Covering three:
The Avengers
I didn't bother blogging this one when it came out, because it was just too obvious. I simply can not imagine a better super hero movie, unless Avengers 2 is just two hours of Black Widow making out with Pepper Potts. If you haven't seen the Avengers yet, you owe me $5 stupidity tax. By the way, I've seen it with and without 3D, and it was beautiful both ways. The 3D is great but not required, so use your own judgement there.
Amazing Spider-Man
This was fun, but I liked the other trilogy better. And that's really the hardest part of sitting through Amazing Spider-Man - the fact that I'd seen most of it before. Generally I don't mind remakes or reboots, in truth I think it's fun seeing how different people tackle the same story. But in this case I wish they'd just summed up his origin story in the opening credits. Instead, this movie actually spends more time on his origin story than the 2002 version. We all know Spidey's origin, and while I appreciate the differences (the return of web shooters, intrigue involving his parents, Uncle Ben's accident playing out differently), they didn't need to draw it out so long.
Andrew Garfield does a decent enough job, but it really got on my nerves the way he always took so long to speak. "How are you, Peter?" "................................Fine." They could have shaved 15 minutes off the movie's running time if they'd removed all the awkward conversational pauses. You could tell a lot of the dialogue between Peter and Gwen was meant to be cutesy and clever, but it fell flat on my ears. Maybe I'm just too old.
I loved the Lizard. He looked great, and the fight scenes were a lot of fun, even if they did look a bit like video game cutscenes. The part of the movie's climax involving cranes - you'll know it when you see it - was so cheesy that I can't decide whether I love it or hate it. It was reminiscent of the "don't threaten New Yorkers" bridge scene in the 2002 movie, only much more over the top.
Overall I'd have to give it a thumbs up, but understand it really doesn't do much that wasn't done ten years ago. I try not to judge movies based on other movies, but the bottom line is that if the earlier trilogy didn't exist, I would have been much more impressed by Amazing Spider-Man.
By the way, we saw it in 3D, which was fine, but they really didn't do much with it. Save a couple of bucks and see it in 2D instead; you won't miss much IMO.
The Dark Knight Rises
It was really hard for me to get interested in seeing DKR. Sure, Batman Begins was a great way to cast away old shames and restart the franchise. And The Dark Knight was as good as a Batman movie could ever hope to be. But none of the trailers for Dark Knight Rises really pulled me in. After the flashy, colorful Avengers movie, I wasn't sure if I really wanted to see another gritty, realistic Batman.
But I loved every minute of it. And I do mean every minute, which kind of blows my mind. The movie is nearly three hours long, and I'd heard that it lags in the middle, but I never felt bored. There were a couple of subplots that could have been left out without affecting the movie's overall quality, but nothing that really bogged the movie down.
Bane was great. I wasn't expecting much out of him, but he really captured the spirit of the comic book character. But predictably, the character I liked most was Selina Kyle. She was clever and funny... yeah, there wasn't much there that we hadn't already seen from Black Widow, but I'd rather see it from Selina.
The movie seemed to pick bits of its plot out of several comic story arcs, such as No Man's Land, Son of the Demon, and of course Knightfall. It's as if Christopher Nolan scoured the history of the Batman universe to find the bits that would be most believable. In some ways it felt like a direct sequel to Batman Begins, with Dark Knight just being an interesting extra story thrown in the middle. It ended perfectly, wrapping up all the right details and really capping off the trilogy well.
Awesome as it was, I am glad this is the last one. It's a great trilogy, but it doesn't need more. I hope the next Batman reboot is more on par with the 1989 movie. The Nolanverse is awesome, but I'm ready for something a little more comic-booky again. Not silly like Batman & Robin, but just fanciful enough that it could exist in the same universe as the Justice League. I'm tired of Marvel having all the fun.
By the way, DKR also shows the new teaser for Man of Steel. I don't think I've ever seen a more pointless trailer full of random images. I'll withhold judgement on the movie itself, as a lot of great movies have rotten early teasers. But seriously, who thought this teaser was a good idea?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Random Sci-Fi Thoughts
I have often said, "There is a fundamental difference between a normal person and a sci-fi fan: a normal person actually likes sci-fi". If I take my mom to see a Star Wars prequel or an odd-numbered Star Trek film, she'll come back saying, "That was a pretty fun space movie." But if I take a true sci-fi fan - even if it's to a really good movie - for the next few hours I'll be subjected to diatribes about the technical mistakes, followed by rants about how modern science fiction isn't as good as the works of Isaac Asimov or Phillip K. Dick.
There's a reason people like this get ostracized. It's not because they're smarter than everyone else; there's plenty of popular smart people. It's because it's just not fun hanging around people who hate everything. It's a simple rule; when even the nerds want to kick you in the nuts, the problem is you.
A friend posted this webcomic declaring Star Wars to be fantasy, not sci-fi. For the most part, I agree. However, he's never going to be able to hold a job at a video store. To quote his accompanying blog:
So yeah, I can totally agree there, but it's just a semantic argument. For one thing, Gernsback actually pushed for the cumbersome term "scientifiction", so clearly he understood science more than marketing. My personal take? There's "Science Fiction" and there's "Sci-Fi". Science fiction" refers to stories that actually speculate about unknown aspects of science, attempt to predict science related things (the future of technology, the biology of alien species, etc), and in general are written by people who know what they are talking about. Sci-fi refers to stories that happen to take place in space and/or in the future, or deal with futuristic elements like aliens or robots, but that concentrate more on entertaining you than getting their facts right.
Or for a more cynical take: If they're on a spaceship and it bores you, it's science fiction. If they're on a spaceship and stuff blows up, it's sci-fi.
There's plenty of room for overlap there. You can easily be more than one thing. Star Trek is both science fiction and sci-fi, depending on the episode or the writer. Star Wars is both fantasy and sci-fi, but rarely really touches science fiction. Alien is both sci-fi and horror. Aliens is both sci-fi and action. Alien 3 is both sci-fi and garbage.
What bugs me is when people try to shy away from the "sci-fi" stigma. You know, the ones who say, "Don't call my book sci-fi! Sure, it's set in space and has robots, but it's a love story, dang it!" Twenty years ago, sure, but today? Right now there is not a single intelligent person on Earth who doesn't love sci-fi. Be proud of your work! Such a tiny percentage of people actually manage to get anything published. No matter how hard you work, becoming a well-known author or director is still like winning the lottery. You just sound whiny when your work doesn't get reviewed and categorized exactly the way you wanted.
I do think it's weird that the Sci-Fi channel didn't seem to mind the stigma back when it was considered nerdy, but then changed their name to SyFy after sci-fi became mainstream. That might not be why they actually changed it, but I still think it's a funny observation.
So anyway, you can rationalize all you want about how Star Wars is technically not science fiction, and I probably won't disagree with your points. But you have to admit when you're browsing Netflix and want to watch Star Wars, you're going to head for the sci-fi section.
There's a reason people like this get ostracized. It's not because they're smarter than everyone else; there's plenty of popular smart people. It's because it's just not fun hanging around people who hate everything. It's a simple rule; when even the nerds want to kick you in the nuts, the problem is you.
A friend posted this webcomic declaring Star Wars to be fantasy, not sci-fi. For the most part, I agree. However, he's never going to be able to hold a job at a video store. To quote his accompanying blog:
Hugo Gernsback, considered by many to be the father of sci-fi (and whose name you can see in, you know, the HUGO Awards) established the criteria a work had to meet to be considered science fiction:
1) The author must know science.
2) The author must be able to play with breakthrough theories and delve into how they would affect society.
So yeah, I can totally agree there, but it's just a semantic argument. For one thing, Gernsback actually pushed for the cumbersome term "scientifiction", so clearly he understood science more than marketing. My personal take? There's "Science Fiction" and there's "Sci-Fi". Science fiction" refers to stories that actually speculate about unknown aspects of science, attempt to predict science related things (the future of technology, the biology of alien species, etc), and in general are written by people who know what they are talking about. Sci-fi refers to stories that happen to take place in space and/or in the future, or deal with futuristic elements like aliens or robots, but that concentrate more on entertaining you than getting their facts right.
Or for a more cynical take: If they're on a spaceship and it bores you, it's science fiction. If they're on a spaceship and stuff blows up, it's sci-fi.
There's plenty of room for overlap there. You can easily be more than one thing. Star Trek is both science fiction and sci-fi, depending on the episode or the writer. Star Wars is both fantasy and sci-fi, but rarely really touches science fiction. Alien is both sci-fi and horror. Aliens is both sci-fi and action. Alien 3 is both sci-fi and garbage.
What bugs me is when people try to shy away from the "sci-fi" stigma. You know, the ones who say, "Don't call my book sci-fi! Sure, it's set in space and has robots, but it's a love story, dang it!" Twenty years ago, sure, but today? Right now there is not a single intelligent person on Earth who doesn't love sci-fi. Be proud of your work! Such a tiny percentage of people actually manage to get anything published. No matter how hard you work, becoming a well-known author or director is still like winning the lottery. You just sound whiny when your work doesn't get reviewed and categorized exactly the way you wanted.
I do think it's weird that the Sci-Fi channel didn't seem to mind the stigma back when it was considered nerdy, but then changed their name to SyFy after sci-fi became mainstream. That might not be why they actually changed it, but I still think it's a funny observation.
So anyway, you can rationalize all you want about how Star Wars is technically not science fiction, and I probably won't disagree with your points. But you have to admit when you're browsing Netflix and want to watch Star Wars, you're going to head for the sci-fi section.
Friday, April 20, 2012
3D or Not 3D?
*sigh* I seem to find myself writing the same blog over and over. I've already stood up for remakes and sequels, so I think my "live and let live" attitude here is going to be pretty obvious. Anyway...
A few weeks ago the news broke that Jurassic Park was going to get a 3D re-release. My brother and my cousin both immediately responded with the standard "OMG-Why?-Has-Hollywood-run-out-of-ideas-and-do-they-only-care-about-money" knee jerk reactions. These are both very intelligent people and I usually respect their opinions, but come on guys. Different people go to the movies for different reasons. Heck, the same person goes to different movies for different reasons. Sometimes you want to appreciate the film for the piece of art it is. Other times you want to go on a roller coaster ride.
Now my brother lives in the magical land of Xanth, where he's never more than twenty minutes from the nearest roller coaster. He doesn't appreciate what it's like for those of us who no longer have access to a theme park. If I want to ride a roller coaster, I have two choices. I can drive a few hours, or I can see a 3D movie at my local IMAX. (...which is, coincidentally, located right in the vicinity of where a few roller coasters used to be, until they paved paradise and put up a shopping mall. But I'm not bitter... jerks.)
First off, you didn't see this coming? Converting old movies to 3D is a trend right now. You're going to see a lot more before it's over. Of course they're going to start by looking at a lot of the more popular movies with big special effects. Plus, 3D televisions are starting to get cheaper and more popular, so people are going to want a lot more 3D blu-rays for their collection, and if you're going to upconvert an old movie anyway, why not give it another run on the big screen?
They're not making you see them. Steven Spielberg is not going to throw handcuffs on you and drag you to the theater. Nor is George Lucas going to break into your house and convert all your Star Wars DVDs to 3D. Are you just complaining because Spielberg and Lucas are wasting time that could be spent doing other things? Maybe... but I doubt it. These guys have a lot of resources, and can afford to have teams working on several projects at once.
Or are you just mad because they're going to put something in the theater you don't like? Look, I appreciate the whole avant-garde film student schtick, but not the whole "everything sucks except for the stuff I find artsy" thing. It's old. The internet is full of jaded critics who think it makes them look cooler if they hate everything. It has been played out. It is time for people to start gushing about the stuff they like again, and ignore the stuff they hate. It's a simple fact - you are not the entertainment industry's only target audience. Sometimes people will release movies that aren't meant for you. Sometimes music is released that isn't in a genre you like. If something is released that isn't your style, don't say, "That looks awful." Just say, "That's not for me, but someone else will probably like it." It's what mature people do; come join us over at the grownups table.
I think people are confused by the word "converted". It's true, if you convert your canoe into a bathtub, you'll have a hard time getting it back again. But movies don't work that way. Converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie does not mean that the 2D version no longer exists. They're not "changing" your movie; they're releasing an additional version, one which you are free to ignore.
Now I will agree, upconverted 3D isn't great yet. Not long ago we saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it really was a lukewarm experience at best. Some scenes were better than others, but even the best scenes were like watching it through a Viewmaster. Yes, people standing in the foreground looked closer to you than the stuff in the background, but really it was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.
More recently, I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D. Now that was a cool experience. It was filmed in 3D, and it showed; I swear I had more fun at that movie than at any theme park ride I can remember. Wrath is the kind of movie 3D was made for, and I wouldn't want to see it any other way. It makes the 3D in Star Wars look pathetic. So yes, I see how upconversion seems like a waste of time when you could be filming new 3D movies.
But I don't begrudge George Lucas for making 3D Star Wars conversions. Frankly, I'm just glad they're doing them in numerical order - maybe by the time they get to the good ones, they'll have perfected the process. And that's the point, isn't it? Technology improves when we use it. If we just sit on this whole "upconverting" thing, it will never get any better. But I think it would be really cool if a few decades from now, we could have glasses-free Star Wars movies in 3D that blows Wrath of the Titans away. But we'll never get there if we don't practice now.
For now, I'll probably skip most 3D upconversions. I'm just not into it. It's enough for me to know that the technology is improving, and eventually might yield something worth seeing.
Anyway, the bottom line is the same as it was for the other blogs: If you don't like it, don't go see it. But please stop whining about it; it's extremely childish, and you're ruining the fun for those who do enjoy seeing them.
A few weeks ago the news broke that Jurassic Park was going to get a 3D re-release. My brother and my cousin both immediately responded with the standard "OMG-Why?-Has-Hollywood-run-out-of-ideas-and-do-they-only-care-about-money" knee jerk reactions. These are both very intelligent people and I usually respect their opinions, but come on guys. Different people go to the movies for different reasons. Heck, the same person goes to different movies for different reasons. Sometimes you want to appreciate the film for the piece of art it is. Other times you want to go on a roller coaster ride.
Now my brother lives in the magical land of Xanth, where he's never more than twenty minutes from the nearest roller coaster. He doesn't appreciate what it's like for those of us who no longer have access to a theme park. If I want to ride a roller coaster, I have two choices. I can drive a few hours, or I can see a 3D movie at my local IMAX. (...which is, coincidentally, located right in the vicinity of where a few roller coasters used to be, until they paved paradise and put up a shopping mall. But I'm not bitter... jerks.)
First off, you didn't see this coming? Converting old movies to 3D is a trend right now. You're going to see a lot more before it's over. Of course they're going to start by looking at a lot of the more popular movies with big special effects. Plus, 3D televisions are starting to get cheaper and more popular, so people are going to want a lot more 3D blu-rays for their collection, and if you're going to upconvert an old movie anyway, why not give it another run on the big screen?
They're not making you see them. Steven Spielberg is not going to throw handcuffs on you and drag you to the theater. Nor is George Lucas going to break into your house and convert all your Star Wars DVDs to 3D. Are you just complaining because Spielberg and Lucas are wasting time that could be spent doing other things? Maybe... but I doubt it. These guys have a lot of resources, and can afford to have teams working on several projects at once.
Or are you just mad because they're going to put something in the theater you don't like? Look, I appreciate the whole avant-garde film student schtick, but not the whole "everything sucks except for the stuff I find artsy" thing. It's old. The internet is full of jaded critics who think it makes them look cooler if they hate everything. It has been played out. It is time for people to start gushing about the stuff they like again, and ignore the stuff they hate. It's a simple fact - you are not the entertainment industry's only target audience. Sometimes people will release movies that aren't meant for you. Sometimes music is released that isn't in a genre you like. If something is released that isn't your style, don't say, "That looks awful." Just say, "That's not for me, but someone else will probably like it." It's what mature people do; come join us over at the grownups table.
I think people are confused by the word "converted". It's true, if you convert your canoe into a bathtub, you'll have a hard time getting it back again. But movies don't work that way. Converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie does not mean that the 2D version no longer exists. They're not "changing" your movie; they're releasing an additional version, one which you are free to ignore.
Now I will agree, upconverted 3D isn't great yet. Not long ago we saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it really was a lukewarm experience at best. Some scenes were better than others, but even the best scenes were like watching it through a Viewmaster. Yes, people standing in the foreground looked closer to you than the stuff in the background, but really it was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.
More recently, I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D. Now that was a cool experience. It was filmed in 3D, and it showed; I swear I had more fun at that movie than at any theme park ride I can remember. Wrath is the kind of movie 3D was made for, and I wouldn't want to see it any other way. It makes the 3D in Star Wars look pathetic. So yes, I see how upconversion seems like a waste of time when you could be filming new 3D movies.
But I don't begrudge George Lucas for making 3D Star Wars conversions. Frankly, I'm just glad they're doing them in numerical order - maybe by the time they get to the good ones, they'll have perfected the process. And that's the point, isn't it? Technology improves when we use it. If we just sit on this whole "upconverting" thing, it will never get any better. But I think it would be really cool if a few decades from now, we could have glasses-free Star Wars movies in 3D that blows Wrath of the Titans away. But we'll never get there if we don't practice now.
For now, I'll probably skip most 3D upconversions. I'm just not into it. It's enough for me to know that the technology is improving, and eventually might yield something worth seeing.
Anyway, the bottom line is the same as it was for the other blogs: If you don't like it, don't go see it. But please stop whining about it; it's extremely childish, and you're ruining the fun for those who do enjoy seeing them.
The Hunger Games
I enjoyed the Hunger Games, but I didn't love it. Before seeing it, most of the complaints I'd heard about it were that it didn't follow the book. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, so that wasn't an issue for me. Personally, I had three main complaints:
1. Shaky-cam. Why hasn't this died yet? It drives me crazy when people don't listen to the public. Anyone old enough to direct a movie knows by now that almost everyone hates shaky-cam. This is not new information. This is not up for debate. It's like escort missions in video games; it's hard to believe the people who make movies/games/etc are still unaware of how many people hate certain elements. Some people get annoyed by shaky-cam because they can't tell what's going on. Some people actually get nauseous. At best, some people have learned to ignore it, but it's not anyone actually looks forward to it. Never has anyone seriously said, "This would have been a better movie if they'd attached the camera to a washing machine." Shaky-cam is no longer edgy and it was never artsy. Its intention is to make you feel like you're part of the action, but all it really does is make it look like the movie was directed by a five-year-old. I can excuse shaky-cam if there's a valid reason for it, specifically "found footage" movies like Cloverfield. But in a regular movie, it's inexcusable.
2. Slow start. It takes a very long time getting to the titular contest. It's justifiable, and it's interesting to learn more about the universe, but for me it was a bit hard to sit through. It felt like the first half of the movie was exposition, and the second half was shaky-cam violence.
3. Kids killing kids. I know this is a weenie complaint, but it's hard for me to watch a movie about kids as young as 12 fighting each other to the death. Obviously there's more violent movies out there, but this movie seems to be trying to fill the Harry Potter/Narnia niche, and the subject matter seems a little grisly for that target audience. However, there's a few saving graces - first off, the tone of the movie makes it clear that the Hunger Games are a very bad thing, and the contest is much reviled by its participants. So it's not like they're actually glorifying the violence. Also, the deaths themselves are not very graphic, thanks to the aforementioned shaky-cam. (Of course, if this is their only reason for using shaky-cam, why is it in so many non-violent scenes as well?)
One odd thing that is bothering me is the way this movie is perceived by some of my friends. I have two friends (only one of which has actually seen the movie) who dismissed the Hunger Games as being part of the Twilight genre.
...I just... I don't even... I mean, where do I even begin? Seriously, are we talking about the same movie? Look, I don't want to be rude here, and you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't give a flying carp whether or not you liked The Hunger Games, but you can't just say "the Hunger Games is too much like Twilight" without saying something to back that statement up.
Twilight is about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire. The Hunger Games is about twenty-four children who are forced to fight to the death in a government-run contest. I know, it's amazing Stephanie Meyer hasn't sued for plagiarism. Sure, there is a small romantic side plot, but it probably doesn't even add up to fifteen ten minutes of the movie. Honestly, there was more romance the The Terminator. Now, I will say that Hunger Games does set up a potential love triangle that will probably get more screen time in the second movie. So I guess you could pre-judge the sequel for being Twilight-esque, assuming you're so sheltered that you think Twilight invented the the love triangle. But even then, we're not discussing the sequel here, or the book trilogy for that matter. We're discussing a single movie called The Hunger Games, and wondering in what universe it shares any similarity with Twilight.
If I had to compare The Hunger Games to another movie, I'd say it mostly reminded me of The Running Man. Dystopian "crapsack world", life-or-death contest watched by a sadistic society, you get the picture. The real difference is the tone; Running Man concentrated on the action, while Hunger Games spends more time on the world-building.
The comparison with Twilight just instantly pisses me off. I'm trying to analyze myself to see why it's such a berserk button for me. I think it's because the world really needs more movies like The Hunger Games. Female-driven stories that aren't about finding the perfect man. I've noticed this movie is being marketed towards girls (especially after seeing the toys mixed in with Barbie in the toy aisle) and yet it's nothing like your typical chick flick. I came away from the movie thinking of it as sort of an anti-Twilight, really. Some people said Twilight set feminism back 30 years; well, more movies like The Hunger Games could be the answer. That said, I hope Hunger Games does attract a few Twilight fans. Twihards could use a dose of the feminism that's present in The Hunger Games. It's definitely a step in the right direction, anyway.
Anyway, complaints aside, I still enjoyed the movie, and I can't wait to read the book. I hope it makes a lot of money, and the director uses that money to buy a tripod for the sequel. Btw, if you want to read a more thorough review of The Hunger Games (rather than just a rant against shaky-cam and Twilight comparisons), from someone who's actually read the book, please check out my cousin's blog here.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Woman In Black
I'm going to keep this relatively spoiler-free, but I really don't think there were any twists worthy of spoilage anyway. I'm not sure why this movie is getting such good reviews. It didn't totally suck, but it didn't break any new ground either. Radcliffe does a great job, and the movie is directed well, but overall there's just nothing to write home about.
In The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe plays a financially-troubled lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is sent to a small town to handle an estate. Of course, everyone in town knows his presence is going to piss off the local ghost. But as usual, instead of actually telling Kipps why they hate him, they just glare at him through windows and try to thwart his attempts to find a place to stay. Granted, Kipps wouldn't have believed them if they had been honest, but that's not the point. What bothers me the artificial tension generated by doling out exposition one morsel at a time. If this many townsfolk want him to leave town that badly, it seems like at least one of them would consider confronting him with the truth, even if they risk looking crazy. The reason they don't has nothing to do with the plot, but rather the writer's attempts to create drama through careful dispersal of information.
Anyway, there's nothing here you haven't seen before. As a horror movie, it's more spooky than scary. Several times you see the titular shadowy spirit floating around behind Kipps, almost to the point where you get used to her. It has a lot of sudden surprises, with things jumping out unexpectedly. If you've seen more than three scary movies in your life, you will always know when something is about to happen. I mean, it's usually so obvious that they could have flashed "Jump Scare Coming" on the screen. You'll see Radcliffe step back, leaving 75% of the screen free to make room for whatever is about to appear. The soundtrack will then get quiet so as not to interfere with the upcoming Scare Chord. You won't necessarily know what was about to jump out and yell "Boo", but you will know in plenty of time that something is coming.
To me, ghost movies often seem like they're easy to write, because the writers never seem to think much about the ghost's motivation. Everything they do is designed to scare the audience more than the characters. They will often jump out at times that don't make sense plot-wise, and expend energy appearing in the background where none of the characters actually see them. They'll knock on doors and rattle knobs even though they've had no problem passing through walls in other scenes. At times they act like mindless animals, tormenting the protagonists who are trying to help the ghosts by laying their bones to rest. They're powerful enough to kill the characters whenever they want, but they prefer to play with their food instead.
Anyway, I wouldn't call the movie a complete waste of time, but I really can't think of anything good to say about it. If you've already seen a ghost movie this lifetime, then you've pretty much seen this one. One warning to the sensitive - this movie is cruel to children. Most of the victims in this movie are young kids, so if that sort of thing bothers you, that's one more reason to give this one a pass.
In The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe plays a financially-troubled lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is sent to a small town to handle an estate. Of course, everyone in town knows his presence is going to piss off the local ghost. But as usual, instead of actually telling Kipps why they hate him, they just glare at him through windows and try to thwart his attempts to find a place to stay. Granted, Kipps wouldn't have believed them if they had been honest, but that's not the point. What bothers me the artificial tension generated by doling out exposition one morsel at a time. If this many townsfolk want him to leave town that badly, it seems like at least one of them would consider confronting him with the truth, even if they risk looking crazy. The reason they don't has nothing to do with the plot, but rather the writer's attempts to create drama through careful dispersal of information.
Anyway, there's nothing here you haven't seen before. As a horror movie, it's more spooky than scary. Several times you see the titular shadowy spirit floating around behind Kipps, almost to the point where you get used to her. It has a lot of sudden surprises, with things jumping out unexpectedly. If you've seen more than three scary movies in your life, you will always know when something is about to happen. I mean, it's usually so obvious that they could have flashed "Jump Scare Coming" on the screen. You'll see Radcliffe step back, leaving 75% of the screen free to make room for whatever is about to appear. The soundtrack will then get quiet so as not to interfere with the upcoming Scare Chord. You won't necessarily know what was about to jump out and yell "Boo", but you will know in plenty of time that something is coming.
To me, ghost movies often seem like they're easy to write, because the writers never seem to think much about the ghost's motivation. Everything they do is designed to scare the audience more than the characters. They will often jump out at times that don't make sense plot-wise, and expend energy appearing in the background where none of the characters actually see them. They'll knock on doors and rattle knobs even though they've had no problem passing through walls in other scenes. At times they act like mindless animals, tormenting the protagonists who are trying to help the ghosts by laying their bones to rest. They're powerful enough to kill the characters whenever they want, but they prefer to play with their food instead.
Anyway, I wouldn't call the movie a complete waste of time, but I really can't think of anything good to say about it. If you've already seen a ghost movie this lifetime, then you've pretty much seen this one. One warning to the sensitive - this movie is cruel to children. Most of the victims in this movie are young kids, so if that sort of thing bothers you, that's one more reason to give this one a pass.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
The Walking Dead
I recently read the Walking Dead comic book series. I'd already watched the first season on TV, and a little of the second. Several of my friends talked me into reading the comics, so I could see where the show deviated from the source material and whatnot. I read the entire series and I'm now caught up to the current month. I don't know if I'm going to keep reading it, though. For one thing, I'm at a great stopping point, where I can just say "...and they lived happily ever after" rather then see how things get screwed up this time. For another thing, I don't really like reading comics month-to-month. A single issue of a comic is just too short, and I don't remember from one month to the next what's happening. I'd rather wait until there's about 25 more issues, so I don't have to read it as "story McNuggets."
Anyway, Walking Dead is a pretty decent comic series, though it's not the type of story I generally like. I'm told that when it first came out, the writer said he didn't like the way zombie movies end. The survivors always get into a helicopter or a boat, and ride off into the sunset... but you never know what happens next. It's a world filled with zombies; where are they going to go? So he made the comic intending to be a long-running series (it's on issue 90-something right now, with no signs of stopping), so it would cover all the day-to-day stuff: where they go for safety, how they keep finding food, and so on.
That's where the really shines, in my opinion. They cover all the little details, the stuff you rarely see in a two-hour movie. The longevity also gives it drama as well - they have to worry about changing weather, the longevity of canned goods, looting buildings that have already been picked clean, pregnancy, relationships, mental stability, and so on. The movies usually all take place right after the initial event, so they don't get into these long-term problems.
The downside? Well, it's a cruel world with very few pick-me-ups, and after a while that gets pretty depressing. It's hard to really look forward to reading a comic where only bad things happen. It has a large revolving cast, with people constantly getting killed off while others are introduced. Just like in the zombie movies, no one is safe, not even the major characters. I know many people regard this type of writing as a refreshing change of pace, but you know my feelings on downer endings. I generally give horror a pass, zombie stories doubly so, because tragedy is an important part of the genre. But that doesn't make it fun to read. Some of the more significant deaths still haunt me 40 issues later. It's no secret that the title doesn't just refer to the zombies, but to the main characters themselves (in fact, it kind of beats you over the head with it). All the survivors are living on borrowed time. It never seems like they're actually working toward something, except maybe a safe place to stay for a few months. This is not a story about humans working against all odds towards ridding the world of a zombie infestation. This is a story of the last gasps of civilization, of how the final humans struggled to postpone their deaths for a few months.
So why did I keep reading it? Well, that just shows how well it's written. A true test of an author is whether they can keep you interested in a type of story that generally turns you off. There are no real "good guys" in the series. The main characters are the heroes only because those are the characters the story focuses on. They sometimes do selfless things, but in truth, everyone is just out to protect their own families and friends. Some of them are idealistic at first, but that gets beaten out of them eventually. The zombies are not the biggest obstacles in the series, and they quite often fade into the background. Most of the story's conflict comes from other live humans. It's a world where only the strongest survive, and that tends to breed a lot of jerks.
I've been a little obsessed with sexism in comics recently, and I'm happy to say that I don't see a lot in the Walking Dead. Two of the most competent characters in the series are female, and I see very little gender disparity. Both sexes get killed and maimed in relatively equal numbers. Both sexes have strong characters, weak characters, and every personality type in between. Others may disagree, but I don't see any evidence that the author even considers gender a factor in deciding who has the most skills or who gets killed next. Now, about midway through the series, there was one particular rape/torture scene that made a lot of people uncomfortable. It caused an uproar in their letters column, and they probably lost a few readers at that point. I can't say whether this plotline was really needed, though it build the villain up to be that much more despicable. When the victim finally got her revenge a few issues later, it was quite satisfying, though it didn't really make up for the initial crime. That entire storyline is considered by some to be a low point in the series (and not just because of the controversy... one dramatic scene comes off so silly it's listed on the TVTropes "Narm" page), but the series does get better after that.
Anyway, whether I continue to read it or not, I'm glad I read what I have so far. Now, regarding the TV series... it's not bad. I really enjoyed the first season, and I like the way it goes off in so many different directions from the comic. It's similar enough to where you say, "wow, that's good casting for that character", but it's different enough that reading the comic won't give away what happens next (or vice versa). Like a lot of people, I did get bored during their stay at the farmhouse in the second season, and only time will tell if I start watching again. (I'm also a little miffed that they fired Frank Darabont.)
Really, TV series or comic, you won't go wrong to give either one a try.
Update 1/12/2012; Some Spoilers:
Okay, I was thinking it over, and there actually was one additional reason I might not return to the comic. It's because everybody's fair game. There's a few characters I really like, and I know they're going to die sooner or later. It might be 100 issues from now, when sales start to falter and the writer decides he needs to shake things up a little. But it will happen. Heck, I'm an issue or two behind by now, so it might have already happened. And this isn't like Marvel and DC, where death is only temporary. But as long as I stop reading now, they'll live forever.
I know that sounds silly. I mean, I can't just stop reading/watching all fiction out of the fear that characters will die. But I don't look at a long-running ongoing series as "art" the same way I would with a stand-alone movie or novel. In a novel, everything happens for a reason. Usually the entire story is plotted out from the beginning. Yes, the author comes up with new ideas as the story comes along, and things might not end up playing out like the author originally intended. But there's still time before publishing to go back and edit the early chapters to make sure they're more in sync with the later ones. The point is, novels and movies are subject to Chekhov's Gun. Superfluous details are kept to a minimum, every death has a point, and the entire package can be viewed as a piece of art.
An ongoing TV or comic book series doesn't work the same way. Individual episodes (or issues) might, and often even an entire TV season (or comic book story arc) will follow a novel's structure. But very rarely will issue 94 of a comic book series feature a twist that was foreshadowed in issue 3. The writer (if it's even the same writer by then) might wish he could go back and stick a detail into an earlier issue, but it's way too late by then. No, series fiction just sort of plods along like life, changing with the seasons, and only the most recent events tend to really matter. In a way, that makes them more realistic than stand-alone stories, because the patterns are less predictable.
What am I missing here... oh, yes, a point. My point is, while a series does have some advantages over novels and movies, they are less of an "art" in my mind. The series gets handed to different writers and artists after a while, and it becomes a communal storytelling experience, like that flashlight game you play around the campfire. And enjoyable experience, sure, but nothing I'd stick in a museum. Even if it keeps the same writer throughout, after a while he loses his original vision, and quality goes downhill. Sometimes they'll keep it going long after they've run out of ideas. This is unfortunate because the same writer might still be capable of doing something great on a fresh project. Instead he wastes those ideas by trying to fit them into his existing universe, where they don't work quite as well. And then his work becomes something so rotten that humanity itself is infected, causing the entire human race to die off, leaving penguins to rule the Earth. Sorry, I was seeing if you were still listening.
In any event, I wouldn't say that the Walking Dead comic is getting stagnant quite yet, and the author probably still has a lot of great twists up his sleeve. But so far the pattern has been "Find a safe place, make the safe place better, get betrayed by humans, find a new safe place" over and over. It was fun the first few times, but I need a break. I'm going to go read something else now, and let the Walking Dead survivors enjoy their current safe place.
Also, I wanted to revisit my paragraph on sexism, and clarify that my praises only apply to the comic book. The TV series keeps missing the mark on the gender equality front. Most of the women on the show are weepy complainers. It's particularly irksome because one of them, Andrea, is one of the most capable characters in the comic. On the show, she's whiny and suicidal. But some things are actually handled better in the TV series. The affair between Shane and Lori actually plays out much better on TV, IMO. Shane was killed off very early in the comic, and his presence on the show almost works like the butterfly effect - that one little change makes the entire plot play out in different directions. I like to think of the comic and the TV show as existing in the same continuity, until Shane's death splinters the timeline. It's almost like one of Marvel's "What If" comics; you could call the show, "What if Shane had never been shot?"
Anyway, Walking Dead is a pretty decent comic series, though it's not the type of story I generally like. I'm told that when it first came out, the writer said he didn't like the way zombie movies end. The survivors always get into a helicopter or a boat, and ride off into the sunset... but you never know what happens next. It's a world filled with zombies; where are they going to go? So he made the comic intending to be a long-running series (it's on issue 90-something right now, with no signs of stopping), so it would cover all the day-to-day stuff: where they go for safety, how they keep finding food, and so on.
That's where the really shines, in my opinion. They cover all the little details, the stuff you rarely see in a two-hour movie. The longevity also gives it drama as well - they have to worry about changing weather, the longevity of canned goods, looting buildings that have already been picked clean, pregnancy, relationships, mental stability, and so on. The movies usually all take place right after the initial event, so they don't get into these long-term problems.
The downside? Well, it's a cruel world with very few pick-me-ups, and after a while that gets pretty depressing. It's hard to really look forward to reading a comic where only bad things happen. It has a large revolving cast, with people constantly getting killed off while others are introduced. Just like in the zombie movies, no one is safe, not even the major characters. I know many people regard this type of writing as a refreshing change of pace, but you know my feelings on downer endings. I generally give horror a pass, zombie stories doubly so, because tragedy is an important part of the genre. But that doesn't make it fun to read. Some of the more significant deaths still haunt me 40 issues later. It's no secret that the title doesn't just refer to the zombies, but to the main characters themselves (in fact, it kind of beats you over the head with it). All the survivors are living on borrowed time. It never seems like they're actually working toward something, except maybe a safe place to stay for a few months. This is not a story about humans working against all odds towards ridding the world of a zombie infestation. This is a story of the last gasps of civilization, of how the final humans struggled to postpone their deaths for a few months.
So why did I keep reading it? Well, that just shows how well it's written. A true test of an author is whether they can keep you interested in a type of story that generally turns you off. There are no real "good guys" in the series. The main characters are the heroes only because those are the characters the story focuses on. They sometimes do selfless things, but in truth, everyone is just out to protect their own families and friends. Some of them are idealistic at first, but that gets beaten out of them eventually. The zombies are not the biggest obstacles in the series, and they quite often fade into the background. Most of the story's conflict comes from other live humans. It's a world where only the strongest survive, and that tends to breed a lot of jerks.
I've been a little obsessed with sexism in comics recently, and I'm happy to say that I don't see a lot in the Walking Dead. Two of the most competent characters in the series are female, and I see very little gender disparity. Both sexes get killed and maimed in relatively equal numbers. Both sexes have strong characters, weak characters, and every personality type in between. Others may disagree, but I don't see any evidence that the author even considers gender a factor in deciding who has the most skills or who gets killed next. Now, about midway through the series, there was one particular rape/torture scene that made a lot of people uncomfortable. It caused an uproar in their letters column, and they probably lost a few readers at that point. I can't say whether this plotline was really needed, though it build the villain up to be that much more despicable. When the victim finally got her revenge a few issues later, it was quite satisfying, though it didn't really make up for the initial crime. That entire storyline is considered by some to be a low point in the series (and not just because of the controversy... one dramatic scene comes off so silly it's listed on the TVTropes "Narm" page), but the series does get better after that.
Anyway, whether I continue to read it or not, I'm glad I read what I have so far. Now, regarding the TV series... it's not bad. I really enjoyed the first season, and I like the way it goes off in so many different directions from the comic. It's similar enough to where you say, "wow, that's good casting for that character", but it's different enough that reading the comic won't give away what happens next (or vice versa). Like a lot of people, I did get bored during their stay at the farmhouse in the second season, and only time will tell if I start watching again. (I'm also a little miffed that they fired Frank Darabont.)
Really, TV series or comic, you won't go wrong to give either one a try.
Update 1/12/2012; Some Spoilers:
Okay, I was thinking it over, and there actually was one additional reason I might not return to the comic. It's because everybody's fair game. There's a few characters I really like, and I know they're going to die sooner or later. It might be 100 issues from now, when sales start to falter and the writer decides he needs to shake things up a little. But it will happen. Heck, I'm an issue or two behind by now, so it might have already happened. And this isn't like Marvel and DC, where death is only temporary. But as long as I stop reading now, they'll live forever.
I know that sounds silly. I mean, I can't just stop reading/watching all fiction out of the fear that characters will die. But I don't look at a long-running ongoing series as "art" the same way I would with a stand-alone movie or novel. In a novel, everything happens for a reason. Usually the entire story is plotted out from the beginning. Yes, the author comes up with new ideas as the story comes along, and things might not end up playing out like the author originally intended. But there's still time before publishing to go back and edit the early chapters to make sure they're more in sync with the later ones. The point is, novels and movies are subject to Chekhov's Gun. Superfluous details are kept to a minimum, every death has a point, and the entire package can be viewed as a piece of art.
An ongoing TV or comic book series doesn't work the same way. Individual episodes (or issues) might, and often even an entire TV season (or comic book story arc) will follow a novel's structure. But very rarely will issue 94 of a comic book series feature a twist that was foreshadowed in issue 3. The writer (if it's even the same writer by then) might wish he could go back and stick a detail into an earlier issue, but it's way too late by then. No, series fiction just sort of plods along like life, changing with the seasons, and only the most recent events tend to really matter. In a way, that makes them more realistic than stand-alone stories, because the patterns are less predictable.
What am I missing here... oh, yes, a point. My point is, while a series does have some advantages over novels and movies, they are less of an "art" in my mind. The series gets handed to different writers and artists after a while, and it becomes a communal storytelling experience, like that flashlight game you play around the campfire. And enjoyable experience, sure, but nothing I'd stick in a museum. Even if it keeps the same writer throughout, after a while he loses his original vision, and quality goes downhill. Sometimes they'll keep it going long after they've run out of ideas. This is unfortunate because the same writer might still be capable of doing something great on a fresh project. Instead he wastes those ideas by trying to fit them into his existing universe, where they don't work quite as well. And then his work becomes something so rotten that humanity itself is infected, causing the entire human race to die off, leaving penguins to rule the Earth. Sorry, I was seeing if you were still listening.
In any event, I wouldn't say that the Walking Dead comic is getting stagnant quite yet, and the author probably still has a lot of great twists up his sleeve. But so far the pattern has been "Find a safe place, make the safe place better, get betrayed by humans, find a new safe place" over and over. It was fun the first few times, but I need a break. I'm going to go read something else now, and let the Walking Dead survivors enjoy their current safe place.
Also, I wanted to revisit my paragraph on sexism, and clarify that my praises only apply to the comic book. The TV series keeps missing the mark on the gender equality front. Most of the women on the show are weepy complainers. It's particularly irksome because one of them, Andrea, is one of the most capable characters in the comic. On the show, she's whiny and suicidal. But some things are actually handled better in the TV series. The affair between Shane and Lori actually plays out much better on TV, IMO. Shane was killed off very early in the comic, and his presence on the show almost works like the butterfly effect - that one little change makes the entire plot play out in different directions. I like to think of the comic and the TV show as existing in the same continuity, until Shane's death splinters the timeline. It's almost like one of Marvel's "What If" comics; you could call the show, "What if Shane had never been shot?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)