system if they hadn't included it. Also, the Gamecube wasn't that big a system anyway, at least when you compare it to its peers (PS2 & Xbox). Arguably they would've been better off giving the Wii a cartridge slot for SNES games.
Maybe if they'd left off the Gamecube emulation, they could have used the money to put in a DVD player. Seriously, I'm willing to bet there's more people out there who own DVDs than own Gamecube games. The Wii already uses normal-size discs, as opposed to the Gamecube's minidiscs. And then I wouldn't have to keep my PS2 in the living room along side the Wii just to watch movies. And I wouldn't have had to spend extra money solving the problem of hooking two systems up to my TV.
But anyway. For all that, the Wii is still my favorite of the systems out there. The X-Box 360 and the PS3 are just bigger, better, and prettier versions of what we've already been playing for years and years. I've been getting sort of jaded lately about video games. It just feels like I've played it all before, and most of it wasn't that interesting the first time. Graphics are getting better and better, but that just doesn't make things funner. I still have more fun with the 2D games of the 16-bit era than I do with most of the current stuff.
But that's just me.
Changing gears again...
The night before last I woke up screaming. I dreamed that for some reason, KJ and I were living in my old house on Long Hollow Pike. I don't know if we actually owned it or if we were just guests, but we were staying in the "green room" upstairs, which was a guest room last time I lived there.
I don't remember anything but the end, but I know it wasn't a nightmare until then. It was just a normal dream about us doing normal stuff. I remember I had been reading a Star Wars book, and I only had a couple of pages left. I had to use the bathroom, so I sat down on the toilet in the upstairs hall bathroom and opened my book. In the dream, the shower was to my left (which is the opposite of real life). I was looking at the book's pages, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw my legs. One hairy leg on the right, and one hairy leg on the right. And one more hairy leg on the left, next to mine. I screamed, in the dream and I think in real life.
The leg was sticking out of the shower, bent just like mine but slightly more outstretched, as if the owner was sitting on a chair in the shower. I craned my head around and opened the shower curtain, and my Dad was lying in the shower, dead. I remember his lips were blue-ish. I screamed again.
Then he very slightly started to twitch, and his lips started moving. I screamed until KJ woke me up. That was about 6 AM, and we didn't go back to sleep. On the plus side, there's no line at Pancake Pantry if you go early enough.
Well, I'm off to play some Wii. It's a nice thrii-day wiikend, the best tiime to buy a new system.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Fish & Trips
Fish & Trips
Saturday morning we got up very early, and drove down to Atlanta. We went to the Georgia Aquarium, which was very cool but very crowded. It is, according to their website, the "World's Largest Aquarium". However, I'm not exactly sure how they're measuring it exactly. Total building size? Gallons of water? Number of fish? Size of fish?
I only bring this up because KJ and I have been to several great aquariums in the past few years, and while Atlanta's is certainly huge, it didn't keep us occupied as long as some of the others. And a lot of the length was due to the crowds.
That said, it is a great aquarium. We got tons of beautiful pictures there. If not for the crowds, I could have spent several more hours there. If you're people-phobic like me, here's my suggestion: Try to find out when the "off season" is, or wait a couple of years until the furor has died down a bit. For a great aquarium fix in the meantime, I would recommend the Newport Aquarium (http://www.newportaquarium.com/). No, it's not as big, but it's still pretty impressive. Plus, it's not as well-known, so you don't have as many problems with crowds. Why worry about whether or not the tank you're looking at holds 1 or 2 million gallons of water? Without the other people getting in your way and ruining your pictures, you can stare at the same tank for hours and still see new fish swim by.
Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg (http://www.ripleysaquariumofthesmokies.com/) is good too, probably slightly better than Newport, but of course it's Gatlinburg... you're back to dealing with crowds again. Chattanooga's Aquarium (http://www.tnaqua.org/) is just okay... it's nice because it's close, but it's not worth visiting very often. Really, I'd almost rather just eat at the Aquarium Restaurant (http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com/AquariumNashville/) at the mall.
After the Aquarium, we drove to the nearby town of Douglasville to surprise my cousin at work, after which we saw the movie 1408. This movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, from the book "Everything's Eventual". I'm not often satisfied with 50-page stories forcibly stretched into 2-hour movies, but this one is quite good. It's "spooky-scary", not "gory-scary", so slasher fans might want to stay away. It's been a while since I've read the story, but I think it's relatively faithful, except towards the end. It's one of those where the longer it goes on, the farther it strays from the book. But I'm no purist - I believe that movies are movies and books are books, and some things work better in print than on screen. With the exception of about 20 minutes near the end, the director made some very good choices.
I have a hard time recommending 1408 because I'm afraid a lot of people just won't "get it". But the theater audience seemed to have a good time, so maybe that's not really an issue. This movie should be seen in the theater, as the gasps and screams from the audience were almost as entertaining as what's on the screen. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Before the movie, there were a couple of neat trailers I hadn't seen before. "Shoot 'Em Up" is full of mesmerizing (if unbelievable) action scenes, reminiscent of the Transporter movies or Crank... but instead of Jason Statham, this movie stars Clive Owen as an expert marksman, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Also known as "Standard Movie Plot #23", but when you see the action, you won't care about the plot.)
"The Invasion" is yet another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It updates the plot to make it more timely and less "60's Drive-In" schlock, but there wasn't much else interesting to say about it. I'll probably see it just to compare it with the other versions, but I'm not expecting much.
They also showed the trailer for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. I had already seen the trailer a few months ago, but this was the first time on a big screen. I've been reading a lot of debates about this one... it supposedly goes a bit deeper into Michael's mind, which could be good or bad. One of the coolest things about the original was that he was so blank. It made him a force of the unknown, a character with which no one could possibly relate, and in its own way it made Meyers a lot scarier. But I'll reserve judgement until I see this one, because the previews do look pretty darn cool.
Anyway, we stayed in Douglasville for the night. Bit of triva for you. The most annoying traffic light in the country is at the corner of Douglas Blvd and Bill Arp Rd. At least that was my experience - it didn't matter which direction we came from, it was always red when we got there, and stayed red for what seemed like 10 minutes. Coincidence, or does the light just not like out-of-towners?
Sunday morning we went to Atlanta's Pride Parade. I had planned to dress up - same outfit as Nashville Pride, but a different wig - but it was just too hot. KJ and I both got horrible sunburns as it was (we forgot to bring our sunblock). I can't imagine what it would have been like if I'd been wearing a wig.
Anyway, Pride was great. There were hundreds of booths with loads of neat stuff for sale, making us regret our tight budget. Then we watched was the longest parade I've ever seen. We managed to get a spot just a few feet from a group of religious protestors, who held up anti-gay signs and shouted Bible verses through their microphone. Eh, we mostly just laughed at them. I really can't say anything bad about the preachers because they were trying to help their fellow man. If they want to spread their beliefs in a non-violent way, then I have no problem with that.
But the stuff they were saying through their microphone was so incredibly stupid, that any idiot with a Bible and 10 minutes to spare could disprove whatever they said. I just wish these guys would do their research.
But again, the parade was a lot of fun; though I will have to say, the transgender community was woefully underrepresented. Nothing unusual there... I often feel like a minority within a minority that way. Still, there were plenty of unique people there, and while I'm not actually gay (in the man/man sense), I do feel a strong connection with the GLBT community. Seeing so many thousands of fellow freaks in one place makes me feel much less alone in the world.
God, I'm tired. Good night.
Saturday morning we got up very early, and drove down to Atlanta. We went to the Georgia Aquarium, which was very cool but very crowded. It is, according to their website, the "World's Largest Aquarium". However, I'm not exactly sure how they're measuring it exactly. Total building size? Gallons of water? Number of fish? Size of fish?
I only bring this up because KJ and I have been to several great aquariums in the past few years, and while Atlanta's is certainly huge, it didn't keep us occupied as long as some of the others. And a lot of the length was due to the crowds.
That said, it is a great aquarium. We got tons of beautiful pictures there. If not for the crowds, I could have spent several more hours there. If you're people-phobic like me, here's my suggestion: Try to find out when the "off season" is, or wait a couple of years until the furor has died down a bit. For a great aquarium fix in the meantime, I would recommend the Newport Aquarium (http://www.newportaquarium.com/). No, it's not as big, but it's still pretty impressive. Plus, it's not as well-known, so you don't have as many problems with crowds. Why worry about whether or not the tank you're looking at holds 1 or 2 million gallons of water? Without the other people getting in your way and ruining your pictures, you can stare at the same tank for hours and still see new fish swim by.
Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg (http://www.ripleysaquariumofthesmokies.com/) is good too, probably slightly better than Newport, but of course it's Gatlinburg... you're back to dealing with crowds again. Chattanooga's Aquarium (http://www.tnaqua.org/) is just okay... it's nice because it's close, but it's not worth visiting very often. Really, I'd almost rather just eat at the Aquarium Restaurant (http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com/AquariumNashville/) at the mall.
After the Aquarium, we drove to the nearby town of Douglasville to surprise my cousin at work, after which we saw the movie 1408. This movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, from the book "Everything's Eventual". I'm not often satisfied with 50-page stories forcibly stretched into 2-hour movies, but this one is quite good. It's "spooky-scary", not "gory-scary", so slasher fans might want to stay away. It's been a while since I've read the story, but I think it's relatively faithful, except towards the end. It's one of those where the longer it goes on, the farther it strays from the book. But I'm no purist - I believe that movies are movies and books are books, and some things work better in print than on screen. With the exception of about 20 minutes near the end, the director made some very good choices.
I have a hard time recommending 1408 because I'm afraid a lot of people just won't "get it". But the theater audience seemed to have a good time, so maybe that's not really an issue. This movie should be seen in the theater, as the gasps and screams from the audience were almost as entertaining as what's on the screen. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Before the movie, there were a couple of neat trailers I hadn't seen before. "Shoot 'Em Up" is full of mesmerizing (if unbelievable) action scenes, reminiscent of the Transporter movies or Crank... but instead of Jason Statham, this movie stars Clive Owen as an expert marksman, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Also known as "Standard Movie Plot #23", but when you see the action, you won't care about the plot.)
"The Invasion" is yet another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It updates the plot to make it more timely and less "60's Drive-In" schlock, but there wasn't much else interesting to say about it. I'll probably see it just to compare it with the other versions, but I'm not expecting much.
They also showed the trailer for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. I had already seen the trailer a few months ago, but this was the first time on a big screen. I've been reading a lot of debates about this one... it supposedly goes a bit deeper into Michael's mind, which could be good or bad. One of the coolest things about the original was that he was so blank. It made him a force of the unknown, a character with which no one could possibly relate, and in its own way it made Meyers a lot scarier. But I'll reserve judgement until I see this one, because the previews do look pretty darn cool.
Anyway, we stayed in Douglasville for the night. Bit of triva for you. The most annoying traffic light in the country is at the corner of Douglas Blvd and Bill Arp Rd. At least that was my experience - it didn't matter which direction we came from, it was always red when we got there, and stayed red for what seemed like 10 minutes. Coincidence, or does the light just not like out-of-towners?
Sunday morning we went to Atlanta's Pride Parade. I had planned to dress up - same outfit as Nashville Pride, but a different wig - but it was just too hot. KJ and I both got horrible sunburns as it was (we forgot to bring our sunblock). I can't imagine what it would have been like if I'd been wearing a wig.
Anyway, Pride was great. There were hundreds of booths with loads of neat stuff for sale, making us regret our tight budget. Then we watched was the longest parade I've ever seen. We managed to get a spot just a few feet from a group of religious protestors, who held up anti-gay signs and shouted Bible verses through their microphone. Eh, we mostly just laughed at them. I really can't say anything bad about the preachers because they were trying to help their fellow man. If they want to spread their beliefs in a non-violent way, then I have no problem with that.
But the stuff they were saying through their microphone was so incredibly stupid, that any idiot with a Bible and 10 minutes to spare could disprove whatever they said. I just wish these guys would do their research.
But again, the parade was a lot of fun; though I will have to say, the transgender community was woefully underrepresented. Nothing unusual there... I often feel like a minority within a minority that way. Still, there were plenty of unique people there, and while I'm not actually gay (in the man/man sense), I do feel a strong connection with the GLBT community. Seeing so many thousands of fellow freaks in one place makes me feel much less alone in the world.
God, I'm tired. Good night.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
And Now For A Literary Interlude...
The last few books I read:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
by J.K. Rowling
I'll try and go light on the spoilers here, but if you truly don't want to know anything about this book, you should probably skip this review. Heh, "review"... like I'm Roger Ebert or something. This book doesn't need a review. If you've read the first six, you're obviously going to read it. If you haven't read any of them, then you're not going to start with this one. Rowling could have released 759 pages of Harry brushing his teeth, and it would still sell more copies than War and Peace.
A few weeks ago I posted a blog with my predictions about this one. I was right about some things, and I was wrong about some things. Deathly Hallows is definitely the darkest of this series, and has very little of the awe and wonder of the early books. In many ways it reads like a Nazi Holocaust story, with the characters constantly trying to find new places to hide from the evil army. There were parts that were hard to get through, simply because they were drawn out and depressing. But the action scenes are exciting, and the plot is involving. Like most of the HP books, it gets a little convoluted here and there, but everything ties up quite nicely in the end.
Overall, Deathly Hallows is quite good, and the perfect cap for the series. If I were to rank the series, favorite to least favorite, I would say 1, 4, 2, 6, 7, 3, 5. But all of them are excellent books, and easy to read despite the length. In fact, even though this one was one of the harder ones to get through, I still managed to read it in two days.
Icewind Dale: The Crystal Shard
by R.A. Salvatore
I'm halfway through the second book in this trilogy, and so far it's pretty good. The first book, The Crystal Shard, introduces us to Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most well-known characters in D&D lore. Drizzt is a Drow (that's a dark elf, for you non-gamers), but he's a good guy, which is rare for a Drow. Which of course, means he's an outcast - his own people think he's too nice, and other races think all dark elves are evil. Drizzt is the ultimate "fan service" character, the kind of hero Todd McFarlane would design if he wrote novels instead of comics. There is absolutely nothing about this character that isn't "cool". He fights with a pair of scimitars, he can summon a black panther, he can hide like a ninja, he knows magic, and he's nearly untouchable in battle. Even his weaknesses are badass: he's allergic to sunlight, and he's a social outcast; so he stays in the shadows and wears concealing hoods. This is exactly the kind of "ultimate" character you would design if you were a twelve-year-old boy.
That said, the book is surprisingly absorbing. Salvatore, who some might remember for killing a major Star Wars character in Vector Prime, is actually a pretty good writer. I didn't care for his Star Wars writing at the time, but here he seems to be more in his element. I think he has more freedom here, even within the boundries of D&D's strict rulebooks, because he's using his own characters. While Drizzt is obviously Salvatore's favorite, the other characters get plenty of time to shine. They aren't nearly as deep as Drizzt (a couple of them feel like they walked right off a standard Character Sheet), but they have their moments. I do wish the book had a stronger female presence, though. The only major female character, Catti-Brie, gets very little screen time. I hope she has a larger role later in the trilogy.
If you've been wanting to try any books set in the D&D universe, I would definitely start with this one.
Cell
by Stephen King
Stephen King does zombie horror. Except they're not zombies. And it's another post-apocalyptic story, like The Stand. Except this is nothing like The Stand. Well, whatever it is, this is a really good book about the last few sane people in a world gone mad. This is one of those books that just jumps right into the story, hooking you after just a few pages, and becomes hard to put down. I thought the ending was a little weak, but the journey was still worth it. This is one of my favorite Stephen King books.
Lisey's Story
by Stephen King
This is NOT one of my favorite Stephen King books, but it wasn't bad. I can't tell you much about the plot without spoiling it, so this is going to be pretty vague: The main character is the widow of a famous novelist, and a large portion of the book is her flashbacks of life with her late husband. Like other King books involving novelists (The Dark Half, Misery), King throws a lot of himself into this book. It doesn't get interesting until about halfway through, so if you start it, stick with it. It took a lot of work to get to the good parts of this book, and I can't promise that the payoff is worth it. Overall, I am glad I read it, but I can't really recommend it.
The Dragonlance Chronicles
(Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning)
by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman
I read these because they are some of the earliest novels that take place in the D&D universe. The characters introduced are well-known to gamers, and therefore these are books you're simply "supposed to have read" if you're in the gaming crowd. Standard fantasy fare; filled with dwarves and elves, monsters and magic, dungeons and, well, dragons. Let's call it "Tolkein For Dummies", since the elements are similar, but it's much easier to read. I enjoyed them, but they aren't particularly memorable.
She's Not There: A Life In Two Genders
by Jennifer Finney Boylan
This is the autobiography of a trangender college professor. Boylan is an excellent writer, and was already a published author even before she realized she was a woman. It's both thought-provoking and funny, with a quirky sense of humor punctuating the drama. This is one of two books I generally recommend anyone who is interested in learning more about the subject, the other being True Selves. True Selves is more informative; this one is more entertaining.
Religion Gone Bad
by Mel White
One of the few non-fiction books I've read by choice, this is a report on the war between Christian fundamentalism and gay rights. Much of the book is an attack on Jerry Falwell, who ironically died shortly after this book was published... kind of making it obsolete. But Falwell's associates still spread the same message, so the book is still relevant. It was written by a gay preacher, who was once a fundie himself before he saw the light. Pastor Mel White still preaches the word of God, but without the bigotry inherent in the sermons of fundies like Pat Roberson. If even half of what this book says is true (and with the extensive footnotes and bibliography, I don't think White made anything up), then I fear greatly for the future. Our current president has committed some serious crimes with regards to seperation of church and state; more than most people know. After reading this book, I'd have to say that if there is a Hell, Jerry Falwell is roasting in it as we speak. But that's just my opinion.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
by J.K. Rowling
I'll try and go light on the spoilers here, but if you truly don't want to know anything about this book, you should probably skip this review. Heh, "review"... like I'm Roger Ebert or something. This book doesn't need a review. If you've read the first six, you're obviously going to read it. If you haven't read any of them, then you're not going to start with this one. Rowling could have released 759 pages of Harry brushing his teeth, and it would still sell more copies than War and Peace.
A few weeks ago I posted a blog with my predictions about this one. I was right about some things, and I was wrong about some things. Deathly Hallows is definitely the darkest of this series, and has very little of the awe and wonder of the early books. In many ways it reads like a Nazi Holocaust story, with the characters constantly trying to find new places to hide from the evil army. There were parts that were hard to get through, simply because they were drawn out and depressing. But the action scenes are exciting, and the plot is involving. Like most of the HP books, it gets a little convoluted here and there, but everything ties up quite nicely in the end.
Overall, Deathly Hallows is quite good, and the perfect cap for the series. If I were to rank the series, favorite to least favorite, I would say 1, 4, 2, 6, 7, 3, 5. But all of them are excellent books, and easy to read despite the length. In fact, even though this one was one of the harder ones to get through, I still managed to read it in two days.
Icewind Dale: The Crystal Shard
by R.A. Salvatore
I'm halfway through the second book in this trilogy, and so far it's pretty good. The first book, The Crystal Shard, introduces us to Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most well-known characters in D&D lore. Drizzt is a Drow (that's a dark elf, for you non-gamers), but he's a good guy, which is rare for a Drow. Which of course, means he's an outcast - his own people think he's too nice, and other races think all dark elves are evil. Drizzt is the ultimate "fan service" character, the kind of hero Todd McFarlane would design if he wrote novels instead of comics. There is absolutely nothing about this character that isn't "cool". He fights with a pair of scimitars, he can summon a black panther, he can hide like a ninja, he knows magic, and he's nearly untouchable in battle. Even his weaknesses are badass: he's allergic to sunlight, and he's a social outcast; so he stays in the shadows and wears concealing hoods. This is exactly the kind of "ultimate" character you would design if you were a twelve-year-old boy.
That said, the book is surprisingly absorbing. Salvatore, who some might remember for killing a major Star Wars character in Vector Prime, is actually a pretty good writer. I didn't care for his Star Wars writing at the time, but here he seems to be more in his element. I think he has more freedom here, even within the boundries of D&D's strict rulebooks, because he's using his own characters. While Drizzt is obviously Salvatore's favorite, the other characters get plenty of time to shine. They aren't nearly as deep as Drizzt (a couple of them feel like they walked right off a standard Character Sheet), but they have their moments. I do wish the book had a stronger female presence, though. The only major female character, Catti-Brie, gets very little screen time. I hope she has a larger role later in the trilogy.
If you've been wanting to try any books set in the D&D universe, I would definitely start with this one.
Cell
by Stephen King
Stephen King does zombie horror. Except they're not zombies. And it's another post-apocalyptic story, like The Stand. Except this is nothing like The Stand. Well, whatever it is, this is a really good book about the last few sane people in a world gone mad. This is one of those books that just jumps right into the story, hooking you after just a few pages, and becomes hard to put down. I thought the ending was a little weak, but the journey was still worth it. This is one of my favorite Stephen King books.
Lisey's Story
by Stephen King
This is NOT one of my favorite Stephen King books, but it wasn't bad. I can't tell you much about the plot without spoiling it, so this is going to be pretty vague: The main character is the widow of a famous novelist, and a large portion of the book is her flashbacks of life with her late husband. Like other King books involving novelists (The Dark Half, Misery), King throws a lot of himself into this book. It doesn't get interesting until about halfway through, so if you start it, stick with it. It took a lot of work to get to the good parts of this book, and I can't promise that the payoff is worth it. Overall, I am glad I read it, but I can't really recommend it.
The Dragonlance Chronicles
(Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning)
by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman
I read these because they are some of the earliest novels that take place in the D&D universe. The characters introduced are well-known to gamers, and therefore these are books you're simply "supposed to have read" if you're in the gaming crowd. Standard fantasy fare; filled with dwarves and elves, monsters and magic, dungeons and, well, dragons. Let's call it "Tolkein For Dummies", since the elements are similar, but it's much easier to read. I enjoyed them, but they aren't particularly memorable.
She's Not There: A Life In Two Genders
by Jennifer Finney Boylan
This is the autobiography of a trangender college professor. Boylan is an excellent writer, and was already a published author even before she realized she was a woman. It's both thought-provoking and funny, with a quirky sense of humor punctuating the drama. This is one of two books I generally recommend anyone who is interested in learning more about the subject, the other being True Selves. True Selves is more informative; this one is more entertaining.
Religion Gone Bad
by Mel White
One of the few non-fiction books I've read by choice, this is a report on the war between Christian fundamentalism and gay rights. Much of the book is an attack on Jerry Falwell, who ironically died shortly after this book was published... kind of making it obsolete. But Falwell's associates still spread the same message, so the book is still relevant. It was written by a gay preacher, who was once a fundie himself before he saw the light. Pastor Mel White still preaches the word of God, but without the bigotry inherent in the sermons of fundies like Pat Roberson. If even half of what this book says is true (and with the extensive footnotes and bibliography, I don't think White made anything up), then I fear greatly for the future. Our current president has committed some serious crimes with regards to seperation of church and state; more than most people know. After reading this book, I'd have to say that if there is a Hell, Jerry Falwell is roasting in it as we speak. But that's just my opinion.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Harry Potter and the Underwhelming Soundtrack
Thursday night we saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Great movie, really enjoyable. -But- I think you might need to have read the book to appreciate it. It's hard to say if there were any actual "holes" due to the translation, because any questions I had would doubtlessly have been filled by memories from the book. Book 5 was my least favorite of the series, which is like saying my "least favorite" sexual position - it's still an awesome book. But it is talky and political, and while the movie only shows the most interesting parts of the book, I still think it's going to bore the more casual fans.
I loved Tonks, and I wish she'd had more screen time. Great casting all over, really - Bellatrix, Luna, Umbridge, even Mrs. Figg.
Terrible, terrible soundtrack. The score was bland, and absent in the oddest places. Heh, during Voldemort's fight with Dumbledore, I started humming "Duel of the Fates"... but it was odd that there wasn't any music playing already. The end credits music sounded like it belonged to another genre of movie altogether. They should really consider rescoring the movie before it hits DVD.
Another "Heh" - during that same battle between V&D, when Voldy made a giant firesnake, I wanted Dumbledore to shout, "You shall not pass!"
I loved Tonks, and I wish she'd had more screen time. Great casting all over, really - Bellatrix, Luna, Umbridge, even Mrs. Figg.
Terrible, terrible soundtrack. The score was bland, and absent in the oddest places. Heh, during Voldemort's fight with Dumbledore, I started humming "Duel of the Fates"... but it was odd that there wasn't any music playing already. The end credits music sounded like it belonged to another genre of movie altogether. They should really consider rescoring the movie before it hits DVD.
Another "Heh" - during that same battle between V&D, when Voldy made a giant firesnake, I wanted Dumbledore to shout, "You shall not pass!"
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Live Free or Transform
On Sunday we saw "Live Free or Die Hard". That is a fun movie, with lots of great action scenes. Of the four Die Hard movies, this is probably my second favorite. My only real problem is that all the best action shots - and all the funniest lines - were shown in the trailers. Of course, if you want to make people see your movie, you offer them lots of eye candy and quotable quotes. But you should at least leave something to the imagination.
The working title for this movie was "Die Hard 4.0", because the plot revolves around computers. I don't know how feasible this movie is from a technological standpoint, but it's pretty scary to see what could happen if someone had complete control over the nation's computers. Justin Long is cast as an expert hacker, and given his previous role as Macintosh spokesman, he's probably now typecast for life. I don't think I've seen a whinier character in any movie. Of course you know he's going to turn around and do something brave by the end of the movie, but in the meantime I wanted to kill him myself.
"We Just Lost Marty" factor: The movie starts out pretty good, but the action scenes get more and more outrageous as it goes one. There's a scene towards the end (involving an airplane) that is out-and-out outrageous... but who cares, it was fun.
Oh, and there was one part - and maybe I'm just being nitpicky here, but this really stood out to me. Remember back when the bad guys actually stayed down? Remember when they blew up Ah-nold in The Terminator, and you thought the movie was over, until the endoskeleton crawled out of the wreckage? Did you notice how after that, no bad guy ever stays down the first time, in any movie, anywhere?
So John McClane is fighting this villain, a strikingly beautiful Asian-looking martial arts expert. The actress is actually Polish-Irish/Vietnamese, but in the movies you only have to look Japanese to be a martial arts master. So, he knocks her down a few times, she knocks him down a few times, each giving and taking blows that would finish off anyone in real life. No biggie. She knocks him over a rail, he falls a few stories, gets back up, dusts himself off. No big deal. He finds a car, drives it back up to the top floor, drives through the wall, hits the woman with the car... and while stuck to the front grill, she still keeps fighting back. Clearly I need to switch vitamins.
But was that before or after he fights the circus acrobat in the air ducts? I don't remember... all I can say is that it's funny how bad guys can be such computer experts, spending a significant portion of their lives in front of keyboards, and still fight like Batman. But all that's okay, because the Die Hard movies take place in the "Action Movie" universe, a place where cars blow up like the Death Star when you tap the bumpers, where wounds stop bleeding within minutes, and where people can outrun explosions.
Reality is depressing; fantasy is exhilarating. I saw screw accuracy, and cue the explosions.
Today we saw "The Transformers". That was also mindless fun. It is a special effects movie, and it appeals to the little kid in me, the one who wanted to grow up to be a fire truck. It's hard to reconcile the fact that it's written like a grown-up movie, and yet it's clearly a toy-line concept.
I would have loved to see two other versions of this movie. One version would follow the cartoons more closely, with the old school designs and size-changing transformations. The other version would cut out the toy/comic tie-in altogether and strictly make a serious movie about shape-changing space robot invaders. As is, the movie feels a little bit schitzophrenic. You can see where the makers made agonizing decisions about what to include, and what to cut. Anything silly or far-fetched had to be weighed against it's value as fan service. What resulted is a perfectly adequate product, but with a very specific target audience.
People who never saw the cartoon/comics/toys are going to find the movie a bit goofy, but might enjoy the SFX and action. Classic Transformers fanatics are going to be angry over all the changes, but they're still going to see it 10 times and buy the DVD.
Of course, there are plot holes big enough to drive Optimus Prime through. Like it matters. If you put aside your suspension of disbelief long enough to accept the concept of the movie, then there's probably a lot of other things you're willing to accept.
In an early issue of the Transformers comic series, there was a scene in which a human fell off a cliff, and at the last second an autobot managed to catch him. This was absurd, of course - so he fell from a lethal height, but because he landed in a robot's metal hand instead of the ground, he was safe? Riiiight. Well, that same thing happens twice in the Transformers movie.
The dialogue was okay, but it varied in quality throughout the movie. My expectations in that area where pretty low, so I was fairly impressed. It's like the writers knew which lines were bad, and even admitted it once: When Sam told Mikaela that she was "more than meets the eye", the audience groaned. But after she left, Sam scolded himself saying, "That was a bad line!"
Since the robots speak very little in the previews, I had no idea what to expect from their personalities. More than any other factor, the robots' dialogue made the movie feel silly to me. Especially Optimus. Out of all the Autobots, Optimus Prime was the only one in the comics/toons who never broke his serious persona, and was generally a humorless character. But in this movie, he had some of the funniest lines. And the part when the Autobots are trying to hide from Sam's parents... for a moment I thought I was watching Ninja Turtles.
My biggest gripe is actually one of my own pet peeves. This is just my problem, so don't take it as a mark against the movie: I had trouble following a lot of the action. Either things happened too fast, or a scene would be filmed with a shaky-cam causing everything to blur. I hate shaky-cam, it ruins a lot of movies for me. I see the artistic relevance, but artistry means squat when I can't tell what's going on (or worse, getting nauseous). On the other hand, there were a few shots that where slowed down, Matrix-style... but that's another one of my pet peeves. I know, it sounds like I should avoid action movies altogether, but I generally love them when they don't go to those particular extremes.
I know it sounds like I've said a lot of negative things, but I really did love the movie. And as long as you know what you're getting into - two hours of frenzied action with nostalgic undertones - you'll have a great time.
By the way, with the Transformers movie premiered a new trailer for a so-far-untitled giant monster movie. The twist is that the movie is shot like the Blair Witch Project - all on home video cameras, as if someone found the footage later after the disaster. It's a neat trailer, so make sure you get to Transformers early enough to see the previews.
The working title for this movie was "Die Hard 4.0", because the plot revolves around computers. I don't know how feasible this movie is from a technological standpoint, but it's pretty scary to see what could happen if someone had complete control over the nation's computers. Justin Long is cast as an expert hacker, and given his previous role as Macintosh spokesman, he's probably now typecast for life. I don't think I've seen a whinier character in any movie. Of course you know he's going to turn around and do something brave by the end of the movie, but in the meantime I wanted to kill him myself.
"We Just Lost Marty" factor: The movie starts out pretty good, but the action scenes get more and more outrageous as it goes one. There's a scene towards the end (involving an airplane) that is out-and-out outrageous... but who cares, it was fun.
Oh, and there was one part - and maybe I'm just being nitpicky here, but this really stood out to me. Remember back when the bad guys actually stayed down? Remember when they blew up Ah-nold in The Terminator, and you thought the movie was over, until the endoskeleton crawled out of the wreckage? Did you notice how after that, no bad guy ever stays down the first time, in any movie, anywhere?
So John McClane is fighting this villain, a strikingly beautiful Asian-looking martial arts expert. The actress is actually Polish-Irish/Vietnamese, but in the movies you only have to look Japanese to be a martial arts master. So, he knocks her down a few times, she knocks him down a few times, each giving and taking blows that would finish off anyone in real life. No biggie. She knocks him over a rail, he falls a few stories, gets back up, dusts himself off. No big deal. He finds a car, drives it back up to the top floor, drives through the wall, hits the woman with the car... and while stuck to the front grill, she still keeps fighting back. Clearly I need to switch vitamins.
But was that before or after he fights the circus acrobat in the air ducts? I don't remember... all I can say is that it's funny how bad guys can be such computer experts, spending a significant portion of their lives in front of keyboards, and still fight like Batman. But all that's okay, because the Die Hard movies take place in the "Action Movie" universe, a place where cars blow up like the Death Star when you tap the bumpers, where wounds stop bleeding within minutes, and where people can outrun explosions.
Reality is depressing; fantasy is exhilarating. I saw screw accuracy, and cue the explosions.
Today we saw "The Transformers". That was also mindless fun. It is a special effects movie, and it appeals to the little kid in me, the one who wanted to grow up to be a fire truck. It's hard to reconcile the fact that it's written like a grown-up movie, and yet it's clearly a toy-line concept.
I would have loved to see two other versions of this movie. One version would follow the cartoons more closely, with the old school designs and size-changing transformations. The other version would cut out the toy/comic tie-in altogether and strictly make a serious movie about shape-changing space robot invaders. As is, the movie feels a little bit schitzophrenic. You can see where the makers made agonizing decisions about what to include, and what to cut. Anything silly or far-fetched had to be weighed against it's value as fan service. What resulted is a perfectly adequate product, but with a very specific target audience.
People who never saw the cartoon/comics/toys are going to find the movie a bit goofy, but might enjoy the SFX and action. Classic Transformers fanatics are going to be angry over all the changes, but they're still going to see it 10 times and buy the DVD.
Of course, there are plot holes big enough to drive Optimus Prime through. Like it matters. If you put aside your suspension of disbelief long enough to accept the concept of the movie, then there's probably a lot of other things you're willing to accept.
In an early issue of the Transformers comic series, there was a scene in which a human fell off a cliff, and at the last second an autobot managed to catch him. This was absurd, of course - so he fell from a lethal height, but because he landed in a robot's metal hand instead of the ground, he was safe? Riiiight. Well, that same thing happens twice in the Transformers movie.
The dialogue was okay, but it varied in quality throughout the movie. My expectations in that area where pretty low, so I was fairly impressed. It's like the writers knew which lines were bad, and even admitted it once: When Sam told Mikaela that she was "more than meets the eye", the audience groaned. But after she left, Sam scolded himself saying, "That was a bad line!"
Since the robots speak very little in the previews, I had no idea what to expect from their personalities. More than any other factor, the robots' dialogue made the movie feel silly to me. Especially Optimus. Out of all the Autobots, Optimus Prime was the only one in the comics/toons who never broke his serious persona, and was generally a humorless character. But in this movie, he had some of the funniest lines. And the part when the Autobots are trying to hide from Sam's parents... for a moment I thought I was watching Ninja Turtles.
My biggest gripe is actually one of my own pet peeves. This is just my problem, so don't take it as a mark against the movie: I had trouble following a lot of the action. Either things happened too fast, or a scene would be filmed with a shaky-cam causing everything to blur. I hate shaky-cam, it ruins a lot of movies for me. I see the artistic relevance, but artistry means squat when I can't tell what's going on (or worse, getting nauseous). On the other hand, there were a few shots that where slowed down, Matrix-style... but that's another one of my pet peeves. I know, it sounds like I should avoid action movies altogether, but I generally love them when they don't go to those particular extremes.
I know it sounds like I've said a lot of negative things, but I really did love the movie. And as long as you know what you're getting into - two hours of frenzied action with nostalgic undertones - you'll have a great time.
By the way, with the Transformers movie premiered a new trailer for a so-far-untitled giant monster movie. The twist is that the movie is shot like the Blair Witch Project - all on home video cameras, as if someone found the footage later after the disaster. It's a neat trailer, so make sure you get to Transformers early enough to see the previews.
Monday, July 02, 2007
I'm In Ur House, Upsetting Ur Kitties
We got a new kitten! KJ has been wanting one for a while, but we where waiting until we found the perfect one. Basically, she wanted one that "called to her". So today (technically yesterday now), while we were killing time before seeing a movie, we popped into PetSmart and discovered our kitten. Say hello to Sybil:
Sybil is an 8-week old female tortoiseshell. Like many kittens, she has two modes: Play and sleep.
Banchi and Honi are NOT happy about the new addition. They both ran upstairs, and have holed up in separate hiding spots. They hiss whenever we go near them, or when they see each other.
But they will get over it. Sooner or later they'll realize that the new kitten is not going away, and they'll have to accept her (or at least learn to avoid/ignore her). Until then, we're keeping their claws trimmed, and keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't hurt her.
Sybil is an 8-week old female tortoiseshell. Like many kittens, she has two modes: Play and sleep.
Banchi and Honi are NOT happy about the new addition. They both ran upstairs, and have holed up in separate hiding spots. They hiss whenever we go near them, or when they see each other.
But they will get over it. Sooner or later they'll realize that the new kitten is not going away, and they'll have to accept her (or at least learn to avoid/ignore her). Until then, we're keeping their claws trimmed, and keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't hurt her.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Nicholas Cage Spectacular!
That's about the only time you'll ever see the words "Nicholas Cage" and "Spectacular" together. Nick Cage has never been one of my favorite actors, and yet I always seem to enjoy his movies. Here's the rundown on the last three Nick Cage movies I viewed.
***Next***
Nick Cage does sci-fi! ...that about sums it up. The movie "Next" is actually pretty neat... but forgettable. The concept is cool - Cage can see two minutes into the future, allowing him to do little things like dodge bullets and cheat at cards. There's some great action scenes and fun special effects, but the movie doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Julianne Moore plays his main enemy, even though they're both "good guys". And Moore can't seem to act. I've always thought Moore was a good actress, ever since her pantsless scene in "Short Cuts"... er... I mean, ever since her minor role in "The Fugitive". But in "Next", apparently the director told her to just read her lines and try not to act. Anyway, Next is an okay movie that won't put you to sleep. It wouldn't hurt to add it to your Netflix queue, but I wouldn't drive to the video store just to rent it.
***GhostRider***
It's not as dumb as it looks.
I was skeptical of this one, mainly because the previews made it look silly, stupid, and goofy. And the Ghostrider is all those things, but in a good way. I'm sure the critics ripped this one to shreds, but really, do the critics even have fun at the movies any more? Ghostrider is a popcorn muncher, nothing more or less, and shouldn't be judged next to Academy Award winners.
Ghostrider is not as deep or memorable as the "Spider-Man" or "X-Men" movies. But it keeps you awake, unlike snore-fests "Hulk" and "Elektra". In comparing it to other comic book movies, I'd say it's closest to "The Fantastic Four" - which is another movie that has been undeservedly trashed by the critics.
Cage works much harder than the role really deserves. I respect that - he acts as though this amusement park ride is an "actual" movie. Actually, it's not just Cage, most of the acting in the movie is better than I would have required... except possibly for Cage's love interest - she's just as shallow as I would have expected.
The bad guys are two-dimensional and forgettable. The main bad guy is the vampire-like son of Satan, which you'd think would be enough to make him interesting, but it doesn't. That's a little disappointing, as a good cheesy movie should have an over-the-top bad guy.
Anyway, I liked the movie, but it's not one of those I'd see over and over. I would rather see it again than "Daredevil"... but I'd also rather get a prostate exam than sit through Daredevil again, so take that however you want.
Oh, and the Mortal Kombat reference.... awesome.
***Wicker Man***
Bad, good, who cares? The original was much, much better than this okay remake, and it still stands the test of time. I liked the new one, but there's simply no reason to see it over the old one, unless you're just the world's biggest Nick Cage fan. Of course, if none of your local video stores have a copy of the old one, the new one's not a bad substitute. You should be able to say you've seen at least one version, because it's just a neat story.
***Next***
Nick Cage does sci-fi! ...that about sums it up. The movie "Next" is actually pretty neat... but forgettable. The concept is cool - Cage can see two minutes into the future, allowing him to do little things like dodge bullets and cheat at cards. There's some great action scenes and fun special effects, but the movie doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Julianne Moore plays his main enemy, even though they're both "good guys". And Moore can't seem to act. I've always thought Moore was a good actress, ever since her pantsless scene in "Short Cuts"... er... I mean, ever since her minor role in "The Fugitive". But in "Next", apparently the director told her to just read her lines and try not to act. Anyway, Next is an okay movie that won't put you to sleep. It wouldn't hurt to add it to your Netflix queue, but I wouldn't drive to the video store just to rent it.
***GhostRider***
It's not as dumb as it looks.
I was skeptical of this one, mainly because the previews made it look silly, stupid, and goofy. And the Ghostrider is all those things, but in a good way. I'm sure the critics ripped this one to shreds, but really, do the critics even have fun at the movies any more? Ghostrider is a popcorn muncher, nothing more or less, and shouldn't be judged next to Academy Award winners.
Ghostrider is not as deep or memorable as the "Spider-Man" or "X-Men" movies. But it keeps you awake, unlike snore-fests "Hulk" and "Elektra". In comparing it to other comic book movies, I'd say it's closest to "The Fantastic Four" - which is another movie that has been undeservedly trashed by the critics.
Cage works much harder than the role really deserves. I respect that - he acts as though this amusement park ride is an "actual" movie. Actually, it's not just Cage, most of the acting in the movie is better than I would have required... except possibly for Cage's love interest - she's just as shallow as I would have expected.
The bad guys are two-dimensional and forgettable. The main bad guy is the vampire-like son of Satan, which you'd think would be enough to make him interesting, but it doesn't. That's a little disappointing, as a good cheesy movie should have an over-the-top bad guy.
Anyway, I liked the movie, but it's not one of those I'd see over and over. I would rather see it again than "Daredevil"... but I'd also rather get a prostate exam than sit through Daredevil again, so take that however you want.
Oh, and the Mortal Kombat reference.... awesome.
***Wicker Man***
Bad, good, who cares? The original was much, much better than this okay remake, and it still stands the test of time. I liked the new one, but there's simply no reason to see it over the old one, unless you're just the world's biggest Nick Cage fan. Of course, if none of your local video stores have a copy of the old one, the new one's not a bad substitute. You should be able to say you've seen at least one version, because it's just a neat story.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Rant on Retro-Gaming
Video games have come a long way. They're prettier than ever before, with more realism and depth than the makers of "Pong" ever would have thought possible. But that depth comes at a price - now that video games have more in common with books, I find I just don't have time to play them. While I like to get sucked into a good adventure game when I can, most of the time I just can't stick with one game long enough to play through it. Sometimes I just want to sit back and blow things up, without worrying about where to find the Star Crest to open the courtyard door. That's why I like arcade classics. Well, nostalgia's a big factor too, but mostly I like the fact that I can just turn them on and play.
But I hate, hate, hate the way they're sold! What is the deal with putting ten classic arcade games (only three of which are still fun) on one disc (or cart), labelling it "Volume 1", then selling it for $40? Guys, these games have been paid for. You made your money back on these games decades ago. The people who programmed them have retired. Those of you currently working at the company aren't even actually working when you release these classic compilations. There's simply no reason to have six volumes of Namco's Greatest Hits, when each disk contains 5% games and 95% "History of Namco" videos nobody's going to watch.
No wonder emulation is so popular. You can fit hundreds of ROMs on a CD, and the same ROMs work on different emulators/systems. Meanwhile, I've bought "Joust" like, 14 times for various video game systems. That's a lot of money for a game that takes about 30 kb of hard drive space. But it's not even the money that really gets to me, it's the presentation. These are "twitch" games, and as such, I like to play one for a few minutes then switch to another. It's less fun if I keep having to change out CDs/DVDs/cartridges, so having more games on one disk really does make it better. Plus, the "turn on and play" advantage is becoming less and less of a feature, since you have to sit through 10 minutes of developer logos and loading screens when you first put in the CD.
Luckily I tend to do my retro-gaming on cartridge-based handheld systems, so loading isn't a factor, but there's still a few minutes between the time I first put in the cartridge, and when I actually get to play the game. I understand that everyone wants to get credit, and everyone wants you to see their pretty little company logo. But again, these games were programmed 20 years ago. What the game company is doing now is basically burning them onto a CD for us. Why does it take 8 development teams to do this, and does each one have to show me their logo?
The worst part is, the game companies don't get accurate feedback on these complaints. If a compilation doesn't sell well, then the company says, "Well, I guess retrogaming isn't really 'in' right now." Never mind that they were trying to sell six ancient games for $30. But a compilation doesn't really have to sell that well for them to make a profit, since production costs are so low. If a compilation makes the slightest profit, then they rush to find six more old games for the next volume - making extra-sure that only two are popular classics, and the other four are obscure rubbish.
I think the game companies are starting to take the hint, as I have started to see a few classics disks with larger libraries. The PS2 collections have more games on them than the PS1 collections; the DS collections have more games on them than the GBA collections. I'm sure the game companies would like us to believe that this is due to the higher capacities of the newer formats, but we're not that stupid. I've seen the bootleg GBA carts with nearly 200 8-bit NES games on them. And yet Capcom releases a "Capcom Mini Mix" collection for the GBA with 3 (Wow, 3!) 8-bit NES games on it. It was a fair selection - Bionic Commando, Strider, and Mighty Final Fight - but they really could have tried harder.
To me, the worst offender is Nintendo itself. A few years ago they released a series of "Nintendo Classics" for the GBA, all re-releases of 8-bit NES games, at around $20 each. They could have easily fit the entire set on one cart and still made a profit, but that's just not how they think. And let's not forget how they kept re-releasing the classic Mario games for the GBA, one at a time. Why not "Super Mario All-Stars", like they had on the SNES? I'm sure you know the answer to that one, and it has nothing to do with cartridge capacity.
I recently purchased "Konami Classics Arcade Hits" for the DS, and it's not bad. It has 15 games on it, about half of which are still fun to play. My biggest beef with it is that I was hoping it would make their previous GBA collection, "Konami Arcade Advanced", obsolete. But no, the new one includes some of the games on the previous cart, but not all of them; and the GBA cart has a neat "updated graphics" option for a couple of the games on it.
I also have "Retro Atari Classics", which takes an interesting concept and does nothing good with it. They took ten classic arcade games (of which only about 3 are still fun), and let three famous grafitti artists give them a visual makeover. The problem is, only one of the grafitti artists is any good. But at least it gives you the option of playing with the original graphics instead, in case you don't like the Remix version. Another problem (on the DS version, anyway) is that they overuse the stylus. The stylus actually makes sense as a trackball alternative, but they didn't even give the option of using the joypad instead. And that's just mean. While I think the touch screen is one of the coolest features of the DS, I do wish the game companies wouldn't force us to use it as a primary means of control.
One of the better classics compilations, at least in presentation, is "Activision Anthology" for the GBA. Now we're talking about a serious collection, with over 50 games on it. Unfortunately, they're Atari 2600 games, which means they're extremely dated. But Activision always did make the best games for the Atari (Pitfall, Chopper Command, etc), so you're still getting the cream of the crop. And again, twitch games - you really don't need good graphics to have fun.
One of the most confusing is Namco's GBA releases. First they released "Namco Museum" with the following games: Galaxian, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, and Dig Dug. Then they released "Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" which included Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Dig Dug, and Bosconian. For the same system. I just don't get it. Hopefully when they get around to making a DS collection, they'll use their heads.
But I hate, hate, hate the way they're sold! What is the deal with putting ten classic arcade games (only three of which are still fun) on one disc (or cart), labelling it "Volume 1", then selling it for $40? Guys, these games have been paid for. You made your money back on these games decades ago. The people who programmed them have retired. Those of you currently working at the company aren't even actually working when you release these classic compilations. There's simply no reason to have six volumes of Namco's Greatest Hits, when each disk contains 5% games and 95% "History of Namco" videos nobody's going to watch.
No wonder emulation is so popular. You can fit hundreds of ROMs on a CD, and the same ROMs work on different emulators/systems. Meanwhile, I've bought "Joust" like, 14 times for various video game systems. That's a lot of money for a game that takes about 30 kb of hard drive space. But it's not even the money that really gets to me, it's the presentation. These are "twitch" games, and as such, I like to play one for a few minutes then switch to another. It's less fun if I keep having to change out CDs/DVDs/cartridges, so having more games on one disk really does make it better. Plus, the "turn on and play" advantage is becoming less and less of a feature, since you have to sit through 10 minutes of developer logos and loading screens when you first put in the CD.
Luckily I tend to do my retro-gaming on cartridge-based handheld systems, so loading isn't a factor, but there's still a few minutes between the time I first put in the cartridge, and when I actually get to play the game. I understand that everyone wants to get credit, and everyone wants you to see their pretty little company logo. But again, these games were programmed 20 years ago. What the game company is doing now is basically burning them onto a CD for us. Why does it take 8 development teams to do this, and does each one have to show me their logo?
The worst part is, the game companies don't get accurate feedback on these complaints. If a compilation doesn't sell well, then the company says, "Well, I guess retrogaming isn't really 'in' right now." Never mind that they were trying to sell six ancient games for $30. But a compilation doesn't really have to sell that well for them to make a profit, since production costs are so low. If a compilation makes the slightest profit, then they rush to find six more old games for the next volume - making extra-sure that only two are popular classics, and the other four are obscure rubbish.
I think the game companies are starting to take the hint, as I have started to see a few classics disks with larger libraries. The PS2 collections have more games on them than the PS1 collections; the DS collections have more games on them than the GBA collections. I'm sure the game companies would like us to believe that this is due to the higher capacities of the newer formats, but we're not that stupid. I've seen the bootleg GBA carts with nearly 200 8-bit NES games on them. And yet Capcom releases a "Capcom Mini Mix" collection for the GBA with 3 (Wow, 3!) 8-bit NES games on it. It was a fair selection - Bionic Commando, Strider, and Mighty Final Fight - but they really could have tried harder.
To me, the worst offender is Nintendo itself. A few years ago they released a series of "Nintendo Classics" for the GBA, all re-releases of 8-bit NES games, at around $20 each. They could have easily fit the entire set on one cart and still made a profit, but that's just not how they think. And let's not forget how they kept re-releasing the classic Mario games for the GBA, one at a time. Why not "Super Mario All-Stars", like they had on the SNES? I'm sure you know the answer to that one, and it has nothing to do with cartridge capacity.
I recently purchased "Konami Classics Arcade Hits" for the DS, and it's not bad. It has 15 games on it, about half of which are still fun to play. My biggest beef with it is that I was hoping it would make their previous GBA collection, "Konami Arcade Advanced", obsolete. But no, the new one includes some of the games on the previous cart, but not all of them; and the GBA cart has a neat "updated graphics" option for a couple of the games on it.
I also have "Retro Atari Classics", which takes an interesting concept and does nothing good with it. They took ten classic arcade games (of which only about 3 are still fun), and let three famous grafitti artists give them a visual makeover. The problem is, only one of the grafitti artists is any good. But at least it gives you the option of playing with the original graphics instead, in case you don't like the Remix version. Another problem (on the DS version, anyway) is that they overuse the stylus. The stylus actually makes sense as a trackball alternative, but they didn't even give the option of using the joypad instead. And that's just mean. While I think the touch screen is one of the coolest features of the DS, I do wish the game companies wouldn't force us to use it as a primary means of control.
One of the better classics compilations, at least in presentation, is "Activision Anthology" for the GBA. Now we're talking about a serious collection, with over 50 games on it. Unfortunately, they're Atari 2600 games, which means they're extremely dated. But Activision always did make the best games for the Atari (Pitfall, Chopper Command, etc), so you're still getting the cream of the crop. And again, twitch games - you really don't need good graphics to have fun.
One of the most confusing is Namco's GBA releases. First they released "Namco Museum" with the following games: Galaxian, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, and Dig Dug. Then they released "Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" which included Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Dig Dug, and Bosconian. For the same system. I just don't get it. Hopefully when they get around to making a DS collection, they'll use their heads.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
She's Got a Chicken to Ride...
This is how lunatics entertain themselves:
A "Mondegreen" is a misunderstood song lyric. The term was invented when a certain author misheard "upon the green" as "mondegreen". The example I hear of most is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" instead of "kiss the sky". You can find mondegreen web sites all over the web, just Google "misheard song lyrics". There's a good database at www.kissthisguy.com.
While some are more well-known than others, none of them are universal. There's oodles of different ways people sing the lyrics to "Louie Louie". And just ask 10 different people what Springsteen says after "Blinded by the light..." I think my favorite Mondegreen is the one Phoebe mentions in an episode of Friends, the Elton John song that says, "Hold me closer Tony Danza..."
I have a slight hearing problem. Noises aren't too quiet; I hear volume just fine. But if there's any interfering noises, I have trouble picking out the sounds I want to hear. So I have a big problem with song lyrics, because the instruments are too distracting. As such, I can have a favorite song that I've heard for years, without ever having memorized the lyrics. So I got in the habit of making up my own.
You probably pity KJ about right now.
These days, most of my alternate lyrics aren't really "mondegreens", as I've pretty much gotten into the habit of singing the wrong words to every song on the radio, whether I understand the actual words or not. You can probably blame Weird Al. He's always been one of my favorite performers, and ever since I first heard of him in the 80s, I've been coming up with my own alternate lyrics for popular songs. The main difference being, I suck at it. In college, my buddy Alan and I came up with lots of odd lyrics, and we completely rewrote "Here's a Quarter" with our version titled, "Ned McWhorter Just Fell Down The Stairs". ("Call someone who glistens... and might live on Spam... or one of them chocolate eclairs...")
A couple of years later I started singing this version of the song "I Swear": "I swear... Like a sailor with tacks in his boot... I swear... Like a soldier who just shot his foot... Whenever there's trouble, whenever there's pain, Whenever I just washed the car and it rains, I swear..."
But most of the time it's not nearly that complex or thought out. There's a lot of commonly used words in songs that I just automatically substitute with other words, often without even thinking about it. For example, I often replace "love" with "slug". This works well both as a noun ("You Can't Hurry Slugs") and a verb ("Slug The One You're With"). However, if the context has someone "falling in" love, then I replace love with "lava" ("Don't Fall In Lava").
I also replace "peace" with "peas", for example: "Carry on my wayward son... There'll be peas when you have corn." One of the sillier things I do is replace "way" with "curds" (curds and whey, get it?), as in, "Oooooh, baby I love your curds..." On the rare occasion I hear the song "I Fall To Pieces, I sing the words, ""I swallow Reese's..." Lets see... instead of "Heaven Is A Place On Earth", I sing, "Heaven Is A Place With Smurfs."
One December at work, the radio station would alternate between Christmas songs and classic rock. It was kind of surreal, one minute you'd be listening to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", the next minute they'd be playing the Stones' "Paint It Black". Which led me to start singing, "I see a reindeer and I want it painted black..." Now that you've read that, I dare you to try to hear the song again without thinking that.
Sometimes I'll come up with something subconsiously, and sing it without even knowing I'm singing it, regardless of who's around. Luckily only KJ was in the car when I belted out this highly perverse alternate verse for "I Will Follow Him" (Warning, not for young eyes): "I love him, I love him, I love him, and when he comes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow..." I've probably ruined that song for you for life.
Anybody else got any favorites they want to post here?
A "Mondegreen" is a misunderstood song lyric. The term was invented when a certain author misheard "upon the green" as "mondegreen". The example I hear of most is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" instead of "kiss the sky". You can find mondegreen web sites all over the web, just Google "misheard song lyrics". There's a good database at www.kissthisguy.com.
While some are more well-known than others, none of them are universal. There's oodles of different ways people sing the lyrics to "Louie Louie". And just ask 10 different people what Springsteen says after "Blinded by the light..." I think my favorite Mondegreen is the one Phoebe mentions in an episode of Friends, the Elton John song that says, "Hold me closer Tony Danza..."
I have a slight hearing problem. Noises aren't too quiet; I hear volume just fine. But if there's any interfering noises, I have trouble picking out the sounds I want to hear. So I have a big problem with song lyrics, because the instruments are too distracting. As such, I can have a favorite song that I've heard for years, without ever having memorized the lyrics. So I got in the habit of making up my own.
You probably pity KJ about right now.
These days, most of my alternate lyrics aren't really "mondegreens", as I've pretty much gotten into the habit of singing the wrong words to every song on the radio, whether I understand the actual words or not. You can probably blame Weird Al. He's always been one of my favorite performers, and ever since I first heard of him in the 80s, I've been coming up with my own alternate lyrics for popular songs. The main difference being, I suck at it. In college, my buddy Alan and I came up with lots of odd lyrics, and we completely rewrote "Here's a Quarter" with our version titled, "Ned McWhorter Just Fell Down The Stairs". ("Call someone who glistens... and might live on Spam... or one of them chocolate eclairs...")
A couple of years later I started singing this version of the song "I Swear": "I swear... Like a sailor with tacks in his boot... I swear... Like a soldier who just shot his foot... Whenever there's trouble, whenever there's pain, Whenever I just washed the car and it rains, I swear..."
But most of the time it's not nearly that complex or thought out. There's a lot of commonly used words in songs that I just automatically substitute with other words, often without even thinking about it. For example, I often replace "love" with "slug". This works well both as a noun ("You Can't Hurry Slugs") and a verb ("Slug The One You're With"). However, if the context has someone "falling in" love, then I replace love with "lava" ("Don't Fall In Lava").
I also replace "peace" with "peas", for example: "Carry on my wayward son... There'll be peas when you have corn." One of the sillier things I do is replace "way" with "curds" (curds and whey, get it?), as in, "Oooooh, baby I love your curds..." On the rare occasion I hear the song "I Fall To Pieces, I sing the words, ""I swallow Reese's..." Lets see... instead of "Heaven Is A Place On Earth", I sing, "Heaven Is A Place With Smurfs."
One December at work, the radio station would alternate between Christmas songs and classic rock. It was kind of surreal, one minute you'd be listening to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", the next minute they'd be playing the Stones' "Paint It Black". Which led me to start singing, "I see a reindeer and I want it painted black..." Now that you've read that, I dare you to try to hear the song again without thinking that.
Sometimes I'll come up with something subconsiously, and sing it without even knowing I'm singing it, regardless of who's around. Luckily only KJ was in the car when I belted out this highly perverse alternate verse for "I Will Follow Him" (Warning, not for young eyes): "I love him, I love him, I love him, and when he comes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow..." I've probably ruined that song for you for life.
Anybody else got any favorites they want to post here?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
My Harry Potter Predictions
Warning: This blog assumes you have read the first six books, and may contain spoilers.
I only have a couple of iron-clad predictions for the next Harry Potter book: It will make bazillions of dollars, and someone's going to spoil the ending for me before I manage to finish reading it. Beyond that, your guess is really as good as mine. However, here's a few Q&As that have been buzzing around my head:
Is Harry going to die?
It certainly looks like he is, which is exactly why I think he won't. So many people are worried about Harry's fate in the upcoming book. By now, anyone who's read the sixth book (The Half-Blood Prince) has pondered whether Harry is a horcrux. When Voldemort zapped baby Harry, he was transferring part of himself into the kid. That's also why Voldy hasn't been able to kill him, because doing so would kill Voldemort himself. Sure, Dumbledore told Harry that he was protected by hi Mother's love or some crap, but that was so Harry wouldn't find out he was a horcrux. In Book 6 it was revealed that Harry has to find and destroy all the horcruxes in order to be rid of Voldemort forever. So it really looks like the only way to kill Voldemort is to kill Harry Potter.
But the fact that people already see this, is what tells me it won't happen. When I read the first book, I was sure Snape was the one trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. There was so much foreshadowing, that it had to be true. Yeah, it could have been a red herring, but I knew it was a children's book, so it wouldn't be that deep. And yet it was. I think Rowling is once again trying to trick us. There are so many people out there who already think they know how Book 7 is going to end, that it can't possibly end that way.
My guess is that sometime in the first half of Book 7, Harry is going to figure out that he's a horcrux. He's going to go through the rest of the book believing he's going to have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Then, at the end, there's going to be a twist that allows him to live.
One more thing: I've heard several people say, "Harry's death is the only way it can end." Then they'll go on about things like honor, duty, a boy becoming a man and realizing that he has to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, yada yada yada. I don't care how it's presented, killing Harry would be a piss-poor way to end the series. I have really enjoyed the series so far, and I have to believe that I'm going to enjoy Book 7 as well. I believe that overall, I'm going to have a great impression of the series, and I'll want to read all seven again someday. But if Harry dies, I probably won't like the series as much. Therefore, the boy will live. I know that's not exactly logical reasoning, but that's what I believe.
Is Dumbledore really dead?
When the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) was on its way out, Rowling announced that someone was going to die in it. When I got to the book's climax, I knew someone was going to die soon. But when I read the death scene itself, I said, "Was that it?" That's the scene that made Rowling says made her cry when she wrote it? Sirius Black didn't die, he fell through a door. What a freaking cop-out. She could bring him back any time she feels like it. In a magical world, a true death scene requires things like, I don't know, a BODY. I mean, look at Peter Pettigrew. They assumed he'd been disintegrated when they found his finger.
But Dumbledore's case is a little different. They found a body, plus his picture was in the painting. But I'm still a little suspicious. For starters, the way it happened - Snape shoots Dumbledore, Dumbledore falls over the edge. Later they find his body on the ground. When I read it, my first thought was, "That's when they pulled the switch". What kind of switch, I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore zapped himself into the painting. But for some reason I have doubts regarding whethert it was actually Dumbledore's body they found on the ground.
Maybe Dumbledore will be back in the next book. Maybe he'll appear towards the end, just in time to tell Harry how to kill Voldy without dying himself. Maybe Dumbledore will even die again at the end of Book 7, sacrificing himself to save Harry. Or not. I don't know.
Book 7 is going to be so different from the others. The first six were so formulaic - they start with Harry at the Dursley's house, then he goes to school, it goes through the entire school year, then he goes back to the Dursleys. Dumbledore is also a strong part of the formula. He's like a Dungeonmaster, indirectly guiding Harry through his adventures, giving Harry hints and accomplishing through Harry what he can't do himself, then explaining it all at the end of the book. But with Harry not going back to Hogwarts, and no Dumbledore to guide him, and Harry having grown up so much by now, this book is going to break the formula all kinds of ways. Which makes it much harder to predict.
Is Snape really a bad guy?
The best I can say, is that there's still more to Snape than meets the eye. I know, "Duh." Rowling fooled us in the first book, it wouldn't be unlike her to do it again. Potter fans are quick to point out that in Book 6, when Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster's pleas are sort of ambiguous. Is Dumbledore pleading for Snape not to kill him? Highly doubtful, that just doesn't sound like him. The way the scene plays out, it's almost as if Dumbledore and Snape had some sort of plan, and "killing" Dumbledore was part of the plan.
So who will die in Book 7?
Beats me. I really hope that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny stay alive. If one of them does die, my money's on Ron. On the other hand, Rowling did a lot of pushing characters together in the sixth book. The whole Harry/Ginny thing seemed a little rushed and/or forced. I can't help but wonder if Rowling needed one more emotional card to play in Book 7, one more potential tragedy for Harry to overcome before the final battle.
Will there ever be another Harry Potter Book?
Rowling has made it very clear that this is meant to be a seven-book series. However, this is also the first thing she's ever written. She doesn't know a damn thing about the curses from which writers suffer. Often you think a story is over and done with, and then your brain starts imagining further scenerios for your characters. Eventually you can't stop obsessing until you write them down. I have no doubt Rowling will take a nice long break from the Potterverse after Book 7 hits the shelves. Maybe she'll start spending more time with her family, or maybe she'll start writing something else. But sooner or later she's going to get the itch to revisit Harry's world. Maybe she'll give in to the temptation, maybe she won't.
I only have a couple of iron-clad predictions for the next Harry Potter book: It will make bazillions of dollars, and someone's going to spoil the ending for me before I manage to finish reading it. Beyond that, your guess is really as good as mine. However, here's a few Q&As that have been buzzing around my head:
Is Harry going to die?
It certainly looks like he is, which is exactly why I think he won't. So many people are worried about Harry's fate in the upcoming book. By now, anyone who's read the sixth book (The Half-Blood Prince) has pondered whether Harry is a horcrux. When Voldemort zapped baby Harry, he was transferring part of himself into the kid. That's also why Voldy hasn't been able to kill him, because doing so would kill Voldemort himself. Sure, Dumbledore told Harry that he was protected by hi Mother's love or some crap, but that was so Harry wouldn't find out he was a horcrux. In Book 6 it was revealed that Harry has to find and destroy all the horcruxes in order to be rid of Voldemort forever. So it really looks like the only way to kill Voldemort is to kill Harry Potter.
But the fact that people already see this, is what tells me it won't happen. When I read the first book, I was sure Snape was the one trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. There was so much foreshadowing, that it had to be true. Yeah, it could have been a red herring, but I knew it was a children's book, so it wouldn't be that deep. And yet it was. I think Rowling is once again trying to trick us. There are so many people out there who already think they know how Book 7 is going to end, that it can't possibly end that way.
My guess is that sometime in the first half of Book 7, Harry is going to figure out that he's a horcrux. He's going to go through the rest of the book believing he's going to have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Then, at the end, there's going to be a twist that allows him to live.
One more thing: I've heard several people say, "Harry's death is the only way it can end." Then they'll go on about things like honor, duty, a boy becoming a man and realizing that he has to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, yada yada yada. I don't care how it's presented, killing Harry would be a piss-poor way to end the series. I have really enjoyed the series so far, and I have to believe that I'm going to enjoy Book 7 as well. I believe that overall, I'm going to have a great impression of the series, and I'll want to read all seven again someday. But if Harry dies, I probably won't like the series as much. Therefore, the boy will live. I know that's not exactly logical reasoning, but that's what I believe.
Is Dumbledore really dead?
When the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) was on its way out, Rowling announced that someone was going to die in it. When I got to the book's climax, I knew someone was going to die soon. But when I read the death scene itself, I said, "Was that it?" That's the scene that made Rowling says made her cry when she wrote it? Sirius Black didn't die, he fell through a door. What a freaking cop-out. She could bring him back any time she feels like it. In a magical world, a true death scene requires things like, I don't know, a BODY. I mean, look at Peter Pettigrew. They assumed he'd been disintegrated when they found his finger.
But Dumbledore's case is a little different. They found a body, plus his picture was in the painting. But I'm still a little suspicious. For starters, the way it happened - Snape shoots Dumbledore, Dumbledore falls over the edge. Later they find his body on the ground. When I read it, my first thought was, "That's when they pulled the switch". What kind of switch, I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore zapped himself into the painting. But for some reason I have doubts regarding whethert it was actually Dumbledore's body they found on the ground.
Maybe Dumbledore will be back in the next book. Maybe he'll appear towards the end, just in time to tell Harry how to kill Voldy without dying himself. Maybe Dumbledore will even die again at the end of Book 7, sacrificing himself to save Harry. Or not. I don't know.
Book 7 is going to be so different from the others. The first six were so formulaic - they start with Harry at the Dursley's house, then he goes to school, it goes through the entire school year, then he goes back to the Dursleys. Dumbledore is also a strong part of the formula. He's like a Dungeonmaster, indirectly guiding Harry through his adventures, giving Harry hints and accomplishing through Harry what he can't do himself, then explaining it all at the end of the book. But with Harry not going back to Hogwarts, and no Dumbledore to guide him, and Harry having grown up so much by now, this book is going to break the formula all kinds of ways. Which makes it much harder to predict.
Is Snape really a bad guy?
The best I can say, is that there's still more to Snape than meets the eye. I know, "Duh." Rowling fooled us in the first book, it wouldn't be unlike her to do it again. Potter fans are quick to point out that in Book 6, when Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster's pleas are sort of ambiguous. Is Dumbledore pleading for Snape not to kill him? Highly doubtful, that just doesn't sound like him. The way the scene plays out, it's almost as if Dumbledore and Snape had some sort of plan, and "killing" Dumbledore was part of the plan.
So who will die in Book 7?
Beats me. I really hope that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny stay alive. If one of them does die, my money's on Ron. On the other hand, Rowling did a lot of pushing characters together in the sixth book. The whole Harry/Ginny thing seemed a little rushed and/or forced. I can't help but wonder if Rowling needed one more emotional card to play in Book 7, one more potential tragedy for Harry to overcome before the final battle.
Will there ever be another Harry Potter Book?
Rowling has made it very clear that this is meant to be a seven-book series. However, this is also the first thing she's ever written. She doesn't know a damn thing about the curses from which writers suffer. Often you think a story is over and done with, and then your brain starts imagining further scenerios for your characters. Eventually you can't stop obsessing until you write them down. I have no doubt Rowling will take a nice long break from the Potterverse after Book 7 hits the shelves. Maybe she'll start spending more time with her family, or maybe she'll start writing something else. But sooner or later she's going to get the itch to revisit Harry's world. Maybe she'll give in to the temptation, maybe she won't.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Spider-Man 3 (And the usual theater rant)
Nashville friends, I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Regal Green Hills 16, at the Mall at Green Hills. Seriously, it's the only way I'll go to a theater on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a neighborhood full of conservative rich people, and the theater's management knows it. They throw out people who talk on cell phones or make too much noise, and I've never seen more well-behaved audiences. Plus, it's a Regal, which means comfortable stadium seating.
Last Saturday night was the worst experience I've ever had at that theater... and it was still pretty damn good. The audience was full of teenagers, and yes, some of them were talking (both to each other and on their cell phones). And yet overall, the room was still quieter than a Wednesday afternoon at any other theater. I remember when I saw "The Mummy Returns" on a Friday night at Hollywood 27, the audience reminded me of the theater scene in Gremlins.
I've noticed that people have started using their cell phones as flashlights when returning to their seats after a bathroom/concession break. Is this really neccessary? We got along fine before cell phones, and back then we didn't have those neat little light strips on the stairs. I guess technology really is making us helpless.
Another tip for the Green Hills theater: Park on the lowest level of the parking garage. Then when you leave the movie, use the lower level exit. You'll be right at your car.
Anyway, the movie. This is not going to be spoiler-free, so let me bottom-line it for you: If you liked the first two, this one is almost as good.
Before I saw Spider-Man 3, I read a lot of negative reviews. I agree with most of what the reviewers had to say - the script wasn't very good, the plot was a bit convoluted and contrived, and some of the emotional scenes were actually painful to watch. But it's a comic-book movie, and the worst thing a comic book movie can do is bore me. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Elektra!) Spidey 3 did not bore me; not even close.
The problem is the high bar set by Spideys 1 & 2. While still cheesy in their own right, those two were just good enough to trancend the status of "comic book movie", and were enjoyable even by people who don't know the difference between Marvel and DC. But I really think you'd have to be a fan of the comics (or at least the cartoons) to love Spidey 3. The movie is written so that fanboys could say things like, "Hey, that's Gwen Stacey! She was in the comic book!" It's also a bit less believable than the first two. Not that 1 & 2 were particularly believable, but they both had "science gone mad" themes that could classify them as "sci-fi" instead of just "comic book movies". This one is a definite comic book movie, no question.
I did not like Venom's "origin". He just comes to Earth from a meteor, like "The Blob". And just happens to touch down near Peter Parker. Gosh, how lucky can a symbiote get? It's like he was specifically trying to target someone with super powers, which would have been a neat plot point if they'd ever actually said it. Once he bonds with Peter's costume, it turns the suit black. No "suit grows around him" ability, and this version of Spidey already has organic web shooters, so it's a bit unclear how the suit really helps him. Spidey mentions that he feels more powerful, but since we really never knew the limits of his spider-strength, that's not as impressive as it could have been. Symbiotes are supposed to give back a little, ya know? All this one does is make Peter act like a jerk (complete with corny "Evil Peter" haircut). I mean, the nerve of some aliens; no wonder immigration laws are so tough.
The Sandman is given a backstory that ties in with Peter's, and has his own sob-story reasons for being a bad guy. If there were ever a series of movies to make you sympathetic for villains, this is it. Green Goblin? His experiments make him crazy. Doc Oc? Loses his wife, and his cybernetic implants make him crazy. Harry Osborn? Not really a "criminal" per se, but thinks Spider-Man killed his dad. And now Sandman, who is stealing to help his sick daughter. It's like the director is trying to say, "There are no bad people, just misunderstood people with different points of view." What I wouldn't give for a villain Spidey could pummel without saying, "I don't want to hurt you!" I suppose Venom fits the bill, but even Eddie Brock is under the influence of the symbiote (he just happens to like it).
Topher Grace as Eddie Brock - not the casting choice I would have made, but he does a great job. He's sleazy, slimey, and scuzzy; an unethical fast-talking greaseball with no depth. I honestly don't think I would have recognized the character as Topher Grace. Toby Macguire looks more like Eric Foreman than Topher does.
The movie's climax is extremely over-the-top and "comic-booky". The trap Venom and Sandman set for Spidey is melodramatic and grandiose, with giant evil spiderwebs and a dangling damsel and a super-sized Sandman. Venom still doesn't show much depth, and even at the end of the movie he's pretty much just an evil alien monster who looks like Spawn.
Peter Parker has trouble keeping his mask on. Throughout the trilogy, and especially in this one, he's constantly pulling it off at weird times, or having it yanked off by his enemies. I think the director wants us to see him as a person, instead of as a one dimensional comic book character. It's the whole "which is the disguise" debate regarding secret identities: Where "Bruce Wayne" is just an act that Batman sometimes puts on, "Spider-Man" is the act that Peter Parker puts on. Still, if my mask came off that easily, I think I'd consider investing in some velcro or something. And what happened to his Spider-Sense? There were a couple of great Spider-Sense scenes in 1 & 2, but in this movie it seems like they forgot all about it.
Overall it's a very fun - but very flawed - comic book movie. If you're the kind of person who likes that sort of thing, then I imagine you know it. There is talk of a fourth movie featuring Carnage and the Lizard. I would like to see that, but if it doesn't happen, I'm still happy. This movie wraps up the Harry & Peter story quite nicely. If they made a fourth one, I'd like to see Pete and MJ get married at the end, just to wrap up that storyline. But I don't want to see the series go beyond that; if Spidey 3 is any indication, there's no way they could keep up the quality.
Last Saturday night was the worst experience I've ever had at that theater... and it was still pretty damn good. The audience was full of teenagers, and yes, some of them were talking (both to each other and on their cell phones). And yet overall, the room was still quieter than a Wednesday afternoon at any other theater. I remember when I saw "The Mummy Returns" on a Friday night at Hollywood 27, the audience reminded me of the theater scene in Gremlins.
I've noticed that people have started using their cell phones as flashlights when returning to their seats after a bathroom/concession break. Is this really neccessary? We got along fine before cell phones, and back then we didn't have those neat little light strips on the stairs. I guess technology really is making us helpless.
Another tip for the Green Hills theater: Park on the lowest level of the parking garage. Then when you leave the movie, use the lower level exit. You'll be right at your car.
Anyway, the movie. This is not going to be spoiler-free, so let me bottom-line it for you: If you liked the first two, this one is almost as good.
Before I saw Spider-Man 3, I read a lot of negative reviews. I agree with most of what the reviewers had to say - the script wasn't very good, the plot was a bit convoluted and contrived, and some of the emotional scenes were actually painful to watch. But it's a comic-book movie, and the worst thing a comic book movie can do is bore me. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Elektra!) Spidey 3 did not bore me; not even close.
The problem is the high bar set by Spideys 1 & 2. While still cheesy in their own right, those two were just good enough to trancend the status of "comic book movie", and were enjoyable even by people who don't know the difference between Marvel and DC. But I really think you'd have to be a fan of the comics (or at least the cartoons) to love Spidey 3. The movie is written so that fanboys could say things like, "Hey, that's Gwen Stacey! She was in the comic book!" It's also a bit less believable than the first two. Not that 1 & 2 were particularly believable, but they both had "science gone mad" themes that could classify them as "sci-fi" instead of just "comic book movies". This one is a definite comic book movie, no question.
I did not like Venom's "origin". He just comes to Earth from a meteor, like "The Blob". And just happens to touch down near Peter Parker. Gosh, how lucky can a symbiote get? It's like he was specifically trying to target someone with super powers, which would have been a neat plot point if they'd ever actually said it. Once he bonds with Peter's costume, it turns the suit black. No "suit grows around him" ability, and this version of Spidey already has organic web shooters, so it's a bit unclear how the suit really helps him. Spidey mentions that he feels more powerful, but since we really never knew the limits of his spider-strength, that's not as impressive as it could have been. Symbiotes are supposed to give back a little, ya know? All this one does is make Peter act like a jerk (complete with corny "Evil Peter" haircut). I mean, the nerve of some aliens; no wonder immigration laws are so tough.
The Sandman is given a backstory that ties in with Peter's, and has his own sob-story reasons for being a bad guy. If there were ever a series of movies to make you sympathetic for villains, this is it. Green Goblin? His experiments make him crazy. Doc Oc? Loses his wife, and his cybernetic implants make him crazy. Harry Osborn? Not really a "criminal" per se, but thinks Spider-Man killed his dad. And now Sandman, who is stealing to help his sick daughter. It's like the director is trying to say, "There are no bad people, just misunderstood people with different points of view." What I wouldn't give for a villain Spidey could pummel without saying, "I don't want to hurt you!" I suppose Venom fits the bill, but even Eddie Brock is under the influence of the symbiote (he just happens to like it).
Topher Grace as Eddie Brock - not the casting choice I would have made, but he does a great job. He's sleazy, slimey, and scuzzy; an unethical fast-talking greaseball with no depth. I honestly don't think I would have recognized the character as Topher Grace. Toby Macguire looks more like Eric Foreman than Topher does.
The movie's climax is extremely over-the-top and "comic-booky". The trap Venom and Sandman set for Spidey is melodramatic and grandiose, with giant evil spiderwebs and a dangling damsel and a super-sized Sandman. Venom still doesn't show much depth, and even at the end of the movie he's pretty much just an evil alien monster who looks like Spawn.
Peter Parker has trouble keeping his mask on. Throughout the trilogy, and especially in this one, he's constantly pulling it off at weird times, or having it yanked off by his enemies. I think the director wants us to see him as a person, instead of as a one dimensional comic book character. It's the whole "which is the disguise" debate regarding secret identities: Where "Bruce Wayne" is just an act that Batman sometimes puts on, "Spider-Man" is the act that Peter Parker puts on. Still, if my mask came off that easily, I think I'd consider investing in some velcro or something. And what happened to his Spider-Sense? There were a couple of great Spider-Sense scenes in 1 & 2, but in this movie it seems like they forgot all about it.
Overall it's a very fun - but very flawed - comic book movie. If you're the kind of person who likes that sort of thing, then I imagine you know it. There is talk of a fourth movie featuring Carnage and the Lizard. I would like to see that, but if it doesn't happen, I'm still happy. This movie wraps up the Harry & Peter story quite nicely. If they made a fourth one, I'd like to see Pete and MJ get married at the end, just to wrap up that storyline. But I don't want to see the series go beyond that; if Spidey 3 is any indication, there's no way they could keep up the quality.
Monday, April 23, 2007
VA Tech Shooting Caused by Talking Alien Raccoons
...at least, somebody probably thinks so. I'd like to tell you that the actual headlines aren't quite as silly (or in as poor taste), but at this point I honestly can't.
The bodies weren't even cold yet, and the media's biggest attention-hounds were already trying to use the tragedy to support their own agenda. Let's take Jack Thompson, for instance. He hates video games so much, that he scans the newspaper every day for atrocities he can blame on them. So when something like the Virginia Tech shooting happens, good ol' JT already has his speech nearly written; he just has to fill in the specific names and dates. The good news is, nobody has to pay attention to anything Thompson says any more, because you can pretty much guess it. A postal worker goes on a shooting spree? Must have been playing GTA. Peeping tom terrorizes neighborhood? Must've learned his voyeuristic habits from playing The Sims. Obesity on the rise? Blame Pac-Man. World Trade Center attacks? The terrorists must've been playing Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Jack Thompson blames the VA Tech shootings on Counterstrike. Dr. Phil also agrees that video games must have been an influence. Neither has any actual evidence to base this on - no games were found in Cho Seung Hui's possession, and his roommate confirmed that he never saw Cho playing them. But why mess up a perfectly good theory with facts? Meanwhile, Reverend Fred Phelps, head of the charming "God Hates America" and "God Hates Fags" websites, is claiming that the tragedy is yet more evidence that America is being punished for its sins (you know, like tolerating homosexuals)... and is using it as an excuse to disrupt the funerals. And Christian news website "One News Now" somehow managed to blame the shootings on the fact that evolution is being taught in public schools.
When people accuse this of being a "blameless society", it usually means that it's the criminals who come up with excuses for what they've done. But now it's not just the perpetrators making the excuses; everyone wants to get in on the act. Now bear with me. Isn't it possible - even remotely - that the shooting had nothing to do with God or video games or evolution or violent movies or karma or astrology or Harry Potter? Isn't it possible that Cho Seung Hui is just an asshole? Can we please let a tragedy go by without trying to blame it on whatever "hot button" is currently vogue? When you come up with ridiculous objects of blame, all you're doing is helping the criminals by giving them new things to try in court.
Now, I'm all for examining Mr. Hui to find out how his brain works. I'll happily allow my tax dollars to go towards researching the psychopathic mind. Anything to keep this kind of thing from happening again. But Jack Thompson, Fred Phelps, and the rest of these loudmouths aren't trying to probe a killer's mind. They're just furthering their own careers, and playing "the blame game" without a shred of real evidence to support their opinions.
Related Articles/Sites:
Reverend Fred Phelps / God Hates America
Thompson Blames Video Games For Virginia Tech Shooting
Dr. Phil Blames Video Games for Virginia Tech Massacre
Creationist: Teaching 'evolution-only' dampens respect for human life
Warrant Reveals No Games In Cho Seung Hui's Posession
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Obligatory Star Wars Blog
I figured that if I didn't post at least one "Star Wars"-related blog, they'd revoke my geek license. For the past couple of weeks, KJ and I have been re-watching the Star Wars movies. Even though we didn't make it a one-day marathon, it's still the first time we'd watched the entire series in sequential order. And we hadn't seen any Star Wars movies since Episode III was still in the theaters, well over a year ago. To non-Starwoids, this might not seem like that long a time. But to people like us, going that long without Star Wars is blasphemy.
When each Prequel hit the theater, many die-hard Star Wars fans felt betrayed and angry. Lucas didn't write it exactly the way some fans would have. Lucas left out things that some fans wanted to see. Whine whine whine, gripe gripe gripe. Some fans were so pissed off at Episode I, that they only saw Episode II twice on opening day. It's quite funny to see someone spend all day standing in line, waiting to be the first person to buy a ticket for Episode III, and seeing him pass the time by complaining about how badly Episode II sucked.
I had complaints too, but the damage has been done, and time heals all wounds. This time I was able to watch the Prequel trilogy with fresh eyes, and see them for what they were, not what they weren't. I was able to look at them more objectively, both as Star Wars movies, and as ordinary Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies.
And I've got to say, the Prequels have been judged way too harshly. Just like the original trilogy, the prequels are fun, pretty, imaginative, and action-filled. They aren't serious movies, and they should not be judged as such. The classic trilogy wasn't serious either; it was the rabid fans who made Star Wars out to be more than it really was. Lucas set out to make an homage to the old, campy serials. It was the fans who tried to turn that into serious sci-fi.
It's hard not to take them seriously. Most of us geeks have been watching the original trilogy over and over since we were younglings. Movies like that become a part of you. Not in the trite "I laughed, I cried, it became a part of me" sense, but I mean, movies like that help form and shape your mind. Questioning the perfection of Star Wars is like questioning other aspects of your personality. Do I really enjoy video games? Yes. Do I really like denim jackets? Yes. Did Han shoot Greedo first? Yes.
And that's why we're so resistent to change. Fans have seen Greedo get shot so many times, that the scene has gelled in their heads. It's simply fact now. They're as sure of it as they're sure of gravity, Abraham Lincoln, and microwave burritos. So when George came along with the "Special Editions" that changed facts around a little, it broke many a fan's basic understanding of the universe. But it was good that George did that, because it softened the blow for the Prequels.
When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was groundbreaking; there just wasn't anything like at the time. It paved the way for mass-market space fantasy. So when "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" was released in 1999, fans were ready for the Second Coming of Christ. Would Lucas be able to do it again? Expectations were impossible to live up to, which made the disappointment all the worse. Yeah, Jar Jar was annoying. So? He wasn't the movie, he was the comic relief. If you don't like it, then don't laugh. And sure, Jake Lloyd couldn't act. Got news for ya, most kids his age can't act. Sure there's exceptions (Osmet, Fanning, and those lifelike robots they build for those Welch's commercials), but for the most part, you have to judge kids on a different scale.
You can complain all day about midichlorians, but there's really no reason to. The fact that Lucas rationalized a way to gauge how force-sensitive a Jedi is, in no way lessens the mystical coolness of the Force itself. Really, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it's a bit boring. With only a couple of really great action scenes, it just doesn't stand up to repeated viewings. No, wait, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it has a fart joke. I could have done without that.
You know how when you really expect something to be bad, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? I personally believe that by the time "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" hit the theaters, Star Wars fans had already decided that the Prequels were going to suck. That's the only explanation I can come up with. Just like Phantom Menace, I saw it on opening night, and the crowd loved every minute of it. When the final credits rolled, I said, "Thank God, that'll satisfy the critics. Lucas has made up for the first one."
So naturally I was floored when I started visiting Star Wars message boards, and found out that this one was just as unpopular. I could understand the flaws they'd found in Episode I, but this time I knew George had a hit. Which is not to say I don't see the flaws, I just don't think the bad outweighed the good this time.
Okay, fine, Hayden isn't a very good actor. What's worse, he tends to drag down the performances of those around him. Natalie Portman isn't bad, but her scenes with Hayden make her look brain-dead. The love story isn't very well-written, which was a great disappointment to those hoping for another Han/Leia dynamic. And oh, this time the comic relief consists of bad C3P0 puns - not nearly as painful as watching Jar Jar bump into things, in my opinion.
So yeah, there is some stuff to dislike, but where else are you going to see an army of lightsaber-swinging Jedi battle insect people and space robots? And if that sounds cheesy to you, let me remind you that the title of the movie is "Attack of the Clones"... Shakespeare enthusiasts look elsewhere. It's still a delight watching Palpatine play two armies against each other for his own political gain, and watching Yoda kick ass is just plain fun.
Now, "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" was exceptionally good. Almost "Classic Trilogy" good, and that's really saying something. Yeah, Hayden still can't act, but we're used to it by this point. And even Palpatine chews up the scenery a little bit, in the scenes right after his face gets melted. That disappointed me - up until that point, he had been the best actor in the trilogy. But for a few minutes in Episode III, he reminds me of the type of villain you'd see in a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode. And why did Lucas feel the need to melt Palpatine's face in the first place? I'd always assumed his face got that way through years of channelling the evil of the Dark Side. I really didn't need this explanation.
But a few gripes do not destroy a movie. As much as there was to dislike, there was a lot more to love. And yet, I've still seen a lot of websites that flat-out say, "The Prequels were stupid." Now, let's be serious here. The prequels are very different from each other, and yet share a lot of similarities with the Classic Trilogy. If you can honestly tell me that you hate all three Prequels, but love all three of the Classic Trilogy, then I've got some sad news for you. You don't really like Star Wars at all, and every bit of passion you think you have for the Classic Trilogy, is really just nostalgia. Or maybe it's the other way around, and every bit of hatred you have for the Prequels is just pettyness.
If you had never seen any of the Star Wars movies in your life, then you decided to watch all six in a row right now, I seriously doubt you'd come back saying, "I hated 1-3, but loved 4-6." You might like four of them, or two of them, or one Prequel and two Classics, or some other odd combination. But those of you who think that the Classics are God, and the Prequels are manure - you're just fooling yourselves. My advice? Do what we did. Spend a year or two without Star Wars, then watch all six in a row. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to figure out how you really feel.
Btw, the same goes for those of you who hate the "Special Editions" of 4-6. Yeah, sure, George screwed up your childhood memories a litte. But if you'd just get past that, you'd realize that they really are superior versions of the movies. You can argue all day about whether Han shot Greedo first, but you'd be missing the point. Those are tiny details of an epic legend, the kind of things that change each time the story is retold. The beauty of the Special Edition DVDs is that they look like the Prequel trilogy.
I specify "DVDs" because the Special Editions are much improved now from when they were released in the theaters in the late 90s. In fact, when I saw the Special Editions in the theaters, as much as I liked them, even I thought they were sort of gimmicky, and the new stuff stood out too much from the old stuff. Not so much with the DVD releases. Every frame is bright and colorful, (nearly) every special effect is realistic. When you watch all six in a row, it's much harder to distinguish the older ones from the newer, giving the entire series a uniform look.
The Prequels and Special Editions disappointed a lot of people, but what's done is done. If you let yourself forget the quibbles, and stop obsessing over how you thought the movies should have been written, then you'll find that it's a fun set of movies. I remember after Episode I came out, I saw an online petition where people were trying to get George Lucas not to direct the other two. In fact, fans were trying to get Peter Jackson to direct II and III. Now, I love the "Lord of the Rings" movies nearly as much as Star Wars. But this is the same LOTR Trilogy in which Samwise excretes the line, "I can't carry it for you... but I... can carry... you!" Clearly one of the cheesiest scenes in cinema history, but we love it anyway. Why? Because at that point, we're so sucked into the movie, that cheesiness whizzes right over our heads. Star Wars is no different. If you let yourself get sucked in, you'll have a great time.
When each Prequel hit the theater, many die-hard Star Wars fans felt betrayed and angry. Lucas didn't write it exactly the way some fans would have. Lucas left out things that some fans wanted to see. Whine whine whine, gripe gripe gripe. Some fans were so pissed off at Episode I, that they only saw Episode II twice on opening day. It's quite funny to see someone spend all day standing in line, waiting to be the first person to buy a ticket for Episode III, and seeing him pass the time by complaining about how badly Episode II sucked.
I had complaints too, but the damage has been done, and time heals all wounds. This time I was able to watch the Prequel trilogy with fresh eyes, and see them for what they were, not what they weren't. I was able to look at them more objectively, both as Star Wars movies, and as ordinary Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies.
And I've got to say, the Prequels have been judged way too harshly. Just like the original trilogy, the prequels are fun, pretty, imaginative, and action-filled. They aren't serious movies, and they should not be judged as such. The classic trilogy wasn't serious either; it was the rabid fans who made Star Wars out to be more than it really was. Lucas set out to make an homage to the old, campy serials. It was the fans who tried to turn that into serious sci-fi.
It's hard not to take them seriously. Most of us geeks have been watching the original trilogy over and over since we were younglings. Movies like that become a part of you. Not in the trite "I laughed, I cried, it became a part of me" sense, but I mean, movies like that help form and shape your mind. Questioning the perfection of Star Wars is like questioning other aspects of your personality. Do I really enjoy video games? Yes. Do I really like denim jackets? Yes. Did Han shoot Greedo first? Yes.
And that's why we're so resistent to change. Fans have seen Greedo get shot so many times, that the scene has gelled in their heads. It's simply fact now. They're as sure of it as they're sure of gravity, Abraham Lincoln, and microwave burritos. So when George came along with the "Special Editions" that changed facts around a little, it broke many a fan's basic understanding of the universe. But it was good that George did that, because it softened the blow for the Prequels.
When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was groundbreaking; there just wasn't anything like at the time. It paved the way for mass-market space fantasy. So when "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" was released in 1999, fans were ready for the Second Coming of Christ. Would Lucas be able to do it again? Expectations were impossible to live up to, which made the disappointment all the worse. Yeah, Jar Jar was annoying. So? He wasn't the movie, he was the comic relief. If you don't like it, then don't laugh. And sure, Jake Lloyd couldn't act. Got news for ya, most kids his age can't act. Sure there's exceptions (Osmet, Fanning, and those lifelike robots they build for those Welch's commercials), but for the most part, you have to judge kids on a different scale.
You can complain all day about midichlorians, but there's really no reason to. The fact that Lucas rationalized a way to gauge how force-sensitive a Jedi is, in no way lessens the mystical coolness of the Force itself. Really, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it's a bit boring. With only a couple of really great action scenes, it just doesn't stand up to repeated viewings. No, wait, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it has a fart joke. I could have done without that.
You know how when you really expect something to be bad, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? I personally believe that by the time "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" hit the theaters, Star Wars fans had already decided that the Prequels were going to suck. That's the only explanation I can come up with. Just like Phantom Menace, I saw it on opening night, and the crowd loved every minute of it. When the final credits rolled, I said, "Thank God, that'll satisfy the critics. Lucas has made up for the first one."
So naturally I was floored when I started visiting Star Wars message boards, and found out that this one was just as unpopular. I could understand the flaws they'd found in Episode I, but this time I knew George had a hit. Which is not to say I don't see the flaws, I just don't think the bad outweighed the good this time.
Okay, fine, Hayden isn't a very good actor. What's worse, he tends to drag down the performances of those around him. Natalie Portman isn't bad, but her scenes with Hayden make her look brain-dead. The love story isn't very well-written, which was a great disappointment to those hoping for another Han/Leia dynamic. And oh, this time the comic relief consists of bad C3P0 puns - not nearly as painful as watching Jar Jar bump into things, in my opinion.
So yeah, there is some stuff to dislike, but where else are you going to see an army of lightsaber-swinging Jedi battle insect people and space robots? And if that sounds cheesy to you, let me remind you that the title of the movie is "Attack of the Clones"... Shakespeare enthusiasts look elsewhere. It's still a delight watching Palpatine play two armies against each other for his own political gain, and watching Yoda kick ass is just plain fun.
Now, "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" was exceptionally good. Almost "Classic Trilogy" good, and that's really saying something. Yeah, Hayden still can't act, but we're used to it by this point. And even Palpatine chews up the scenery a little bit, in the scenes right after his face gets melted. That disappointed me - up until that point, he had been the best actor in the trilogy. But for a few minutes in Episode III, he reminds me of the type of villain you'd see in a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode. And why did Lucas feel the need to melt Palpatine's face in the first place? I'd always assumed his face got that way through years of channelling the evil of the Dark Side. I really didn't need this explanation.
But a few gripes do not destroy a movie. As much as there was to dislike, there was a lot more to love. And yet, I've still seen a lot of websites that flat-out say, "The Prequels were stupid." Now, let's be serious here. The prequels are very different from each other, and yet share a lot of similarities with the Classic Trilogy. If you can honestly tell me that you hate all three Prequels, but love all three of the Classic Trilogy, then I've got some sad news for you. You don't really like Star Wars at all, and every bit of passion you think you have for the Classic Trilogy, is really just nostalgia. Or maybe it's the other way around, and every bit of hatred you have for the Prequels is just pettyness.
If you had never seen any of the Star Wars movies in your life, then you decided to watch all six in a row right now, I seriously doubt you'd come back saying, "I hated 1-3, but loved 4-6." You might like four of them, or two of them, or one Prequel and two Classics, or some other odd combination. But those of you who think that the Classics are God, and the Prequels are manure - you're just fooling yourselves. My advice? Do what we did. Spend a year or two without Star Wars, then watch all six in a row. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to figure out how you really feel.
Btw, the same goes for those of you who hate the "Special Editions" of 4-6. Yeah, sure, George screwed up your childhood memories a litte. But if you'd just get past that, you'd realize that they really are superior versions of the movies. You can argue all day about whether Han shot Greedo first, but you'd be missing the point. Those are tiny details of an epic legend, the kind of things that change each time the story is retold. The beauty of the Special Edition DVDs is that they look like the Prequel trilogy.
I specify "DVDs" because the Special Editions are much improved now from when they were released in the theaters in the late 90s. In fact, when I saw the Special Editions in the theaters, as much as I liked them, even I thought they were sort of gimmicky, and the new stuff stood out too much from the old stuff. Not so much with the DVD releases. Every frame is bright and colorful, (nearly) every special effect is realistic. When you watch all six in a row, it's much harder to distinguish the older ones from the newer, giving the entire series a uniform look.
The Prequels and Special Editions disappointed a lot of people, but what's done is done. If you let yourself forget the quibbles, and stop obsessing over how you thought the movies should have been written, then you'll find that it's a fun set of movies. I remember after Episode I came out, I saw an online petition where people were trying to get George Lucas not to direct the other two. In fact, fans were trying to get Peter Jackson to direct II and III. Now, I love the "Lord of the Rings" movies nearly as much as Star Wars. But this is the same LOTR Trilogy in which Samwise excretes the line, "I can't carry it for you... but I... can carry... you!" Clearly one of the cheesiest scenes in cinema history, but we love it anyway. Why? Because at that point, we're so sucked into the movie, that cheesiness whizzes right over our heads. Star Wars is no different. If you let yourself get sucked in, you'll have a great time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)