As reported by Doug Ernst, Marvel's latest way to shame you is by lambasting any objection you may have to the new Spider-Man movie Mary Jane being a black woman.
Once again, any objection to this, however innocent, means you're a intolerant racist.
The gnomish Dan Slott, of course, was one of those screaming "racist," playing "Captain White Privilege." Maybe Dan could put actions where his mouth is by giving up some of his privilege via giving his writing chores to a minority. Don't count on it.
"Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn chimed in too, stating that if you complain about MJ's ethnicity, "your life is too good."
Cripes, at this point, it is surprising that Gunn hasn't changed his last name to assuage the perpetually aggrieved SJW crowd.
Long-time comics creator Chuck Dixon says what many of us have known for some time -- that "the rise of 'social justice' in comics and how DC and Marvel seem to be wanting to change genders or ethnicities of long-established characters just for political correctness’ sake" is helping with comicbooks' downfall.
Why aren't things getting better?
"Because they’ve chased so much of the readership away. People simply stopped reading comics when they voluntarily pulled comics off the newsstands in the 1990s and became a boutique industry exclusive to comic shops."
"Why don’t the comics sell more? Because they’re crap. That’s why they don’t sell more.”
Indeed. I really can't fathom why anyone, let alone conservatives, would shell out $4.00 for the stuff that's put out these days. When I occasionally get a current issue from a buddy it's incredible how creatively stunted the stories are -- especially compared to 15-20 years ago. Everyone talks the same, the characters are all seemingly really stupid as they're ultra-quick to start needless fights, and, of course, the forced political correctness is head-shakingly laughable. (Here's but the latest example.)
One thing Chuck forgot is what we, Doug Ernst, Avi Green, and others have documented for years -- the nasty, disdainful, and dismissive way modern creators treat fans (especially those who in any way question them) on social media.
I don't know if you can really call this a PC move, but here's Tinseltown's latest brilliant idea: Redo the classic movie "Splash," but reverse the gender roles.
Channing Tatum will now be the merman (originally played by Darryl Hannah), while Jillian Bell will play the old Tom Hanks role.
Good luck with this. The 1984 version is one of the best films ever -- brilliant script and incredible (and funny) performances by Hanks, John Candy, and Eugene Levy.
And hey -- what is it with the year 1984? First "Ghostbusters" ... and now this?
In the category of "You Can't Make This Sh** Up," HBO's Casey Bloys -- in response to the question "whether we’ll see more rapes of men to balance out the gendered violence" -- said:
“I take your point—so far there aren’t any male rapes…. [I]s it something we think about, yeah I think the criticism is valid, you know ... so I think it’s something that people take into account.”
Welcome to the Brave New World.
The early 90s film "The Rocketeer" is getting a reboot and there's been a fairly significant change. Ready? Can you guess?
Got it yet? Come on ... !!!
You got it -- star Billy Campbell's role is out ... and the protagonist will now be played by ... a black woman.
"The Hollywood Reporter says the company is prepping a brand new sequel/reboot called The Rocketeers and the new hero is an African-American woman.
This new version will be set six years after the original film. The first Rocketeer has disappeared fighting the Nazis, so an unlikely pilot takes up the mantle and battles the scientists who are trying to mass produce the rocket technology for the enemy."
If you've heard that SJWs -- social justice warriors -- are simply never satisfied, look no further than here.
That's right -- even though Tony Stark has been replaced as Iron Man by a teenaged black female, Entertainment Weekly's suggestions for who should hypothetically portray the new character were met with derision ... because the actresses noted are too light-skinned.
"What Riri Williams looks like MATTERS. It MATTERS that she is a dark-skinned black girl. It matters because most black girls in America ARE darker-skinned but continue to be erased in entertainment — even from their OWN stories. That Hollywood would even consider a light-skinned 33-year-old actress for the role of a dark-skinned 15-year-old-girl shows how far it will go to avoid dark skin."
Everyone join me in one. Big. Collective. EYE ROLL.
Oh, Chris Evans:
I'm proud of this sit-in. We need common sense gun reform. And to be clear, NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY GUNS! Just looking for COMMON SENSE reform— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) June 22, 2016
For more recent takes, check out Doug Ernst's "Tom Brevoort tries Hydra Captain America spin-job, Newsarama goes full toady"
"‘Captain America #1’: Nick Spencer turns hero into Hydra agent with Tom Brevoort’s blessing."
Not to mention Avi Green's "Entertainment Weekly's letting Spencer/Brevoort get away with their terrible direction,"
"Stan Lee adds insult to injury."
Because entertainment isn't just entertainment anymore -- it has to send a message, you see -- the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD is calling for the new Star Wars films to go gay:
As sci-fi projects have the special opportunity to create unique worlds whose advanced societies can serve as a commentary on our own, the most obvious place where Disney could include LGBT characters is in the upcoming eighth Star Wars film," reads GLAAD's statement, referring to 2017's Star Wars: Episode VIII. "2015’s The Force Awakens has introduced a new and diverse central trio, which allows the creators opportunity to tell fresh stories as they develop their backstory. Recent official novels in the franchise featured lesbian and gay characters that could also be easily written in to the story.
While GLAAD calls for LBGT characters in the new Star Wars films, it should be noted that the orientation of the three major new characters - Rey, Finn and Poe Dameron - were not revealed during The Force Awakens.
I still think Luke has gotta be gay. I mean c'mon:
Due to my spring break I was able to actually get out and enjoy a must-see comics film on its opening weekend. I was a bit wary, natch, as many reviews had trashed the film, but I kept a "must see for myself" attitude as many I know who know comics said the film was rather good.
To be sure, there are some definite weak spots, but as a whole the film is enjoyable.
--Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Yeah, I can't quite believe it either, but honestly, Affleck is the BEST Batman we've seen. Yes, better than Christian Bale. However, Ben is only slightly better than Adam West. (I'M JOKING!) I'm serious, here. Affleck was sensational.
--Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Not only is she beyond gorgeous, during the climactic battle scene she showed the zeal for combat that we've come to associate with the Amazonian.
--Nods to comics stories. I'm not nearly as versed on DC as I am Marvel; however, the obvious nods to the alternate reality tale Injustice were very well done. And need I mention The Dark Knight Returns?
--Tie-in to Man of Steel. The first cinematic DC Universe meld was executed very well. The opening montage with Bruce Wayne zipping through a battered Metropolis during Superman and Zod's epic confrontation in MoS was almost perfection (aside from Wayne having to tell a subordinate to vacate his building which is almost right next to the Kryptonian world engine leveling the city!! WTF?).
--The Supes-Lois Lane love affair. Good idea, but needed more fleshing out. Given the length of the film, what's the deal? I'm also not keen on Amy Adams as Lois -- it reminds me of the looks mismatch between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. Almost.
--Doomsday. A villain this big deserves more development and attention. Plus, his first incarnation looks like a huge pile of shit.
--Why is Wonder Woman around? Are we really supposed to buy that she's trying to get that photograph back from Luthor? Because that's all we were really fed, given her response(s) to Bruce Wayne. But I don't mind much -- again, Gadot is breathtakingly gorgeous!
--Sneak peeks at upcoming Justice League members. They seemed quite forced: Wonder Woman checking out each (video) file that Batman sent her? Yeah, maybe. But it came off as rather cheesy.
--Lex Luthor. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal is really the only -- but significant -- downside of the flick, in my opinion. It's as if he's trying to be the Joker. Luthor is a cut-throat, amoral (thanks, Duff!) businessman, not a raving lunatic, but that's how Eisenberg plays him. And it's awful.
The film is long, yes, but it pretty much needs all that time to adequately establish everything without coming off as rushed (aside from the Doomsday plot). Some of the flashback and dream sequences perhaps could have been edited down (did we really need that additional -- and repeated -- young Bruce Wayne scene?), but as a whole they worked.
I read one review that compared (negatively) the "busyness" of the film to Spider-Man 3. I disagree. Outside of the time needed for a better development of Doomsday, BvS is far superior.
Be sure to check out Doug Ernst's review as well.
io9 has a list from a couple years back, and while some of the entries are head-scratchers, there are a few worthy mentions.
Here it is, in their order, with my occasional comments:
#30. ZARDOZ. io9 says "The only way a person could properly appreciate this movie is with cult status, and a handful of LSD. But it's absolutely something you have to experience at least once."
#29. TREMORS. Funny and scary at the same time. What more could you want? And despite io9's complaint that the monsters' origins weren't explained, they actually kinda were -- mutations due to nuclear bomb testing. It was the Nevada desert, after all.
#28. THE WARRIORS.
#27. LOST BOYS. Classic 80s entertainment. Ahead of its time.
#26. BORN IN FLAMES.
#25. SHARKTOPUS. Nothing from SyFy should be on this list, sorry.
#24. TALES FROM THE HOOD.
#23. DEATH RACE 2000.
#22. THE HUNGER.
#21. PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE.
#20. DARK STAR.
#19. SLITHER. A surprisingly good, and funny, horror yarn starring "Castle's" Nathan Fillion.
#18. THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI. Been a while since I've seen this, but it's way ahead of its time -- sort of like "Max Headroom" was as a TV series.
#17. TIME BANDITS. Didn't like it as 1) it's British, and 2) they only go back in time. Boring.
#16. EVIL DEAD 2.
#15. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. A true classic and worth repeated viewings. The one that started it (the zombie craze) all.
#14. BROTHER FROM ANOTHER PLANET. Absolutely sensational film about black-skinned alien who's pursued by a pair of white-skinned aliens. Not-at-all subtle analogy, natch, but Joe Morton (who played Dr. Dyson in Terminator 2) is terrific as the The Brother, whose empathy and caring you can almost feel yourself.
#13. CHERRY 2000.
#12. ALTERED STATES.
#11. REPO MAN.
#10. MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. A true classic in every sense of the word. First saw it when I was eleven, and even then laughed my ass off.
#9. THEY LIVE. John Carpenter's parable about (supposed) Reagan-1980's greed features one of the longest (and needless) fight scenes in movie history, and one of the coolest-ever premises. But you'll be left wondering why in the hell super-advanced aliens, who can travel between the stars using some sort of gravitational lens, headquarter their cloaking tech in an easily destroyed, ground-based TV studio.
#8. PRIMER. You'll have to watch this one numerous times to figure out WTF is going on. And it's well worth it as this is one of the better time travel yarns on film.
#7. NAKED LUNCH.
#6. THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH. The book is way better, but a young David Bowie does a good job as the alien who poses as a wealthy businessman in hopes of acquiring needed H2O for his desiccated planet.
#5. RE-ANIMATOR. A dude tries to get the right amount of "freshness" in order to bring back the dead. Great fun.
#4. BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA.
#3. ERASERHEAD. I've watched this a few times and remain eeriely intrigued. Still can't figure out what it's all about, though, really.
#2. DONNY DARKO.
#1. THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. Never a fan, and never got the appeal. My fondest memory of it is when the college band I was in opened up for its midnight showing at the local theatre.
"If you think Luke is gay, of course he is. You should not be ashamed of it. Judge Luke by his character, not by who he loves."
Director J.J. Abrams says Star Wars "will include gay characters."
“When I talk about inclusivity it’s not excluding gay characters. It’s about inclusivity. So of course.”
Meanwhile, no one outside of the mouthy, perpetually indignant Social Justice Warrior set could give a damn. They just want a good story, and not a rehash of what's come before.
Our 'ol pal, the gnomish one Dan Slott, tweets yesterday:
In 2016, you see someone using— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 7, 2016
"SJW" in an argument you know 2 things:
They're on the wrong side of history
and they're not worth your time.
Well, they're trying to take over the culture. The fact that Slott is getting push-back is a sign people aren't just rolling over and taking it. The rise of The Donald (sadly, in this case) is another example.
We need to get from some to enough. And really, we’ll know we’ve achieved success when Captain America can have a boyfriend, and Wonder Woman can have a girlfriend. For queer representation in superhero comics, that’s what success looks like.
You see? You can't just create new characters who happen to be gay. Apparently, that's too difficult for the modern cadre of comicsfolk. You can't even just retcon secondary characters with nebulous backgrounds into gay characters.
You have to make the biggest cultural icons that are out there gay.
Only then will the SJWs consider that a success. Only. And if you object, you're a hateful homophobic bigot. (Adjectives are subject to change, natch, depending on the "aggrieved minority class" being discussed at the time.)
As The Federalist's John Trent writes, "The push for diversity in comics is a vision of the anointed that is unsatisfied with representation that reflects reality."
Social Justice Warriors don't want just acceptance, you see. They demand that you agree with everything they believe and say -- else you're evil incarnate. If you say "Hey Captain America can't have a boyfriend -- that goes against his entire history!" you'd best be ready for an onslaught of ultra-PC verbal violence which you've never before experienced.
Like anything else SJWs have touched (and remember -- there's a big difference between a standard liberal and a SJW), comics in their current form will wither away to nothingness. They're already a pale imitation of what has come before, and with the pandering to the SJWs, coupled with the ridiculous creative laziness of those in charge, it'd be little surprise if comics as we know them cease to exist in the next decade.
Ms. Marvel writer G. Willow Wilson (who happens to be Muslim) not only fails to grasp the irony of her words regarding Marvel chief Ike Perlmutter and his donations to Donald Trump, but engages in that which is the very reason The Donald has been the GOP frontrunner for so long.
... a lot of people have been left wondering: was this really a donation to benefit veterans? Or was it a donation to benefit Donald Trump? And if it was the latter, what does that mean for fans of Marvel comics? Did the money come out of Perlmutter’s private fortune, or did some portion of what you spent on your Marvel pull list support a political candidate who wants to deport millions of immigrants, build a wall along the Mexican border and require religious minorities to carry ID badges?
Fact check: That would be deport illegal immigrants, and precisely when did Trump say he would require religious minorities to wear ID badges? Or, is that over-the-top hyperbole which totally twists what he had said (which was still wrong, IMO)?
Wilson goes on to complain about fans spending money where someone will benefit who has supported a candidate whose election will lead to "the real possibility of ... a dystopian autocracy."
Hey Willow -- where've you been the last seven years, huh?
The irony is delicious. "Progressive" creators have crapped on conservatives/Republicans for years with impunity, then complain and make wise-ass comments when comics fans who share that ideology react. And now, all of a sudden, because someone they hold in contempt is being supported by a person in their business, well, it's a CRISIS.
Wilson says "being a Republican isn't a crime," but "this is not an ordinary election cycle." Well, you can bet if she had her way, being a Republican would be a crime. And 2008 wasn't an ordinary election cycle, either. Then, you had a completely compliant press corps which refused to dig even an inch into Boss Obama's background. If they did, there's a good chance Hillary Clinton would be president now.
So excuse me, Ms. Wilson, while I laugh my a** off at you, Mark Waid, and all the other conceited, arrogant comics folk. Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.
The only thing which would please more is if Perlmutter told Waid and anyone else who is bitching about his donation to "please leave (the company), and don't come back." Just like Waid tells fans with whom he disagrees.
UPDATE: Check out Doug Ernst's take.
Marvel CEO Isaac Perlmutter recently donated a YUGE $1 million to The Donald's personal nonprofit, and the SJWs are, needless to say, losing their minds:
Marvel's CEO has given $1 million to Trump and Trump spoke about how great he was at a recent event.— Ryan Brown (@Toadsanime) January 29, 2016
*throws away Spider-Man figures*
You should not not give a cent to anything @Marvel until their racist, Trump-supporting CEO steps down.— Peter Nu-Male Coffin (@petercoffin) January 29, 2016
I guess the Marvel CEO donated $1 mil to Trump because he likes supervillains— HamletMachine (@Hamlet_Machine) January 29, 2016
The CEO of Marvel just gave Trump a million dollars.— Calvin (@aurosan) January 29, 2016
Excuse me while I go burn everything I own of theirs.
You wonder why @Marvel is bad with representation? Their CEO donated a million to Trump.— Peter Nu-Male Coffin (@petercoffin) January 29, 2016
End of story. Resign.
@ronmarz Not sure I agree. We boycott Chic-Fil-A & other companies whose CEOs support detestable people/policies. Why give Marvel a pass?— Rick Marshall (@rickmarshall) January 29, 2016
In a matter of speaking, "Welcome to the party, people."
Thanks to the hateful, bigoted, hypocritical, insulting, and just plain stupid language of the likes of Ron Marz, Dan Slott, Tom Brevoort, Nick Spencer, Mark Waid, Gerry Conway and numerous others -- whose remarks have all been chronicled here and by fellow travelers Douglas Ernst, Avi Green, and Nate Winchester -- there are many right-leaning people who have dropped reading (modern) comics altogether.
After all, to paraphrase Colossus' sub-banner, why would any individual want to give money to those who spit in your face?
Hell, writer Mark Waid even told a fan not to buy his stuff because he didn't like how he was spoken to regarding a Twitter spat about ObamaCare:
@juddemerson Seriously, fuck off. Please never read my comics again. I don't need money from someone who attacks me out of nowhere.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 12, 2014
I know, I know ... just when you think you've seen it ALL, along comes something else.
PBS(!!) recently gave Muslim activist and author Haroon Moghul a forum by which to lobby for a Muslim character in, of all places, STAR WARS.
Indeed. For, we all know that everybody immediately associates "Ben" and "Luke" with their religious origins. Mm-hmm.
Star Trek would make more sense for this activists's desires; of course, however, there's been very little discussion of Earthly religions on the many Trek shows over the universe's 50 years.
And hey -- wasn't the captain of the Kelvin in JJ Abrams' 2009 Trek reboot a Muslim? We actually never knew, just as we don't know much about any Trek character's religion, but he sure looked like he could have been (especially since the same actor played a Muslim in Iron Man and, not to mention, has a Pakistani background.)
Back to Star Wars: couldn't it be argued that the famous Admiral Ackbar from Return of the Jedi is based on the Arabic word "great"?
Oh, and lookee here -- someone agrees with me from six years ago:
…the Arabic word for "great," akbar, has been adapted into George Lucas's Star Wars franchise, in the form of Admiral Ackbar, a heroic character and military commander whose success in space helps Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance repel Darth Vader's Galactic Empire. Featured in Return of the Jedi, Ackbar is just one of many characters and settings in the Star Wars universe that have an Arabic background. Luke Skywalker's home planet, Tatooine, takes its name from the Tunisian city of Tataouine (al-Tataouine in Arabic). Darth Vader's home planet is Mustafar, a slight variation of Mustafa, an Arabic name that means "the chosen one" (and is one of 99 names for the Muslim prophet Muhammad). Attack of the Clones showcases Queen Jamilla, whose name is a slight variation of jamilla, an Arabic word for "beautiful." And Revenge of the Sith features Senator Meena Tills, whose first name means "heaven" in Arabic.
So, give us a break already, Mr. Moghul. Islamophobia, such that it is, still lags well behind anti-Semitism as a social/cultural problem, and it's really not even close.
Maybe we actually need more overtly Jewish symbols in our science fiction.
Mark Ruffalo, perhaps most famous for playing the Hulk in the Avengers films, is considering joining Will Smith, Jada Pinkett and Spike Lee in boycotting the Oscars ... because white privilege is rampant in America:
I’m weighing it, yes. That’s where I’m at right now. I woke up in the morning thinking, ‘what is the right way to do this?’ Because if you look at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy, what he was saying is the good people who don’t act are much worse than the wrongdoers who are purposely not acting and don’t know the right way.
It isn’t just the Academy Awards. The entire American system is rife with white privilege racism. It goes into our justice system.
Ruffalo is up for Best Supporting Actor for the film Spotlight; think he'll remove his name from consideration so a black or Latino actor can fill it?
"Guilty" white progressives like Ruffalo never apply their beliefs to themselves. It's like progressives who demand everyone pay higher taxes because "we're all in it together" (as they define "it"); however, they don't send extra cash to the federal treasury. In fact, they often take advantage of every tax dodge their wealthy accountants can muster for 'em.
I finally managed to see it over the New Year's weekend, and about the only "spoiler" I was treated to ahead of time was that Episode VII is "very much like the original (Episode IV) ... incredibly so."
And that spoiler was spot-on.
While new (and young) fans may delight at the tale, those of us who grew up with the original trilogy will come walking away with a "been there, done that" feeling.
Nevertheless, I get what JJ Abrams had in mind -- bridging the generational gap and all. The movie is very good, without a doubt. It's just not the greatest thing ever -- which I was led to believe when it first hit theaters.
My current ranking for the Star Wars installments is as follows: Episode IV, V, VII, VI, III, II, I.
"People can interpret the relationship however they want to interpret it," said Joe Russo when oddly asked if Cap and Bucky's relationship is somewhat sexual in Civil War.
"For us, we’ve always interpreted the relationship as two brothers. They’re very close characters, they have a relationship with each other that is very deep. The bond between them is very strong, [which is] what motivates the storytelling. These are both characters that came from nothing. Captain America was basically an orphan, and Bucky’s family took him in. When he was sleep for several years, he lost everything that was dear to him. And when he took the serum and became Captain America, he gave away a large part of himself for a patriotic cause. So, you have a character who is searching for the only thing that he has left from his past… and that’s Bucky. And people interpreted that relationship all kinds of ways and it’s great to see people argue about it what that relationship means to them."
At least (for the time being) we have some guys (the Russos) with some common sense. And, it's good to see ComicBookMovie.com use the term "oddly" in its write-up of the matter.
Wonder now if they'll be denounced as homophobic ...
The dumbest scientist ever, Neil deGrasse Tyson, tweets:
And guess what? The Millennium Falcon did the same thing. As did the X-Wing fighters.
Just imagine how boring this whole franchise would be without the awesome sound effects. In fact, George Lucas's THX company's whole forte is sound. And it doesn't get much better, frankly.
Stop trying to "impress" the public by tweeting science basics, Neil, and try to enjoy the show.
Does anyone want to hear from pampered celebrities -- many of whom have armed bodyguards to protect them -- about "ending gun violence?"
Give me a freakin' break, already.
Here it is -- the first look at Captain America: Civil War due out May 6th, 2016:
Was that ... the Black Panther I saw? I believe it was!
I'll be interested to see just how much they play up the "We want Bucky Barnes" angle vs. the whole "superhero registration" thingie. In the comics, Tony Stark was turned into an ogre, completely obliterating the history of his character, not to mention we were supposed to feel sympathy for Cap and his team.
This is how you gotta love the "logic" "progressive" comics creators -- law-abiding Americans (or whoever) are supposed to register and/or give up their guns as a means of personal protection ... but don't dare advocate that a superhuman -- who might be able to single-handedly blow up an entire city -- register himself with the feds!!
Details are few at this juncture, but hey, so what?
What would you like to see in the new series?
Will it be set in the "old" Trek universe, or new? Past, present or future?
Personally, I'd love to see a sort of "Love Boat/Fantasy Island" format where we see a different story every week populated by different cast members, different vessels, and different periods of time. I know it's highly unlikely and would make headaches for those interested in canon, but who cares?
If not that, I'd like to see what's been up in the "old" Trek-verse, maybe some years after "Next Generation." It'd be most interesting to see how the Federation is dealing with the post-Dominion War, the Borg, and destruction of Romulus.
Economists Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong debated aspects of the hypothetical economy of the Star Trek universe at the New York Comic Con this past Sunday.
“I would argue there’s a dark side to the abundance there,” said Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning Princeton University economist and New York Times columnist.
One conundrum: While the “replicators” of “Star Trek’s” future may be able to produce all the food, clothing and other material goods everyone would need, they wouldn’t be able to provide vital services. Probably robots or some other form of artificial intelligence would do that. But if those servitors are sophisticated and intelligent enough for the wide variety of those tasks, aren’t they really sentient beings, and wouldn’t we be enslaving them?
“A world in which you have servitors that give you everything you want is a world in which it’s very hard to tell the difference between those servitors and slaves,” Krugman said.
Krugman is touching on (perhaps not knowingly) the ST: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of a Man" where it was debated whether Commander Data was a machine or a sentient being with the same rights as everyone else.
In my view, if we develop the technology to make replicators, it's fairly safe to assume that robot-assisted medical technology will be around too -- and by "robot" I don't mean something with the self-awareness of Data.
DeLong says that in Trek society,"people wouldn’t work because they needed to, but because they wanted to." Which is accurate -- in the TNG episode "The Neutral Zone," Picard lectures a thawed-out late-20th century business mogul on how, since material needs are no longer an issue, people strive to "better themselves." Indeed, service in Starfleet seems to be just that.
However, I don't see a substantial number of people willingly putting their lives on the line in the service of Starfleet (granted, it's not an actual military organization, but is equipped to serve as such -- and has to, at times) if they have just about anything they desire for continued leisure right at their fingertips.
Author Manu Saadia says that the "ultra-achieving" one percent is what we see on Star Trek, adding Starfleet would be "a strict meritocracy, 'extremely harsh and cutthroat.'” There is some basis for that assessment; in TNG's "Coming of Age," we see the sort of character testing that would get a company sued for workmen's comp or other injuries/psychological damage today.
It's true that there would be people who would quickly bore of such endless excess relaxation and might want to join up and explore the universe, but really -- would you ... if you could just spend all day in a holodeck with a replicator??
Ah, the "troubles" of the Hollywood privileged. Poor Gwyneth Paltrow is lamenting the fact that she didn't make at least what her Iron Man co-star Robert Downey Jr. made for the film(s). Among other things.
“Look, nobody is worth the money that Robert Downey Jr is worth,” Paltrow told Variety. Downey Jr frequently tops Forbes’s best-paid lists, earning $111m (£72.4m) in the past year, nearly $40m more than the best-paid female actor, Jennifer Lawrence.
Paltrow came in at No 12 on the list, having made $9m in 2014. The disparity between pay for men and women was, she said, “painful”.
“Your salary is a way to quantify what you’re worth. If men are being paid a lot more for doing the same thing, it feels shitty.”
Earth to Gwyneth: Nobody bought a ticket for Iron Man, The Avengers and their sequels to see you. R.D. Jr. is Tony Stark, and Tony Stark is Iron Man. The comicbook wasn't called The Invincible Iron Secretary, ok?
If you wanna play this "game," let's go further -- why in the hell should an actor make millions of dollars when even the president only makes $400K per year? Or a cop? A soldier? A teacher?
This past weekend I wrote about "retroactive repression" -- a term used to make us feel all giddy about our contemporary moral superiority by altering the past with modern sensibilities.
The latest: The early 80s mystery show "Hart to Hart" starring Robert Wagner and Stefanie Powers will be rebooted ... featuring a gay couple.
According to Variety sister site Deadline, who first broke the news, the new “Hart to Hart” is described as a modern and sexy retelling of the classic series that focuses on “by the book” attorney Jonathan Hart and free-spirited investigator Dan Hartman, who must balance the two sides of their life: action-packed crime-solving in the midst of newly found domesticity.
Isn't that special.
h/t to Paul Hair.
Great read via The Claremont Institute titled "The Politics of Star Trek."
It's a topic I've covered numerous times before; however, I thought this nugget was particularly interesting:
This clear-headedness had evaporated by December 1991, when the movie sequel Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country appeared, only months after Roddenberry’s death. The previous films had focused on questions of loyalty, friendship, and Spock’s need for feeling to leaven his logic, but this one, written in part by Nimoy, would be the first devoted expressly to political subjects. It comments on the waning of the Cold War by portraying the first steps toward peace with the Klingons. Yet the price of peace, it turns out, is not merely to forgive past crimes, but for the innocent peoples of the galaxy to take the guilt upon themselves.
Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”
This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane.
Roddenberry was so bothered by the film’s script that he angrily confronted director Nicholas Meyer at a meeting, futilely demanding changes. He and those who helped him create Star Trek knew that without a coherent moral code—ideas they considered universal, but which the film calls “racist”—one can never have genuine peace. Star Trek VI seemed to nod contentedly at the haunting thought Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn voiced in The Gulag Archipelago: “No, no one would have to answer.”
The above is truncated a bit, so for the full meaning by all means click the link.
I had no idea Roddenberry despised the script for Undiscovered Country, and after this piece it makes quite a bit of sense.
However, despite my siding with Kirk's feelings about the Klingons, I've always considered ST VI along the lines of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty from the late 70s. Then, the leaders of both countries (Begin, Sadat) had to get beyond their own -- and their constituents' -- misgivings in order to make a lasting peace.
Granted, the analogy is far from perfect, but, overall, if any sort of peace is to be achieved leaders must go above and beyond grievances (past and present) in order to obtain it.
Certainly, in ST VI's case, the Federation easily could have made certain demands before entering into a peace agreement. Keep in mind that at the time it was stated that the Klingon Empire "had 50 years of life left." What were the Federation's demands? I don't recall them making any. Why not? Were they afraid of the Empire making a last-ditch "kamikaze" effort against them for their "insolence?" If so, that shows how (politically) weak the Federation had become even back then ... which is probably, partly, what the Great Bird (Roddenberry) was so cheesed at. After all, when the US had two of our greatest enemies beaten (Germany and Japan), we did indeed assist them in rebuilding themselves, but we didn't just send them cash and material assistance and have no say in the whole deal. We kept garrisons of military troops within their borders, and overtly guided the countries' transition to representative democracy.
Star Trek VI would have us believe that the Klingons had to give nothing, other than the promise of no further hostilities, for the goodwill of the Federation.
That's what you do to people who rely on your cash for their living ... but for some reason feel the need to piss all over you if you have different opinions.
You may have read about the nonsense at this year's Hugo Awards. Check out Larry Correia's take on it all if you want to get caught up. Basically, science fiction has been hijacked by those of similar mind to college campus nuts who go out of their way to label anyone who disagrees with them as "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc." All in the name of "diversity," you see.
Scifi author John Scalzi is one of these nuts, unfortunately. Scalzi jumped onto the scifi map with the awesome Old Man's War a decade ago, and while his tale borrows heavily from greats Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers) and Joe Haldeman (The Forever War), he makes his own mark.
Unfortunately, his subsequent stories went downhill from there. As did Scalzi's relationship with approximately half of his audience due to his smug, I-know-better-than-you elitist style of "progressivism."
One article to which Scalzi links is sadly funny. Seriously, who freakin' cares about the gender/race/sexual orientation of a writer ... as long as the story is damn good?? Not to mention, what has stopped women, minorities and/or gays from entering the field ... if their tales are good ones?
Oh, but guys like Scalzi care. There are now, it seems, gender/race/sexual orientation quotas for science fiction quality. And if you disagree, "[fill in '-ist' epithet]."
John has his latest book out set in the Old Man's War universe, titled The End of All Things. But y'know what? Despite having read (bought) all the previous entries in the series, I'll be skipping this one. Because why should I give my money to a person who openly sh**s on people for (honest) political and cultural disagreements? He's the same as comicbooks guys Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Gail Simone, and Kurt Busiek.
“It turns out Jon Stewart isn’t our Edward R. Murrow or our Mark Twain. He’s more like our . . . Jay Carney. Don’t count on future generations knowing Stewart’s name any more than they will know Carney’s. Remember when, under a Republican president, it was the duty of all comedians to be the loyal opposition, to speak truth to power? Stewart does the opposite. He’s more like a referee who sneaks into the Patriots’ locker room to ask Tom Brady how much he wants his footballs deflated.”
Newsarama has another Top 10 list up, this time dealing with, well, what the title says above, natch.
But, of course, yours truly has some issues with their list (not many, 'tho), and is here to provide you with some notable omissions.
First, the omissions:
* Thor from The Incredible Hulk Returns. Yes, Marvel's TV Hulk was still riding along in the late 1980s, and in the character's TV films from these years they intro'd a few other Marvel characters. In this case we have ... Thor:
Yeah, it was bad enough that the dude who played Donald Blake was totally lame (no pun intended), and that Bill Bixby concocted yet another ridiculous barely-veiled pseudonym for David Banner. But the real guffaw was Eric Kramer's Thor. As bad as the knee-slapping outfit is, the bellowing "ODIIIIIIIIN!!!" he yells to transform into the Thunder God is even worse.
* Captain America from the straight-to-video 1990 Captain America. I recall leaving a movie in the late 1980s near UD and seeing a poster on the wall with "COMING SOON" on it. Right underneath was one image: Cap's shield.
Fortunately, the flick went straight to video. Because it's so God-awful. An Italian as the Red Skull? Check. Cap kicking a missile to change its course before it strikes Washington DC? Uh huh. And the list can go on and on. But who the f*** cast Matt Salinger (perhaps best known as one of the jocks in Revenge of the Nerds) as the Star-Spangled Avenger ... and who allowed that "costume" to be used??
I've seen better on "Saturday Night Live."
* Spider-Man from his 1970s TV show. OK, it's easy to jump on something from almost forty years ago, but not only was the costume pathetic (steely, hole-filled eyes, one over-sized web-shooter which we never actually saw shoot anything), when Nicholas Hammond assumed his Spidey role, he never said anything!
Oh, and don't forget to marvel at the "cool" negative photograph image effect for Pete's "spider-sense." Ugh.
* The Flash from the 1989 TV series. I know superheroes are supposed to be quite muscular, but c'mahn -- the Flash runs. Runs a lot. And quite fast. So, what's up with this ridiculous (and lame) musculature?
* Green Goblin from Spider-Man. Willem Dafoe has one of the best faces naturally for ugly grimaces and the like, so what do the creators behind the first Spidey flick do? Give him a stupid helmet-like mask which completely obscures his features:
Now, reactions to Newsarama's list:
#10. Daredevil from The Trial of the Incredible Hulk. I tend to give this a lot of leeway as it's actually not all that dissimilar from the movie Daredevil outfit -- except the color. And when you think about it, black makes sense: DD is blind, after all.
#8. The Hulk from Ang Lee's Hulk. Yeah, ok, maybe the CGI could have been better (it was a dozen years ago), and yeah, the story sucked. But the effects weren't that bad, and the movie (and character) should be be applauded for how immensely powerful they made the Jade Giant.
Consider how "de-powered" the hero from the follow-up film was compared to Eric Bana's alter ego. Jumping miles in a single leap (Bana's -- which is how it should be) vs. having to jump from building to building (Edward Norton's)? I'll take the former. Unfortunately, The Avengers films have followed The Incredible Hulk's version of the Green Goliath's leg muscles.
#4. Captain America from the 1970s TV series. Spot-on, here. Though Reb Brown was a great choice to play Steve Rogers, the costume (especially the motorcycle helmet) is a knee-slapper.
#3. Catwoman, Halle Berry's version. Stop. Enough. It's Halle-freakin'-Berry, OK? She can wear whatever the f*** she wants and I'll watch it.
Here it is:
Now go read Doug Ernst's critique. I couldn't have said it any better.
There were two films of that era that in retrospect are particularly of note: 1997's Air Force One, which starred Harrison Ford as a 50-something American president who knew his way around the cockpit of a jet aircraft, refused to take any guff from terrorists, and had a woman as a vice president to boot. And 1999's Three Kings, which starred George Clooney, and denigrated George H.W. Bush for not toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
No wonder Hollywood has been so miserable after 9/11; they got everything they had previously wished for in a president and as a result, thoroughly hated his guts.
Tweet from comics guy Kurt Busiek:
Reading a Hugo nominee for Best Novella, that’s edited by someone up for Best Editor. It’s both terribly written and badly edited.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) May 31, 2015
Yep. See the title of this post.
Letterman was at his best in the mid-late 80s (thankfully, my college years) when he was following Carson at 12:30. His bits were so stupid, so outlandish, and so silly that they were gut-bustingly funny.
Who else would have a camera follow a line of people for over a minute, moving towards the front of the line ... only to discover that folks were waiting to pay $5 to have their picture taken with Will Lee, the bass player in Paul Shaffer's band??
And remember the Late Night Bookmobile? How to Play Guitar in Your Bare Feet by then-band guitarist Hiram Bullock and You Too Can Do Haiku by Lee Majors (complete with Six Million Dollar Man glamor photo) had me laughing so hard I almost lost consciousness.
But once Dave got the CBS 11:30 gig, he got boring and let his politics show (liberal, natch). Rival Jay Leno's "Headlines" and "Jay Walking" were much funnier, and Leno was middle-of-the-road with his politics.
(Warning: Minor spoilers ahead.)
It looks like Warner Brothers has outbid everyone else to bring Joe Haldeman's classic The Forever War to movie theaters hopefully within a reasonable time-frame.
Making the package go supernova was the involvement of Prometheus and Passengers screenwriter Jon Spaihts and producer Roy Lee. Producing with Lee are Tatum and his Free Association execs as well as Film 360.
The package started to heat up last week but went fiery Thursday when Warners, Sony and another studio were all ready to write hefty checks. Warners won the project late afternoon paying low six figures against seven for the movie rights. Spaihts' deal to write the script topped seven figures.
Haldeman's 1974 novel offers a perspective on his experience as a Vietnam veteran. In it, humans have discovered how to use collapsars (mini-black holes) to travel instantaneously to other parts of the galaxy and beyond. However, the time spent traveling to various destinations (excluding collapsar-to-collapsar), most especially that at, and around. the black holes, makes our protagonist, William Mandella, a "man out of time" as a member of Earth's fighting forces via the Elite Conscription Act.
(This is sort of a bizarre reversal of what we saw in Vietnam: There, college attendees were exempt from being drafted; in TFW only the very intelligent and educated are conscripted into service.)
The alien enemy are the Taurans, so named because we encountered them near the constellation of that name. We're at war with them because one of Earth's ships disappeared ... and the Taurans were whom we named the responsible party -- because one of their ships was "close by." Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?
The entire planet Earth is on a war footing, and all resources go towards the war effort. Most of the population exists on subsistence living, and as such, crime is rampant. Mandella discovers this situation on his first excursion back to Earth years after a few interstellar battles.
The situation at home is so bleak that William decides to head back out to fight.
There is little-to-no communication between humans and Taurans; the latter, we learn, essentially have a hive mind and possess no concept of the individual. Humans win many battles, but the Taurans always catch up eventually.
So much time passes back home while Mandella is out fighting that humanity eventually forms a sort of hive mind of its own -- called, simply, "Man." Once this is achieved communication with the Taurans becomes possible ... and Man learns that, to its great dismay, that the "Forever War" was the sad result of humans presuming the worst -- because it simply did not understand something.
Mandella's love and fellow soldier, Marygay, has survived the long war too, and has been awaiting him on a "time shuttle" -- a craft circling a collapsar so as to keep passing time at a minimum.
The Forever War's sequel, Forever Free, details Mandella's and his family's life of planet Middle Finger and shows their eventual return to Earth. But the plot involves an annoying deus ex machina which results in a rather disappointing finale to The Forever War saga.
(Cross-posted at Smash Cut Culture.)
Horizon Comics Productions' Ben and Ray Lai are suing Marvel/Disney "claiming that the Iron Man suit featured in the Marvel movies infringes on their comic book series Radix."
Yeah, I never heard of Radix either.
[The] lawsuit states that the “highly detailed, mechanized suits of body armor” that the characters in the comics wear has been appropriated by Marvel and Disney. The lawsuit also claims that the original Marvel comic books “typically depicted Iron Man wearing simple spandex-like attire and minimal armor,” and that it wasn’t until the movies came along that Iron Man began wearing increasingly complex suits of full body armor.
Considering the Lais created Radix in 2001, and that Iron Man debuted in, ahem, 1963, I predict Marvel/Disney will prevail.
With the second installment of The Avengers less than a month away, and with it clearly the favorite to be the summer blockbuster of 2015, it behooves us to be aware of that which came before -- or, at least, from where the new characters to which we'll be introduced come, as well as various needed plot elements.
Print comics is a dying medium, yes, but naturally, without 'em, we wouldn't be able to enjoy our heroes on the silver screen.
Ultron was created by Hank Pym, aka Giant Man as shown in Avengers #58. The robot quickly "evolves," going from monosyllabic to complex speech in mere moments. He quickly frees himself from any concept of robotic servitude, immobilizing and then brain-wiping Pym, and escaping into the night.
Soon disguised as the Crimson Cowl, Ultron recruits a new Masters of Evil to assist him against the Avengers, and follows this with the creation of the Vision (Avengers #57), whom he also sends against Earth's Mightiest Heroes.
The Vision, however, betrays Ultron and helps the Avengers to defeat the mechanoid. But unknown to all, the robot's "braincase" remains intact.
In Avengers #66, we see the first instance of the "Ultron Imperative" -- a computerized compulsion which leads to the rebirth of the evil robot. Here, the Vision is compelled to steal a batch of adamantium (this is the fictional metal's first appearance, by the way) from SHIELD, and recreate Ultron -- this time virtually indestructible.
(That's right Marvel movie-only fans -- adamantium has its origins in the pages of The Avengers, not Wolverine or the X-Men.)
The Avengers, with the help of a now-mentally free Vision, and a vibranium gift from the Black Panther, manage to defeat this latest incarnation, Ultron-6.
Ultron continues to evolve through the years, and in the late 1970s creates a "mate," Jocasta, based on Hank Pym's wife's -- the Wasp's -- brain patterns. Ultron creates another "female" companion, Alkhema, in the 1990s. Both Jocasta and Alkhema eventually rebel against Ultron, with the former actually joining the Avengers.
In the late 1990s, writer Kurt Busiek ups the ante still further by having the latest incarnation of Ultron slaughter an entire country, and manufactures a robotic army to assist him. This premise looks to figure large in the film.
The early 2000s sees Ultron incorporated into one of Iron Man's suits of armor, but the former Jocasta, now Tony Stark's sentient A.I., helps Stark defeat him.
In 2007 the robot takes over Stark's armor again, this time the "Extremis" version which is actually part of Stark. A Skrull computer virus saves the billionaire, and world, thankfully.
Most recently, in the "Age of Ultron" storyline, the robot attempts to utilize the Avengers' Infinite Mansion to conquer the universe. His defeat draws directly from his second attempt to crush humanity: Starfox uses his power to make Ultron love himself, just as Hank Pym (disguised as adamantium inventor Myron MacLain) used the thought "Thou shall not kill" to defeat the robot back in Avengers #68.
In the upcoming film, being as there is no (movie) basis (yet) for Hank Pym developing Ultron, it will be Tony Stark activating a "peacekeeping" program that goes awry when it decides the best method to "keep" the peace is by ... annihilating all humans. (Sound familiar?)
As noted, the Vision was created by Ultron for use against the Avengers, but the android (he's actually a "synthozoid," an artificial human) quickly turns on his creator.
The Vision's powers include the ability to fire solar blasts from his eyes, but more impressively he can control his density at will -- become as intangible as a ghost (hence his name), or massively heavy and as hard as a diamond.
It appears the movie will maintain Vision's Ultron origin; however, it will be Tony Stark and Bruce Banner who reprogram him with Stark's AI, JARVIS, to fight alongside the Avengers.
Vision marries the Scarlet Witch (Wanda Maximoff) for a time, beginning in Giant-Size Avengers #4. However, after the android takes over all of the planet's computers (Avengers #254), many of the world's governments hatch a plan to capture and disassemble him. This they do shortly thereafter in the pages of West Coast Avengers.
Hank Pym eventually manages to reassemble the Vision; however, he is now without the brain patterns of Wonder Man, which Ultron had utilized originally in his construction. This leads to a loss of all emotion within the android, and the now-living Wonder Man refuses to allow his brain patterns to be used again. As a result, Vision and Wanda drift apart.
Vision eventually reacquires the ability to feel emotions, but he and Wanda never get back together, despite flickers of renewed affection.
The Vision is thoroughly destroyed by the She-Hulk years later after Ultron -- yet again -- unwittingly uses his creation in an attack against the Avengers. He is later reconstructed by Tony Stark and once again serves among the Earth's Mightiest.
Also joining the team in the film will be the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, the mutant twins first seen in the pages of the X-Men (#4). The latter was seen recently in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but not by his name due to a usage rights issue.
Members of the Avengers since their earliest days (Avengers #16) -- in "Cap's Kooky Quartet" (including Capt. America and Hawkeye) -- Wanda and Pietro Maximoff have returned to the ranks of team many times. Wanda, in particular, has been one of the team's most stalwart associates.
As noted, Wanda ends up marrying the Vision, but this does not sit well with he brother. Ironically, Pietro, the subject of much fear and prejudice due to his being a mutant, is one of the most intolerant of Avengers. In fact, the ephemeral Avenger Moondragon ends up brain-zapping him (Avengers #176) in an effort to purge him of his bigotry.
The mutant twins' history is a very convoluted one, given their actions in the ranks of the Avengers as well as that in the pages of various X-Men titles. Once thought to be the abandoned children of the 1940s-50s heroes the Whizzer and Miss America, it is eventually shown that the X-Men's perennial nemesis, Magneto, is their true father.
In terms of powers, the Scarlet Witch is one of the most powerful characters in all the Marvel Universe. Able to alter probabilities and even warp reality, she alone is responsible for one of Ultron's defeats (Avengers #171), and at one time actually creates her own (alternate) reality.
Quicksilver's unnamed appearance in the last X-film hopefully will be reprised in some manner as it was possibly the best segment in Days of Future Past. In the slim chance you haven't yet seen it, Pietro can move so fast that you'll never know what he has done until he finally decides to slow down.
Avengers: Age of Ultron opens in American theaters May 1.
(Image credits: Write-ups.org, CBR Community, MTV)
And with the franchises’ 50th Anniversary next year, fans have been hoping that some kind of announcement would be made about a return to TV for the franchise. Now, a new rumor has surfaced that suggests it might very well be happening… and details on what it could be about have actually been available online for years.
According to the report, back before the 2009 movie reboot, there were two competing pitches for a Star Trek TV revival. One was developed by Babylon 5 creator and comics writing legend J. Michael Straczynski and Dark Skies’ Bryce Zabel, which would have rebooted the original Kirk/Spock/McCoy trio with all new actors. The details of that pitch are actually all online and make for a fascinating “what if” read.
The other pitch, which in my opinion was far more interesting, was from novelist Geoffrey Thorne, along with X-Men’s Bryan Singer, Free Enterprise director Rob Burnett, and Usual Suspects writer Christopher McQuarrie. It was called Star Trek: Federation. This one was set in the timeline of the original five shows, but set much farther into the future, where the United Federation of Planets has become a “fat n’ happy” bloated empire, with the age of exploration (and heroes like Kirk and Picard) far behind them, with a Starfleet made of old ships just patrolling the borders.
Uh, yeah, I'll take Singer over Straczynski any day of the week, although in terms of series sustainability the latter's pitch probably stands a better chance of being green-lighted. After all, with the new rebooted Trek films, the original crew is back in vogue.
Still, Singer's idea is a fascinating read and ST: TNG established that a future-Trek can work.
One thing that will have to be altered from Singer's pitch is the reunification of the Vulcans and Romulans since the latter's planet was destroyed in the first reboot Trek flick.
(h/t to RWR)
Michelle Rodriguez of Fast and the Furious and Machete fame, says her possibly playing the Green Lantern is "the dumbest thing [she's] ever heard."
"I think it's so stupid because of this whole minorities in Hollywood thing. It's so stupid. Stop stealing all the white people's superheroes. Make up your own. You know what I am saying? What's up with that?"
But, as Douglas Ernst points out, the social justice warrior (SJW) hordes must have been out in force quickly thereafter, as Rodriguez later added the following on Facebook:
Hey guys, I want to clarify about my comment yesterday. I stuck my foot in my mouth once again. I said that people should stop trying to steal white people’s superheroes. I guess it got taken out of context because a lot of people got offended or whatever. I have a tendency to, you know, speak without a filter — sorry about that. What I really meant was that ultimately at the end of the day there’s a language and the language that you speak in Hollywood is ‘successful franchise.’
I think that there are many cultures in Hollywood that are not white that can come up with their own mythologies. We all get it from the same reservoir of life, the fountain of life. It doesn’t matter what culture you come from. I’m just saying that instead of trying to turn a girl character into a guy — or instead of trying to turn a white character into a black character or latin character I think that people should stop being lazy. People should actually make an effort in Hollywood to develop their own mythology. It’s time to stop. Stop trying to take what’s already there and try to fit a culture into it. I think that it’s time for us to write our own mythology and our own story. Every culture. That’s what I really meant, and I’m sorry if it came off rude or stupid. That’s not what I meant. So, cheers.
Doug (rightly) says, "When Ms. Rodriguez apologizes for speaking without a filter, what she really means is 'I’m sorry for telling the truth.'”
Before the usual SJWs get on Michelle too harshly, they should know -- if they don't already -- that she is an open bisexual.
Then again, knowing idiot SJWs as I do, that means zilch. Rodriguez should be prepared to be called a "self-hating bi," an "Aunt Tom" and whatever other filth the heinously self-righteous SJW pricks routinely throw against those who dare to veer from their rigidly enforced orthodoxy.
We reported yesterday that Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Elysium) has been given the green light for his Alien film which will "negate" the awful Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection.
CNN's Brandon Griggs offers up five things that Blomkamp should heed if he doesn't want to screw up his big chance.
All make sense to me but one: "Have them attack Earth."
Invading space aliens have been a science-fiction staple since at least 1951's "The Day the Earth Stood Still." But having a marauding alien terrorize Times Square or scamper down Sunset Boulevard would look pretty silly.
The "Alien" movies have generated suspense largely through the claustrophobic feel of humans trapped in enclosed spaces with deadly critters who might pop out at any moment.
So instead of Earth, what about this: What if an alien stowaway or two infiltrate an exclusive space colony -- like Blomkamp's own Elysium?
It might be satisfying to see the toothy monsters wreak havoc on a bunch of pampered elitists.
Au contraire, Brandon. Again, I give you Mark Verheiden and his Dark Horse "Aliens" series. In these masterful tales, the Aliens do invade Earth, but it isn't as Griggs worries.
As I wrote six years ago:
... a derelict spacecraft has made its way back to Earth orbit, one of its pilots with an Alien “facehugger” attached to him. Uh-oh.
The Company takes the pilot into possession and keeps close tabs on him. And wouldn’t ‘ya know it? He’s impregnated with a queen. How lucky for the Company! Of course, they keep the queen sequestered and allow it to lay eggs at will, which they hope to eventually use as weapons. Somehow. Meanwhile, the government organizes a mission to the Alien homeworld. Unbeknownst to it, the Company has jetted off its own craft right behind the military one. That Company is just too damn greedy!
You can imagine what follows: The imprisonment of the Alien queen goes awry ...
Y'see, the public isn't even aware of the danger -- and the sheer magnitude of it -- until it's way too late. The spread of the Alien hives is exactly like a deadly viral epidemic: slowly, surely, everyday conveniences and services begin to fail, eventually everyone fends for themselves, and the Aliens take over.
That is spooky, and unlike Griggs's suggestion doesn't sound exactly like the first Alien film (and third and fourth). The queens even affect human dreams (and nightmares) via a form of telepathy which sort of acts like a foreshadow of events to come. Freaky as hell, I'm telling you!
Griggs also says that Blomkamp shouldn't worry about the events in Prometheus at all. This is fine; however, Blomkamp will have to be careful about canon here -- the "Space Jockey" isn't an alien at all but one of humanity's progenitors, etc.
It's a fanboy-gasm as word continues to leak out about noted director Neill Blomkamp's (District 9, Elysium) new Alien movie. The latest is that his film will take place after James Cameron's Aliens, and will "overwrite" Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection.
Sigourney Weaver (Ripley) is on board, but there's no word yet on Michael Biehn (Hicks) and Lance Henriksen (Bishop). The girl who played Newt, Carrie Henn, never did any acting beyond Aliens and is presently a school teacher. Thus, it's doubtful she'll be brought back as the brave youngster who survived the horror on LV-426.
You may recall that in Alien 3 a space capsule carrying a hypersleeped Ripley, Hicks, Newt and Bishop crash-lands on a prison planet after a facehugger (clandestinely planted aboard the Sulaco causes a fire. Hicks and Newt are killed, but Ripley survives ... at least for the nonce.
The facehugger aboard the Sulaco had impregnated Ripley, and at the end of the film she kills herself to keep the Alien queen out of the hands of the devious Company.
Blomkamp's film, as noted, will ignore all this.
Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection were widely panned (rightly so, in my opinion). Killing Hicks and Newt -- off-camera!! -- in the former was an awful move, and then the flick wasn't much different from the 1979 original.
Writer Mark Verheiden did a spectacular job back in 1990 telling the continuing tale of Ripley, Hicks and Newt with his Dark Horse Comics Aliens: Book One, continuing with Book Two, and finally with Earth War.
I highly recommend them.
Here it is:
Uh, no thanks. I'll pass. Seriously -- what possibly would entice you to see this? I see absolutely nothing new, other than Johnny Storm being a black guy. Oh, but I'll admit that the new look of the Thing looks pretty cool.
So says the actor to play Mary Mapes' boss in Robert Redford's upcoming film about the sordid affair, Bruce Greenwood. (Greenwood has played, among other things, Capt. Pike in the Star Trek reboot films, and Ashley Judd's scumbag husband in Double Jeopardy.)
The incident "reflected poorly, ultimately, on CBS and Viacom who were unwilling to pursue the truth because there was legislation forthcoming that if they didn’t play ball with the [Bush] administration the legislation would have cost them millions and millions and millions of dollars," Greenwood says. "Rather than allow Mary Mapes and Dan Rather to support their story, they allowed this avalanche of right-wing resistance to swamp the real story."
Greenwood's take on Rathergate's fallout? Modern journalists are "under the thumb" of the powers that be, not the news cycle....
He complains that even Wikipedia has it wrong when it comes to Rathergate, according to his viewpoint.
"It's a reminder that if bull-expletive is repeated often enough it becomes perceived truth, conventional wisdom," he says.
Right. The powers-that-be just said "Hey, let's not make an issue of this. We know these documents about George Bush are true, but what the f***. Let's dump Mapes and Rather. That's an even better story!"
And considering the buffoons now in charge over there (like Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso and Senior Vice President of Publishing and Executive Editor Tom Brevoort among others), I don't have much hope that what Stan "The Man" Lee, Jack Kirby and the other Bullpen members started in 1961 will in any way be improved upon.
Brevoort confirmed that the eight-issue series Secret Wars will represent the end of both the Marvel Universe and the Ultimate Universe.
Saying that the mainstream Marvel Universe and Ultimate Universe would "smash together" during the upcoming Secret Wars crossover event, Alonso and Brevoort went on to elaborate that, by the time Secret Wars #1 hits the stands, every world in Marvel's multiverse will be destroyed, with pieces of each forming Battleworld, the staging ground for the Secret Wars storyline
"Once we hit Secret Wars #1, there is no Marvel Universe, Ultimate Universe, or any other. It's all Battleworld," Brevoort said.
Yeesh. These geniuses couldn't even come up with an original way to create a whole new comics universe, having to resort to the exact same title and planet name as the original series from thirty years ago.
The new universe will combine elements from the old Marvel Universe, the Ultimate Universe, and a few others.
Hey, rival DC tried this with a gimmick called "The New 52" and it was a big hit! (/sarcasm)
RELATED: Stan Lee reacts.
Hey, remember how these dolts' Twitter feeds were all a-flutter after Michael Brown's and Trayvon Martin's shootings? And how self-righteous they all were about how incorrigibly racist and hateful society (still) is? And how anyone who disagreed with them was racist, stupid, hateful, extreme, etc.?
But now that several cops have been executed, we hear mostly ... crickets.
For example, here's Kurt Busiek back on the 19th parroting a John Scalzi tweet about supposed Ferguson grand jury shenanigans:
What's even more pathetic about Busiek is that he was one of those who "wondered" if Sarah Palin's "target" language was partly responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords:
That, of course, disregards the fact the practically every politician uses such imagery. Nevertheless, there's been nary a word from Kurt about actual language of calling for the death of police. But, of course!
As for Gail Simone, look -- here's a retweet by her about Dick Cheney and torture!
Tom Brevoort was similarly still concerned about that "torture" report with this retweet.
Nothing about the cops, though. But, of course.
Ultra-bat Gerry Conway offered nothing about the police over the weekend, yet retweeted this ridiculous nonsense:
Things HAVE to change in this country. We cannot keep condoning the murder of black persons like their lives are ours to take at will.— Matt SantoriGriffith (@FotoCub) December 21, 2014
The exceptions to all this were Dan Slott and Ron Marz:
Didn't see the news today until now. A horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the families of the two officers.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 20, 2014
The deaths of police officers, a man in a choke hold, or a teenager gunned down in the street are all tragedies. No one should be rejoicing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 21, 2014
Gotta be fair -- good for them.
I managed to catch the premiere of SyFy's latest offering, Ascension, on Monday evening.
The premise: Back in the early 1960s, the US secretly built and launched an Orion starship -- that's right, starship -- to Proxima Centauri. Those in power were worried about the heating up of the Cold War, and as such wanted a segment of humanity, however small, to survive in case all-out nuclear war came about.
We begin about half-way into the Ascension's 100-year journey. And there's been the first murder on-board since launch, fifty-one years ago.
It is true that we actually had the technology to build and use Orion back in the early 60s. The first question upon glimpsing the interior of Ascension is ... really?
The ship looks too clean and neat. Granted, the producers do a fairly admirable job using technology from the early 60s (television screens, buttons, gauges, print-outs, etc.) but then again other aspects of the ship's tech look way ahead of their time.
In a recent Entertainment Weekly review of the first episode, a critic wrote that the sociological/cultural aspects of the pre-Civil Rights 60s were still intact. I doubt we were watching the same episode, frankly. First, one of the main characters is a black male (he's the ship's XO) whose main job in the episode is tracing down what happened the night of the murder. It seems to me there would be quite a bit more ... resentment among the mainly white passengers when a "presumptuous" black man demands answers from them. Such wasn't evident at all. In addition, another fairly prominent character was the ship's librarian, a black woman. Further, the ship's doctor is a woman, and the EW writer says that sexism was very prevalent on the ship. The doctor alone isn't proof against that; I just didn't see anything to indicate it was much worse than it is today. So, for an early-60s era cultural snapshot, this is pretty darn progressive. Of course, being out in space for a half century could have certainly brought about their own sense of cultural and racial enlightenment; however, I'm just taking issue with the EW writer's seeming lack of knowledge.
How would the US pull such a project off? A trillion dollars ... back in 1963? How much would that equate to in current dollars? It's huge! And how would our competing powers -- the USSR, mainly -- miss such a launch? An Orion ship of this size is massive, and is powered by continuous nuclear explosions. Even given 1960s technology, it's highly unlikely the Russians would have missed that.
How is gravity seemingly so normal onboard the ship? There's no evidence of anything rotating (one of the feasible means of generating "artificial" gravity) so the only imaginable way to produce the close-to-normal gravity evident on the ship is by continuous acceleration. But bumping up to a continuous one gee takes quite a bit of time, and even so -- a continuous one gee acceleration would enable a shop to travel 10 light-years in 100 years' time; Proxima Centauri is only four light-years away. Thus, we can assume that Ascension is not accelerating at one gee. So ... how in the hell is everyone moving around the ship so normally?
Why do we need the gratuitous sex? I'm not saying people wouldn't be engaged in this sort of stuff, but why does a Syfy show like this need to have fairly graphic sex and bare butt shots?
The premise. It's terrific. If they made it much more realistic then I'd probably be on board. Of course, none of this addresses the big "shock" at the end of the premiere which, if you want the spoiler, check out the EW link above.
Which makes this even more silly ...
Ace mocks astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson for this tweet:
Aliens, seeing Humans kill over land, politics, religion, & skin color, would surely ask, “What the f*%k is wrong with you?"— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) December 6, 2014
Tyson has been giggled at on several occasions, the latest of which (before the tweet above) was his fabrication of a George W. Bush quote that made it appear he (Bush) was some sort of Islamophobic bigot.
But history isn't Tyson's forte, science is. Which brings us back to the tweet and our title: Would aliens be asking that?
Apparently, as Glenn Reynolds points out, Tyson is ignorant of the literature on the topic.
It stands to reason that, if aliens are advanced enough to either observe us or visit us, they will have followed a pretty similar evolution as human beings. That is, it is highly likely they had their own struggles with land issues, politics, religion, and/or biological differences.
Tyson's "Cosmos" predecessor, Carl Sagan, believed that advanced aliens wouldn't be a threat to us because, after all, what could we do to them? With their technology they'd be able to annihilate us with a snap of their fingers (or appendages).
Sagan also believed that any civilization advanced enough to acquire the means for interstellar travel is probably socially advanced enough as to have grown beyond the concepts of war and conflict.
However, many contemporary scientific minds believe the opposite -- that if (advanced) aliens have followed an evolutionary pattern similar to ours, they are "top predators," and as such have the same needs -- and desires -- as us (territory, resources, power, etc.)
I happen to think that even the insanely brilliant Stephen Hawking is off-base when he warns that aliens may want Earth for its "resources." Why would aliens capable of interstellar travel want to mine Earth for its riches when they obviously have the means to mine mineral-rich and water-rich objects like asteroids and comets?
The truth is, we have no idea about alien life and what its motivations may be. However, let's take this time to examine some "Earth invasion" scenarios from popular culture and rate 'em based on a thing called "plausibility."
Scenario: Aliens advance on Earth to wipe out humans and mine our resources.
Plausibility Factor: Low
They'd been watching us for at least 50 years and decide to make their move in 1996. Unfortunately for them, our computer revolution in the interim allowed Jeff Goldblum to become a computer virus expert. At any rate, as revealed in the scene where the captured alien mind-zaps the president, the aliens are "like locusts" and plan to strip Earth of all resources. But this makes little sense as I said above.
Scenario: Aliens come to Earth to steal our water. And eat humans.
Plausibility Factor: Medium
Much like the plot in Independence Day, the aliens in V want stuff from us -- in this case, water. Um, hey idiot aliens? Why not snag a comet or an ice asteroid, duh!!! But if they consider humans a delicacy, that makes a compelling reason to visit us. Except that, as even the series plays upon, a race as advanced as the V reptiles might have a moral issue with munching on another intelligent species.
War of the Worlds
Scenario: Aliens blast Earth with tripods to prepare for colonization.
Plausibility Factor: Medium
Wanting a new habitable planet for your civilization certainly makes a hell of a lot of sense -- much more than wanting such a planet for its resources, especially if its already been highly drained of such by the intelligent species already living on it! And so it is with the "Martians" (in quotes because, although Wells didn't know that Mars was a desolate place, the late 20th century did and updated the story accordingly). However, an alien race advanced enough to cross space and humble an advanced native populace can't devise a means of an effective immunity?
Scenario: Aliens have been slowly terraforming (or is that "alienaforming?") Earth to suit their purposes for eventual habitation.
Plausibility Factor: High
A very smart film starring Charlie Sheen and Ron Silver, an astronomer (Sheen) accidentally discovers that aliens are slowly terraforming Earth to suit themselves -- which, in this case, means accelerating global warming. The aliens are also keen to Earth politics, as their "warming stations" are located in countries with little-to-no environmental regulations. (Sheen finds one in Mexico.)
Scenario: Ultra-capitalist aliens conquer Earth 1,000 years ago to plunder its resources.
Plausibility Factor: Low
Greedy aliens from the planet Psychlos decimated Earth's civilization a millennium ago, and are still mining the planet for all it's worth in the year 3,000. In particular, the Psychlos like valuable metals like gold. Except that, like other metals and water, these resources are abundant in space. As much as the Psychlos despise humans, then why bother crushing such a people when you can get what you need for a lot cheaper? You're capitalists, after all! And how do you develop high technology in a flammable atmosphere??
Scenario: Like the Psychlos from Battlefield: Earth, these aliens are "free enterprisers" using Earth as "their Third World."
Plausibility Factor: Medium
Greedy aliens have been projecting a field which not only disguises them, but also uses clandestine subliminal messages to "sooth" the human populace. But some scientists have devised a way to see them, and Roddy Piper plans to do something about it! But again we see aliens plundering resources on Earth, but at least it has the twist that their making us get them for 'em. Still, 'ya'd think they wouldn't rely on single land-based antennae to project that beam so that average joes like Piper can destroy 'em.
Without further ado:
Looks like we're in for some all-out Rebel Alliance vs. Tattered Empire action! The effects look killer (as you'd expect -- marvel at the wind effects as the Millennium Falcon whips around against the TIE fighters), and as long as we avoid
1) "cutesy" characters -- Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, etc.,
2) anything about Naboo, and
3) anything about the Trade Federation, General Grievous and other essentially useless ancillary entities
we'll be golden!
Oh, and why didn't Han/Chewie/Lando repair the antenna on the Falcon after Return of the Jedi, hmm?
Via Ace: Chalk it up as yet another sequel we seriously don't need:
Guardians of the Galaxy's Chris Pratt appears to play the role Jeff Goldblum did in the originals, apparently. No, not the exact same guy, just a similar role. Even the lines he utters appear the same.
Which sorta makes sense, for, if anyone is ridiculously stupid enough to restart Jurassic Park after what happened not once, not twice, but three times (yes, there was a Jurassic Park III), then they definitely need a cliché-spouting cynic in their midst.
Besides the quartet not "really being superheroes" (or something), now the flick's enemy, Dr. Doom, has a new last name and origin.
Are you ready?
In what [Toby] Kebbell describes as a mild change, he said, “He’s Victor Domashev, not Victor Von Doom in our story. And I’m sure I’ll be sent to jail for telling you that. The Doom in ours—I’m a programmer. Very anti-social programmer. And on blogging sites I’m “Doom”.
In regards to how Victor Domashev fits into the overall picture, Kebbell explained, “Yeah, it was cool man. Josh, the whole deal, the lo-fi way he did it, the ultra-real. It was just nice to do that. It was nice to be feeling like we had to come to terms with what was given by this incident.”
Dr. Doom -- an anti-social blog troll.
God help us.
He doesn't quite look like Strange but meh, who cares. He's a good actor and I think he'll do a good job.
Just posting this here to scoop Hube on comic book related news for once.
Chadwick Boseman is slated to play Marvel's Black Panther in 2017.
If you haven't seen Boseman before, check out his spectacular breakout portrayal of Jackie Robinson in the terrific 42.
Check out the headline in today's edition:
Attention writer Tirdad Derakhshani: Captain Marvel is NOT Captain America. Captain America and Captain Marvel are two distinctly different characters. They have no relation to one another. None, other than serving as Avengers together at various points.
And you forgot to include probably her most popular former name -- Ms. Marvel. It's how she was introduced when she finally got her own comicbook in the 70s.
Without further ado:
Newsarama has a "5 Odd Things We Noticed" about the trailer, but you won't be missing much if you don't read it.
Here's what I garner from the trailer and from reading various synopses:
-- Apparently Stark has created some sort of defense network a la The Terminator, which in this case happens to be Ultron (voiced by James Spader). Upon becoming self-aware, Ultron does what SkyNet did -- tries to wipe out humanity.
This Ultron origin differs from the comics in that the evil robot was created by Hank Pym, aka Ant Man/Giant Man. As Ultron's intelligence increased, he evolved his body, too.
-- Stark's creation kinda makes sense since SHIELD has been decimated (see: Captain America: The Winter Soldier).
-- The Avengers seem pissed off at Stark, especially Thor. And Stark has to don his Hulkbuster armor to battle you-know-who! (By the way, the Hulkbuster suit bears an uncanny resemblance to the comicbook version from the early 1990s – created by Len Kaminski and Kevin Hopgood.)
Newsarama postulates that this may sow the seeds of the “Civil War” saga which Marvel is reportedly bringing to the big screen next. As you may know, the opposing sides of “Civil War” were led by Iron Man (pro-superhero registration) and Capt. America (anti-superhero registration).
-- Also as Newsarama notes, although there is no direct appearance of The Vision in the clip, we do see a brief “flashback” sort-of sequence featuring Cap. Sharp-eyed viewers of the first Cap film will have noticed Phineas Horton’s display at the World’s Fair scene – Horton being the creator of the android Original Human Torch, which was later reformatted into The Vision (in the classic Avengers #57). We know Vizh is in the film and word is he is Stark’s A.I. JARVIS downloaded into Vizh’s android body.
-- Who we DO see: The Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. If you stayed for the post-credits scene in Cap 2, you saw the mutant twins. Quicksilver’s effects seem way cool; the Witch’s “hexes” are visualized by – check it -- scarlet-colored F/X.
-- Who needs to get credit: There was some chatter on Facebook about the aforementioned Len Kaminski and Kev Hopgood getting at least a screen credit for their creation of the Hulkbuster armor. I hope indeed they do get at least that. (Hopgood indicated he and Kaminski got some compensation for the appearance of War Machine in the Iron Man films.) Kurt Busiek deserves a credit as his Ultron story in early volume three Avengers looks to be the basis for (part of) the film. (I know there was a more recent story; however, most recent stuff has been garbage compared to stories from the early 2000s and before.
Every car? I'm not so certain, but Supercompressor's list is pretty comprehensive, and includes cars from the Bond novels, too.
Unfortunately, director Ridley Scott is working on this at the expense of Prometheus 2.
Why do I say "unfortunately?" Because why do we need a sequel to the classic 1982 film starring Harrison Ford?
I dunno. But we do need to see what happened to Dr. Shaw and the android David from Prometheus.
With apologies to Mad magazine (the title above was originally theirs in their early 1970s satirical look at the classic Planet of the Apes films), a recent Facebook conversation with some friends made me look back on the delightful cheese that was the original Apes franchise. Timely, in a way, since the latest reboot film is doing pretty well at the box office.
THE ORIGINAL. At least the recent reboot makes a reasonable attempt to explain how apes got so damn smart. Could apes really just naturally evolve human-like inteligence in a tad over 2,000 years? C'mahn.
Wikipedia notes that Taylor (Chuck Heston) and company's ship was on a "long near-light speed voyage, during which, due to time dilation, the crew ages only 18 months." Aside from the amazing fact that such a vessel was constructed in the late 1960s(!), ya'd think, with such amazingly advanced technology that there'd be a computer on board which would have noted the course the ship had traversed over two millennia. I mean, really? Taylor and crew had no idea they were back on Earth?
I can buy that New York wasn't totally obliterated in the nuclear holocaust; the Russkies largely relied on bombers for their nukes in the 60s, and their missiles weren't very accurate. Hence, don't shake your head at the iconic final scene with Taylor and Nova at the Statue of Liberty.
BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES. Somehow the same interstellar mishap happens twice!! This time, James Franciscus has to deal not only with the intelligent, human-hating apes, but mutated humans with powerful mental abilities.
Riddle me this: If these humans have such mental powers, what the hell happened to their smarts? Worshiping a nuclear bomb? Making masks for their radiation scarred selves?
Biggest "C'MAHN!" of the film: The fact that the doomsday bomb had a cobalt jacket doesn't mean it has the destructive power to crack the Earth into a million pieces. Because of Beneath, for the longest time this is what I thought a "cobalt bomb" could do . Wrong. A cobalt jacketed device "merely" means that its radiation becomes incredibly deadly -- it has a very long half-life. In nuclear war vernacular, it's sometimes dubbed "salting the Earth" because radioactive cobalt will kill everything it can reach, and will continue to do so for loooooong time.
ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES. Let's just start and end with this: How the f*** do Zira, Cornelius and their pal dredge up Taylor's original spaceship, repair it, figure out how it works ... let alone fuel it and launch it into space?? And follow Taylor's course perfectly in reverse??
But hey -- it makes the case for the "circular" timeline used in the Apes film franchise. However head-scratching it may be.
CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Yeah, humans turned to apes when a mysterious "space virus" came down and killed off dogs and cats. Just in time for smart ape Caesar (the offspring of Zira and Cornelius from Escape) to lead 'em in revolt. Very convenient.
BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES. Either this flick is pointless because we already know the ultimate outcome (especially due to a scene at the very end), or it means that the supposed "circular" timeline is anything but.
Anyone recall the (admittedly silly) ending scene where the statue of Caesar begins crying? This is after a line by the "Lawgiver" ape says "Who knows about the future? Perhaps only the dead." This to me says "Apes defeat humans, Earth blows up, this movie was pointless."
Came across this site which notes some alternate endings of some classic (and not-so-classic) films. The second entry really blew me away:
Now, this stands out as the ending which would have rendered the whole film hilariously awful had it been put in place. In one conceived ending, the xenomorph appears just as Ripley gets onto the spaceship, bites her head off, and uses her voice to communicate with earth. Ridiculous? Oh God yes, but think how much more entertaining the sequels would have been if they’d stuck with this terrible ending. That kind of avoidance deserves a medal.
In three letters, WTF???
Can you imagine walking out of the theater after viewing that ... especially after how awesome the rest of the flick is??
The Hollywood Reporter (via Insty) notes that the "progressive" scifi author's Old Man's War universe is being adapted for the small screen on the SyFy Channel. It'll be titled "Ghost Brigades" after the second novel in the series:
The NeverEnding Story's Wolfgang Petersen will oversee development on the project alongside Scott Stuber (Safe House), with Jake Thornton and Ben Lustig (Winter's Knight) on board to pen the first script. The drama hails from Universal Cable Productions, Petersen's Radiant Productions and Stuber's Bluegrass Films.
Ghost Brigades follows John Perry, who at 75 enlists in the Colonial Defense Force to fight a centuries-long war for man's expansion into the cosmos. Technology allows experiences and consciousness to be transplanted into younger bodies that are outfitted to endure the harsher rigors of war in space. However, soon after John arrives, he finds himself involved with a mysterious woman, and at the same time, at the center of an unraveling conspiracy involving an elite fighting force known as the Ghost Brigades.
I was initially a big fan of Scalzi and the series ... that is, until two things transpired. First, the author became just like the usual "progressive" comicbook creator cadre on social media. On his blog and elsewhere, Scalzi has no compunction about belittling those with whom he disagrees, which, the majority of the time, happen to be conservatives/Republicans. Like I and many others have informed said comic creators, there's no better way to prevent future additional profits than pissing off a (big) portion of your audience.
Second, while Old Man's War (the first book in the series) was very good, the sequels devolved into the usual "blame the
US humans first for all the ills of the planet galaxy" ... the worst being the latest installment, The Human Division.
Irony/Hypocrisy Alert: All those involved in the adaptation of Scalzi's series are ... white males. Why is that, John? What's supposed to be good for everyone else isn't good enough for you?
Olivia Cole, a "poet, author, and activist (of course)," is miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you! -- about the high quantity of those damn Caucasians on the silver screen. And she's GONNA TELL YOU ABOUT IT!!
First, let me note that I am white. I am a white woman who goes to the theater to see probably a dozen films (if not more) in a given year, a white woman who readily consumes TV shows and series and often blogs/tweets about them. I love film. I love what Hollywood could be, but I must say that I don't love what it is, and that is a machine generating story after story in which the audience is asked to root for a white (usually male) hero over and over and over (and over) again. I'm tired. I'm tired of directors pretending that white actors are the default and that people of color are a distraction when it comes to filmmaking. I'm tired of black women in Hollywood being relegated to roles of slaves and "the help" over and over again. I'm tired of films convincing themselves that they are taking on something fresh and new, the likes of which the world has never seen, but in actuality adhering to tired tropes and stereotypes.
"First, let me note that I am white" ... Gee, I couldn't have figured that out by the photo at the beginning of your piece. I bet you have plenty of black friends, too, right?
*Sigh* This is just yet another in a loooooong line of never-satisfied cultural "progressives" who lack the enjoyment gene. How sad it must be to go through life always on the lookout for something to bitch about.
(h/t to Carl.)
The creator of SyFy's hilariously dreadful "Sharknado" claims that, with
global warming climate change climate disruption, a "sharknado" ... could actually happen.
Of course, it took place on MSNBC.
The ever-politically correct Gail Simone tweets:
The crappiest thing about the newspeak in 1984 is that it turns out we don't need government to enforce it, citizens embrace it willingly.— Gail Simone (@GailSimone) July 24, 2014
Yes, Gail, and YOU are one of the most willing. Any dissent from your far-left PC orthodoxy, no matter how innocuous and/or well reasoned, is labeled "racist," "sexist," "homophobic" and whatever other "-ism" or phobia you can think of.
You've been a big supporter of radical feminist Suey Park, she of "only white people can be racist" infamy. And when asked if you agreed with her statement, you refused to answer, and then proceeded to block on Twitter those who had asked the question.
Way to willingly embrace that Newspeak, Gail. Hypocrite.
The year: 1968. A science fiction show called Star Trek makes history by featuring the first interracial kiss on American television.
The year: 1959. A writer named Robert Heinlein makes a Filipino young man his protagonist in what many consider to be his best work, Starship Troopers.
The year: 1973. Marvel Comics' Captain America title features its hero tracking down a villain who ends up being none other than President Richard Nixon himself. The event causes Cap to become highly disillusioned, and he gives up wearing the American flag for a time.
The year: 1980. Writer Gregory Benford's novel Timescape warns of global environmental apocalypse if humans aren't more careful in how they alter their surroundings.
Science fiction has always been an avenue through which creators comment on political, cultural and social matters. Like racism. The nature of society and government. Abuse of power. Stewardship of our planet.
But only in the hallowed halls of academia will you discover such is not enough for this creative genre. No sir. If the creators are not of the "right" color or background, and if the "right" issues aren't being addressed adequately, then there's a problem.
At the University of California, Riverside, a grant was needed to explore "ethnic futurisms" -- because, it seems, "there has long been an unacknowledged tradition of SF written by people of color."
“Alternative Futurisms,” which will launch in September 2015, will bring together African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American scholars, artists and writers to examine the colonial roots and legacies of science fiction and the power of speculative fiction as a tool for social change.
Science fiction fans and scholars are rethinking what counts as science fiction, explained Sherryl Vint, professor of English and co-director of the SFTS program with Latham. Vint is co-principal investigator of the Sawyer Seminar with Latham and Nalo Hopkinson, professor of creative writing and an award-winning author of science fiction and fantasy.
“The canon is not monolithically white,” she added. “Questions of social justice are emerging, particularly with regard to colonialism, borders, DNA, and profiling. Our seminar will elicit and sustain dialogue among the many peoples of color who are using speculative techniques to combat systemic racism and will seek to displace the hegemony of the post-racial imaginary with a range of ethnic futurisms.”
The "colonial roots and legacies" of sci-fi? Sounds like yet another university-based grievance fest. And who wants to translate that last sentence? Any takers? Here, I'll give it a go:
"Our seminar, comprised almost exclusively of non-white folks, will discuss how science fiction can combat the persistently and incorrigibly racist Western societies, and will strive to abolish the popularity of racial unity themes in the genre and replace them with various racial and ethnic separatist group fictions."
How was that?
Unfortunately for UCR, other than that last deconstructivist-based sentence, there's little new "Alternative Futurisms" offers to science fiction. "Speculative fiction as a tool for social change" is, after all, what sci-fi is.
This story comes about, ironically, at a time when there has been considerable debate within the science fiction community about matters racial and sexual. The rise and popularity of social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, have served as a catalyst for such. This online brouhaha, for example, between conservative author Larry Correia and lefty writer John Scalzi is a (continuing) microcosm of such. Unfortunately, the predictable accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia by those in the latter camp mar real conversations.
Over the last decade or so, the "Big Two" comicbook companies Marvel and DC have made headline-worthy attempts to "diversify" their ranks -- characters and creators alike -- sometimes by turning long-established characters into something they're not. And, like the liberal (general) science fiction crowd, progressive comicbook fans and creators alike are quick to denounce any criticism of such, however innocuous.
Most recently, for example, it was announced the Marvel character Thor would become ... a woman. (This is in the comics, not the movies, so don't worry about Chris Hemsworth ladies. Oh, wait, was that sexist? My apologies.) Even reactions such as "it's just a cheap gimmick" have been met with angry counters, invoking "misogyny," "angry white males," "marginalization," and, of course, "racism." Like the movie industry's predilection for churning out "reboots" of even classic science films, such announcements, much like comicbook character "deaths," are merely short-term gimmicks, guaranteed to result in a sales boost, however fleeting. I suppose it's just too much work to actually create new (diverse) characters, much like it's the same situation with writing original movie scripts ...?
Science fiction aficionados crave good stories, no matter the race/gender/sexual orientation of the creators or the stories' characters. An all-consuming desire for -- and corresponding knee-jerk criticism toward dissenters of -- superficial "diversity" does little to enhance and encourage the human oneness much of science fiction envisions. Nor, for that matter, does seeking to "displace the hegemony of the post-racial imaginary" with cluttered, separatist racial/ethnic literary enclaves.
Lastly, in terms of access and availability, today there is little to prevent minority science fiction creators from getting their creations out to the public. They certainly don't face, for example, what Benny Russell did in my favorite Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode, "Far Beyond the Stars." All it takes is hard work and a lot of persistence. Just ask sci-fi author great Larry Niven; even a trust fund (white) guy's stories like his got rejected a gazillion times ... but eventually one broke through. And I, for one, am glad he kept at it.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
Michael B. Jordan, the new (and African-American) Human Torch in the upcoming rebooted Fantastic Four flick, said that the film's story isn't exactly what we may be expecting:
It’s not your typical superhero film, you know, we aren’t looking at this as like, being superheroes. We’re more or less a bunch of kids that had an accident and we have disabilities now that we have to cope with, and try to find a life afterwards – try to be as normal as we can.
So, does the title now mean that "everyone is 'fantastic' in their own way" ... or something? Or, to put it another way: WTF???
At the very least, this'll give the self-righteous comicbook creators something else with which to prove their moral/cultural "superiority" ... especially moonbat Gail Simone who's never wasted an opportunity to make snide remarks about those who criticize such ridiculous PC moves.
At least Marvel's film arm is rolling right along with little bullsh**; next year's Age of Ultron looks sensational if the early buzz is accurate:
The most interesting information is the quotes and story details the EW cover story also provides about Ultron’s new origins. Hank Pym a.k.a. Ant-Man creates Ultron in the comics but we know Joss Whedon is changing that up for his film and what we suspected last year about Tony Stark being responsible is true. With S.H.I.E.L.D. no longer serving as Earth’s defense and first response against the unknown and other-worldly, it’s up to The Avengers. And to help them out and given them a break, Stark develops Ultron, a sentient program, an artificial intelligence that will help him to serve as an Avenger without actually suiting up himself – building off of what we saw in Iron Man 3 where we met an Iron Legion of automated suits in the final act.
This self-aware AI – perhaps an evolution of JARVIS from the Iron Man films and The Avengers 1 - can locate threats and control Stark’s legion of drone suits to deal with them… until Ultron decides that humans are the greatest threat.
The Entertainment Weekly cover is, well, awesome.
Also in the flick will be the Vision, played by Paul Bettany. And check it: Bettany "will have his real face like the Vision from the comics as well." Gotta love it. But since Ultron created Vizh in the comics, I wonder how the Android Avenger will come about in the flick. Maybe the same way? Sounds like it could work.
9/11 Truther Rose O'Donnell is coming back to "The View."
The only problem is that 9/11 Truther moonbat Roberto Orci is still part of the creative team. I think the threequel could suffer from what has happened to a lot of third installments: They suck.
At the end of Into Darkness, Kirk and crew of the Enterprise were heading for deep space on their first five-year mission. To me, this sounds like a better jumping off point for a new TV series, not another flick.
Orci did make a good point in response to an all-too ridiculous PC question: What about an openly gay character in the cast? He says:
It can be part of a character and not be the whole shebang…It doesn’t’ have to be like South Park, like ‘what have we learned today.’ It can be so normalized that it just exists. I agree it can’t be shoe-horned in. And it is not necessary for it to be the whole point of the thing. It is an ensemble and there is lots of people to represent so no one point of view should hog it.
But, admittedly, article author Devin Faraci also makes a good point in that, just as Spock and Uhura have an occasional scene romance, why not show same involving, say, Chekov and another dude, or better yet, Sulu? The latter would make a great homage to George Takei, the original Sulu who's been out as gay for many years now.
Over at io9 there's a discussion about how the noted scifi author made the transformation from socialist to "right-wing" libertarian. That in itself is worthy of the read (it's based on a recent New Republic piece); however, since arguably Starship Troopers is Heinlein's most popular work, I see some of the same, tired objections to the story have arisen. Take NR author Jeet Heer from the start:
Heinlein was equally beloved in military circles, especially for his book Starship Troopers (1959), a gung-ho shout-out for organized belligerence as the key to human survival. A thoroughly authoritarian book, it included an ode to flogging (a practice the American Navy banned in 1861) and the execution of mentally disturbed criminals, yet Heinlein became a hero to libertarians ...
"Organized belligerence as the key ...?" Yeesh. It never ceases to amaze me the utter myopia exhibited by leftists when critiquing this book. This statement makes it seem as though the Terran Federation was actively seeking out conflicts with [alien] races to make humanity "safe." Poppycock. The novel clearly notes that the Federation has allies (the "Skinnies" who needed a bit of "persuading," courtesy of the Mobile Infantry, to turn away from a head-scratching alliance with the Bugs), and that the Bug War exists because 1) each side wants the same thing, and 2) absolutely no communication and discussion with each other has been thus far possible.
And "thoroughly authoritarian" is also complete nonsense. Statements like this make it seem like either Heer has either never read the book, and/or is solely relying on the film and correlated print stories. Through the numerous political discussions in the story, humanity enjoys every right currently afforded (in the US): freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.
But what about the franchise? A commenter ridiculously writes "Starship Troopers is not in favour of democracy since it advocates restricting voting rights to the 'worthy.'" But Heinlein addresses that very "concern" in the book, noting the franchise has always been restricted in some manner. In the US, you have to be at least 18 years old and a citizen to cast a vote, to which Heinlein had the iconic Colonel DuBois point out: What sense does it make to allow an adult moron to vote, but not a teenage genius? The only restriction to voting in ST is that one must have served a term of (mostly military) service. This commenter summarizes it quite adequately.
Just about every anti-Troopers narrative I've seen is that way because its author is simply anti-military. That being the case, examine why the system in ST was established in the first place. (Veterans Administration scandal, anyone?)
Much more from yours truly regarding Troopers here, from eight and a half years ago.
Nice to hear -- finally -- from some pros, after guys like Doug Ernst, Avi Green, Carl and myself have been doing it for years. Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche take to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to pen "How Liberalism Became Kryptonite for Superman." (If you Google the title you'll get around the pay wall.) In it, they note:
The 1990s brought a change. The industry weakened and eventually threw out the CCA, and editors began to resist hiring conservative artists. One of us, Chuck, expressed the opinion that a frank story line about AIDS was not right for comics marketed to children. His editors rejected the idea and asked him to apologize to colleagues for even expressing it. Soon enough, Chuck got less work.
The superheroes also changed. Batman became dark and ambiguous, a kind of brooding monster. Superman became less patriotic, culminating in his decision to renounce his citizenship so he wouldn’t be seen as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. A new code, less explicit but far stronger, replaced the old: a code of political correctness and moral ambiguity. If you disagreed with mostly left-leaning editors, you stayed silent.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, really. Much more in-depth examples are found in Colossus's comics archives, and at the aforementioned Doug Ernst and Avi Green blogs. Doug has his take on Dixon's and Rivoche's article here.
And just to throw a few examples in here, today here's our 'ol microcephalic pal Ron Marz not wasting a single minute to jump on the MSM bandwagon -- because finally it seems a shooting has fit their perpetually sought after NarrativeTM:
Well, gosh, so surprising that the people who murdered the police in Las Vegas were gun nuts and conspiracy loons. http://t.co/YIE9NQkipz— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 9, 2014
There's never a word from this dolt when it's a non-NarrativeTM shooting, most especially when the politics are aligned with his own.
But he cares, don'tcha know ...
And example #2: Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
I'll just keep saying it: You literally cannot spell "Reince Preibus" without "RNC PR BS." http://t.co/hqwXKCOVfs— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) May 30, 2014
*Sigh* Says a guy who lionizes a president for whom telling the truth is the most difficult activity imaginable.
It's still making a ton of cash and critics love it, but the radical PC crowd still has its collective panties in a bunch over X-Men: Days of Future Past. This past week we've seen articles lamenting its "lack of diversity;" now, because Wolverine replaced Kitty Pryde in the crucial story role, the film is "sexist."
Do it with me: Y.A.W.N.
Once again, who's a bigger box office draw -- Hugh Jackman or Ellen Page? Who's by far the more popular comicbook character, Wolverine or Kitty Pryde?
If you answered the first choice for each, you win.
Movie makers wanna make money. Case closed.
(Thanks for Carl for the article tip!)
Yeesh -- here's yet another "progressive" happily proving his bonafides with another article lamenting the "lack of diversity" in, again, the latest X-film ("Days of Future Past"). Just take a look:
You get the point. I wonder what it's like to be perpetually aggrieved ... about something, anything, everything. And the only "joy" you get is by bitching about the most inconsequential stuff.
Gavia Baker-Whitelaw shows yet again why she's just another wacky social justice warrior complaining about the usual "lack of diversity" -- this time regarding the X-Men movie franchise.
Seriously? Yes, unfortunately. Gavia acknowledges that the mutant characters "have always been good at building this political allegory (disenfranchised populations) without becoming overly preachy," but "they’ve also been downright abysmal at acknowledging people who face this type of discrimination in real life." Oh, but hasn't the author listened to Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott? These are only comicbook characters! Real life? C'mon!
Folks, if there ever was a set of mainstream comicbook characters (and stories) that best deals with bigotry and prejudice, it is the X-Men. Bitching that Wolverine has replaced Kitty Pryde as the main focal point of "Days of Future Past" (gasp! How dare a white male character be so damn popular!) will only make all but the most radical Maoist diversity nuts chuckle in disbelief.
The last we saw of Baker-Whitelaw, she was miffed at something similar. She still fails to grasp that green is the most important color to [comicbook] flick makers.
H.R. Giger has died. If you don't know him, maybe this will enlighten you:
Yep, he invented the look of the most terrifying creature in cinematic history, the Alien.
Elsewhere, check out the first look of Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight, along with his Batmobile. Not bad, in my opinion.
Aren't we lucky? The dude who co-wrote the Trek sequel Into Darkness -- a not-so veiled analogy to the War on Terror/Iraq War -- is directing the Trek "threequel." As we noted back when, Roberto Orci is an outed 9/11 Truther.
So, what does this mean for the third installment?
Or, if they want to continue the trend as they did with Into Darkness and be completely unoriginal, just have a bare bones Enterprise crew travel back in time to rescue -- this time -- a couple of killer whales ... from SeaWorld.
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters features how Salon.com yet again is obsessed with pure nonsense regarding the usual race and gender paradigm, this time regarding mainstream superhero films.
...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....none of those movies have starred anyone other than a straight, white man in the lead role. The Avengers franchise has managed a handful of female characters in non-romantic roles, plus Falcon and Nick Fury in the supporting cast, but the mere concept of an openly LGBT character still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream. Meanwhile in Marvel comics, Northstar came out in 1992, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other LGBT heroes....
...[T]he chances of Peter Parker coming out in Amazing Spider-Man 3 are more or less nil. Hollywood is (sic) yet to produce a big-budget blockbuster with any kind of LGBT character in the lead role, never mind having an established hero come out after decades of heterosexuality....Considering the fact that white male geeks already have Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards and Charles Xavier to heroize their nerd cred on the big screen, it's difficult to argue that they still represent some kind of oppressed minority. It's probably time to give someone else a chance.
OK, here goes:
1) The films are "still decades behind the comics" because ... they're decades behind the comics. But that's only because the technology that allows such films to be made (and made well) is a recent development. You couldn't make Spider-Man in 1985. Well, you could, but the result would be like this. Or like the 1990 Captain America flick -- so bad it went straight to video even after being promoted in cinemas. Obviously not big money-makers. Speaking of which ...
2) Does this Salon writer (Gavia Baker-Whitelaw) seriously believe that studio execs would make a move like turning Peter Parker gay? Or any other [of Marvel's] major character(s)? Only if they want to lose a ton of dough. Which they obviously do not. This isn't because they're "homophobic" or cultural dinosaurs; it's because they simply want to make money. And Hollywood makes the vast majority of its cash with safe, don't-have-to-think-too-hard films like Spider-Man and The Avengers.
3) No Marvel movies have featured anything but a straight, white man in the lead role? Wrong. In 1998, Blade came out and was a surprise hit (especially since it was rated "R"). Its star, in case you didn't know, is Wesley Snipes. He's black:
4) Comicbooks (and their movies) don't actually represent real life. Or, they aren't supposed to for the most part. After all, hadn't you noticed that people don't actually acquire the powers of a spider after being bitten by one (radioactive and/or genetically modified)? Or, that we didn't actually have the means in the 1940s to transform a 98-lb. weakling into a superhuman powerhouse? The X-Men, of all superheroes, "represent" societal outcasts and/or oppressed groups. You can decide who that applies to ... and that's precisely the point. Marvel's mutants can relate to virtually anyone -- gays, racial minorities, bullied geeks/nerds, bookworm types, you name it.
Lastly, comicbooks are a much easier medium by which to introduce and/or promote traditionally underserved groups. I understand Baker-Whitelaw's point(s); however, you're not really going to "score any points" by pressuring film studios to make Spider-Man gay, or putting Tony Stark in polygamous relationship. Even altering something like the family of a staple character so as to "improve diversity" gets silly, as with Fantastic Four's rebooted Human Torch.
Unlike people like Baker-Whitelaw (by the way, that last name sounds "racist"), folks could really care less about racial bean counting. They're not "Hey! Johnny Storm needs to be black!" nor do they give a hoot that Blade is a black guy. (And the latter makes the point the best: A very fringe Marvel character with a minority protagonist in an "R" rated film which made a ton of dough.) They just want to be entertained.
... then check out how Amazing Spider-Man 2 is actually lamer than some of the comics on which it's based.
Spoilers below the fold!
Namely -- the bad guys' origins. First, the Green Goblin is actually a disease. That's right, "a disease that makes your skin turn green and warty, and turns your fingernails into claws." Yep, this "occurs in nature," to further quote Topless Robot.
As for Electro (played by Jamie Foxx), his origin is even funnier: Instead of merely being a power company repair guy who happened to be zapped by a bolt of lightning while working on a power line, Foxx gets his abilities "by falling into a vat of mutant electric eels while holding a live power cord."
Man, I thought movies made things more realistic than the comics, not the other way around!
For Marvel Comics chief Joe Quesada stated that he thinks [General] Zod is the hero of the film Man of Steel. Y'know, the guy who wanted to essentially wipe out humanity to revive Krypton.
"As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much,” he said. “I wanted to love it so much, and I didn’t love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me.”
“He wanted to save his race, and Superman didn’t let him,” Quesada continued. “Zod, in this particular incarnation, struck me as not necessarily an evil man, but a man of … he had a particular … he had his orders, he had a mission. He was a zealot of sorts, but he was a zealot … again, correct me if I’m wrong … but he didn’t say, ‘I want to rebuild Krypton,’ and then come back and destroy this little planet. ‘All I want is to rebuild this planet. And the only reason I’m blowing everything to bits here is because you’ve got what I want, and you’re not giving it to me. So please, give me my people, and I’ll leave.’”
Uh ... yeah. WTF? So, how the hell does that make Zod THE HERO?? The movie I watched had Zod attempting to terraform (or is that "Kryptoform?") the Earth to, as I noted above, revive long-vanished Krypton. "Just" at the cost of billions of human lives. Which led to the controversial scene where Superman kills Zod. To stop his genocidal deeds.
Quesada isn't the brightest of bulbs, to be sure. When he was writing Iron Man he noted "the extensive A-bomb testing" that the United States did ... during World War II. He also knee-slappingly stated that "most of the US military is black" when discussing the controversial Captain America-related story The Truth. (The military is actually about one-quarter minority, with roughly 18% of those being black. Joe wasn't even close.)
To be fair, Bosch Fawstin was ahead of the curve on nailing Quesada on this.
... that there's a Six Million Dollar Man comicbook? I didn't until I read this Bleeding Cool article. Unfortunately, the comic looks as impressive as the 1970s TV show does with contemporary viewing. For instance, last night on the Me network (which plays old TV shows like 24-7), the SMDM was on with an episode titled "The Bionic Badge." Steve Austin (played by Lee Majors, who, the lucky bastard, was married to 70s bombshell Farrah Fawcett for a time) went "undercover" as a cop ... to sniff out who in the department is assisting with the smuggling atomic bomb components. Atomic bomb components! Talk about your suspension of disbelief.
Of course, if you're around my age, how can you forget Steve's first encounter with Sasquatch? This episode was on last week and brought back some (cheesy) memories. No, 'squatch ain't really a furry giant human hybrid of some sort; he's really a robot protector of some aliens who live in the forests of the northwest!
... before Steve casually rips his arm off.
And, this doesn't even address the utter crap that was using slow motion to depict the use of Steve's bionic limbs! I mean, the opening theme segment shows Steve running -- fast -- at his maximum 60 mph; why couldn't this be done in the show?
I had to chuckle at this Kurt Busiek retweeted response to politically correct scifi writer John Scalzi:
@scalzi And the point isn't "ALL men are menaces to women." The point is "ALL women have been menaced by men."— Molly Lewis (@Molly23) April 17, 2014
Now, while the "ALL" part of her second point is certainly debatable, I would certainly buy it if she said "A LOT." But this is beside the point. A tweet like this tweet is permissible among the Scalzis and Busieks of the [entertainment] world because it impugns a politically incorrect group -- men -- and "protects" a politically correct group -- women.
I wonder: Does anyone think Scalzi or Busiek would tweet (or retweet) something like "So again, let's say we don't pretend that terrorism isn't a issue MOSTLY about Muslims. Not ALL Muslims, but certainly too many of them"? Or, "And the point isn't "MOST Muslims are terrorists." The point is "MOST terrorists are Muslims"?
Nah. Neither do I. That subject ain't "incorrect" enough for them.
On the eve of what should be THE big summer blockbuster flick, X-Men: Days of Future Past director Bryan Singer has been accused of sex abuse:
The plaintiff, Michael Egan III, accuses Singer of forcing him into sex during parties in California and Hawaii when Egan was 17 years old in 1999, reports the Associated Press. Singer’s attorney, Marty Singer, said in a statement that the claims are "absurd and defamatory."
“The lawsuit claims Egan was lured into a sex ring with promises of auditions for acting, modeling and commercial jobs. He was paid as an actor for a digital entertainment company, but forced to have sex with adult men at parties notorious within Hollywood’s entertainment industry,” the AP reports.
Hollywood's record of such cases -- if this is true -- ain't great. Roman Polanski, anyone? But let's give Singer the benefit of the doubt, obviously. Innocent until proven guilty.
io9 has some updates regarding a few coming comicbook films, including X-Men: Days of Future Past. It seems the "pivotal event" that leads to the story's dystopian future is the murder of Sentinel creator Bolivar (not "Boliver" as io9 writes) Trask by Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. (In the comic, it was the assassination of Senator Kelly, featured in the first X-film.) I wonder, since it's been hinted that DOFP will "fix" the numerous continuity gaffes of the X-films, if it will be explained how this Trask (played by short guy Peter Dinklage) is related to the "Trask" of X-Men 3 played by Bill "I'm Gonna Have Me Some Fun" Duke. They'll probably not even address it, leaving us to assume they just shared a last name.
It seems my (and many others') fears about Amazing Spider-Man 2 are coming to fruition in that there are too many villains in the movie. Who couldn't see that coming? Electro, Rhino, and a new Green Goblin?? There's also news on the sequence of future Spidey flicks: A "Sinister Six" film, a Venom movie, and THEN Amazing Spider-Man 3.
One saving grace for ASM 2: Not having a scene like this:
io9 has a discussion about it. Be sure to check out the comment section as there's a good convo about how both BSG series dealt with spirituality.
I certainly concur with several commenters about how the re-imagined series (2004) got so muddled with questions (like WTF happened to Starbuck? What about the Cylons' monotheism?). As I've often opined (most recently here) the newer series started out phenomenally, then withered to one big dud. But, at least that series did have an ending. We'll never know how the 1978 version could have closed; however, I have some neat [spiritual] ideas about how it could have. As I also noted in my most recent BSG-related post, a later season two-parter, "War of the Gods," featured a thinly-veiled Biblical analogy to God and Satan with the "Satan" character, Count Iblis (played by Avengers -- the British TV series, not the Marvel Comics movie -- star Patrick Macnee) using subterfuge and deviousness to convert many in the Galactica fleet to his "congregation."
I think it would have been very cool to have these two camps indeed be "God" and "Satan," on which Earth's main religions are based. After all, Earth is supposed to be the "lost" (13th) colony of BSG humanity. That 13th colony, Earth, had encountered these two all-powerful entities long before the Galactica did, and shaped its entire civilization around them. The original BSG could have ended with the Galactica discovering present-day Earth, and subsequently putting everything together about how Earth's population was affected by their beliefs in these omnipotent beings. Of course, we cannot forget the Cylons; how about Count Iblis -- Satan -- assuming control of the robotic race and leading an all-out assault on Earth and its new defenders, the Galactica fleet. The benevolent aliens appear before Earth, too, to aid in humanity's defense. This is the Second Coming prophesized by Christianity (or First, if you're Jewish). Earth and its defenders win in the end, thus fulfilling humanity's greatest legends/prophecies/sermons, etc.
What do you think?
... and thankfully, it doesn't appear it will follow the "reimagined" SyFy series starring Edward James Olmos as Adama. Why do I say "thankfully?" Well, if you've been following Colossus since near the beginning you'd know I started out a huge fan of the "reimagined" series, but quickly lost interest around early season three when stories began to make little-to-no sense.
While the 2004 series was "grittier," the original 1978 series was much more optimistic (if you can call a series about the near-annihilation of humankind "optimistic"), with one of its last (two-part) episodes being a barely-veiled battle in the war between God and Satan. That, and the original wasn't a Terminator-esque "human created their own destruction" meme in that the Cylons were originally a reptilian race that had begun dying out, and hence created robotic replacements. The Cylon Imperious Leader was one of the few -- only, perhaps -- lizard Cylon remaining alive.
Count me in for a film based in the original BSG universe.
Was there an increase in destructive tornadic activity? We're in our third straight year of record low activity. Increase in hurricanes? Nope. Obama has the lowest hurricane frequency of any President. North Pole will be ice free? Nah, multi-year ice is growing. What exactly did come to pass then from that movie?
Hopefully, any sequel will be under the "fantasy" section of Netflix, etc.
Here it is, and Newsarama has 10 Things Worth Noticing about it:
As we've noted previously, "DOFP" shows a dystopian future where mutants are hunted down to almost extinction. In the comics (X-Men #s 141-142) Kitty Pryde's mind is shunted back to her younger self's body in the hope of convincing the X-Men to thwart the assassination of Senator Kelly (seen fairly prominently in the first X-movie). It's his murder by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants that is the catalyst for the mutants' deadly future. However, in the film, it'll be Wolverine's mind which does the "switching" (and why not, as his character and Hugh Jackman are much bigger draws than Kitty Pryde/Ellen Page).
As this is one of my favorite comicbook storylines ever, I'll certainly be heading to the theatre.
... for a potential Iron Fist TV series, that is. We've been back and forth on this subject matter; on the one hand, making superficial changes in what seems like a mere nod to political correctness is silly (a la making the Human Torch a black guy and/or Dr. Doom a chick), on the other there's the [legitimate] matter of rectifying issues associated with the times in which most of the classic superheroes were created.
Reading through Andrew Wheeler's article about Iron Fist I was struck with a memory of watching the very good Bruce Lee biopic Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. I recall how incredibly disappointed Lee was when his idea for a TV show -- Kung Fu -- was picked up by a network ... but cast a white actor (David Carradine) to play the title character instead of Lee. Sign 'o the times, unfortunately. And hell, this happened all the time, from the 40s (and before, natch) through even to the present day.
The other aspect that the character of Iron Fist possesses is that of the "Great White Hope" where a white character is "needed" to somehow "save the day" after being placed in an "alien" situation. "Enlightened" Hollywood still follows this mantra religiously, notably with teacher movies like Dangerous Minds where a cultured, white educator comes in to "save" hardened, inner city toughs. Is this not patronizing to the Nth degree? Kevin Chow, who's taken up a petition to make Iron Fist's Danny Rand an Asian guy, notes the "GWH" aspect with regards to Asian culture:
“Never mind Danny Rand, you have Snake Eyes, Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai, Daniel-san [in The Karate Kid], Wolverine, every Steven Segal and Jean-Claude Van Damme movie ever, hell, even Batman for chrissakes!”
Point taken. But Chow would be a lot better received if he didn't dawdle in the ridiculous notion of "cultural approbation," as if that in itself is a bad thing. (Just recall this recent inanity from Salon.com.) If anything, it should be considered a compliment if someone desires to "appropriate" an aspect from another culture; again, the patronizing comes in when the "appropriators" are somehow "needed" to do some "saving."
Chow also glosses over the fact that by making Danny Rand an Asian guy, Marvel'd be perpetuating the stereotype that all Asians know martial arts:
I don’t think so. Look, the problem with the Asian martial artist stereotype is not the art itself. The problem has always been how Asian martial artists have been portrayed in Western media. As someone who has practiced martial arts and admires and respects it, I don’t run away from that aspect of my heritage.
That's pretty lame, if you ask me. It also reminds me of the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where a football player asks nerd Takashi if he "knows karate." Y'know, because he's Asian:
Would Chow say "I don't think so" if one assumed all African-Americans know how to play basketball? Or would that, too, be merely "how it's portrayed?" I doubt it.
All this being said, overall I don't believe it to be a big deal if Iron Fist is altered to be an Asian guy. After all, I.F. is a B or even C-list Marvel character, and this potential series will be on Netflix, not even network or cable TV.
Big Hollywood is reporting what I already suspected about the upcoming Cap 2: Winter Soldier flick: That SHIELD's secrets will reveal a government conspiracy of some sort (hell, we already wondered that from watching The Avengers; recall Nick Fury yapping with that mysterious quartet on video, seeking approval for various actions ... who were they?), and with far-lefty Robert Redford starring in a villainous role, this virtually confirms such. This doesn't concern me as much as what I read about the second Cap sequel:
“We’ve definitely set out on a more realistic road in the Cap movies, you know,” [screenwriter Christopher] Markus told Den of Geek. “Even more grounded than in the other MCU movies. And so it kind of rules out Cap fighting the Dinosaur Man or something like that. There are some that aren’t gonna start and other ones that — I mean there’s a couple we’re playing with right now that we really want to take elements from. Which we’ll not reveal. … All I’m saying is psychotic 1950s Cap.”
Spinoff in the link above offers an in-depth analysis of just who the 1950s Captain America is (was); his initial introduction into the Marvel mythos, despite its politics, is one of the more well-done 1970s offerings by noted creator Steve Englehart. It began in issue #153 when "a" Captain America and, then, of all people, "a" Bucky, were raging through Harlem beating the snot out of people. Cap's partner, the Falcon, stumbled upon them, and virtually immediately knew they were imposters. The ersatz duo then proceed to hatch a plot to capture whom they believe to be the fake Cap (our own Steve Rogers, the real Cap), and in the process we learn just who this Capt. America and Bucky are ...
The 1950s Cap is really William Burnside, a fanatical devotee of the real Captain America. He was such a fanatic that he wrote his college thesis about Cap, and in the process discovered files regarding Project: Rebirth (that which created the real Cap) as well as details about the super soldier serum used to turn Steve Rogers into that super soldier. Later (get this), he underwent the 'ol plastic surgery to turn himself into a copy of Steve Rogers, and became a government agent as a new Cap during the Korean War. But the war quickly ended, and the gov. ended Burnside's new career. (All this was told in Capt. America #155, see above left.)
Burnside subsequently became a teacher, but when the Red Skull attacked the UN building, he and his new pal, Jack Monroe, took a chance and injected themselves with that serum Burnside had discovered years prior. They took on the Skull as the new Cap and Bucky, and won. But by taking just the [super soldier] serum and not being exposed to other parts of the process (like "vita rays"), Burnside and Monroe experienced psychotic episodes. The government quickly put the kibosh on their fledgling careers, and placed them into suspended animation.
Here's where the "worrisome" (so for those right-of-center, of course) comes in: Years later, an anti-Communist zealot freed Burnside and Monroe, hopefully to assist against the commies in the continuing Cold War. This Cap and Bucky saw Communists everywhere, including among historically oppressed African-Americans. (This is where the Falcon first notices them, as noted above.) Englehart's story is a masterwork of Marvel continuity; however, as he did with the also-masterful "Secret Empire" story some twenty issues later, his villains are fanatical, power hungry rightists who are beyond devoted to snuffing out any who oppose them. In retrospect, what Richard Nixon did during Watergate (the analogy for "Secret Empire") pales in comparison to what we see today, currently. And Englehart's message via the 1950s Cap is that anti-communism equates to Joe McCarthy-style witch hunts ... not to mention that you're nuts.
Englehart's stories are a product of their times, to be sure. Which means translating the 1950s Cap to 2016 or 2017 whenever Cap 3 comes out has the extreme potential to be just another Hollywood "blast conservatives" slug fest. Which, in these times won't be received very well. Consider: Englehart made the Capt. America who fought Communists in the 1950s a psychotic nutjob. Aside from the Silver Age 1960s (Marvel Comics' own "rebirth," so to speak), fighting Communists was mostly anathema for superheroes. Fascists? Not so much. (If you've taken a poli sci course you know that far-left=communism, far-right=fascism ... but in a circular political spectrum model the extremes are essentially the same and meet.) Captain America continued his battle against fascists into the next decades, including, but not limited to, the Grand Director (who was actually Burnside himself, natch), The Watchdogs, Crossbones, Dr. Faustus, Karl Stryker, and the Super-Patriot. Another version of that last one, named John Walker, ironically eventually assumed the role of Capt. America after the US government used its "muscle" (including, ahem, the IRS) to demand Steve Rogers serve it. Rogers resigned the role of Cap and Walker took over. But writer Mark Gruenwald portrayed Walker as -- wait for it! -- mentally unstable. Walker became more bloodthirsty, killing his enemies, something Steve Rogers would never do if it could be helped.
See the message? "Patriotic"="unstable" and "visceral." This was during the 1980s, natch, and we all know who was president then! The writer even showed Steve Rogers, when contemplating resigning as Cap so as not to be a government lackey, thinking of possible missions he could be sent on -- with a panel detailing a hypothetical replacement fighting (gasp!) Communists in Nicaragua. In recent years, we've seen Captain America investigate the Tea Party, for cripe's sake.
And hey, maybe that's precisely who the villain, if the 1950s Cap is revived in the present day for Captain America 3, will be -- an "anti-government Tea Party type." Knowing Hollywood (and contemporary comicbook creators), this would make perfect sense. To them. Because the insulated "progressive" bubble in which they live tells them so.
Ghostbusters is the latest act of Hollywood "reboot" non-imagination. But there is hope: Star Wars: Episode VII is a genuine sequel, and takes place thirty years after Return of the Jedi. Which is nice, 'cuz the actors from Jedi are all, like, thirty years older ...
Newsarama has up a list of the Ten Worst Live-Action Superhero Costumes Ever, and their choices leave a lot of room for some head-scratching. So, we decided to help them out (because no one demanded it!) with what they missed, including a few notable villain outfits that deserve a mention:
TV HULK. Although it was one of the more popular TV shows based on a comicbook character, compared to how the Jade Giant should look, Lou Ferrigno's physique just didn't cut it:
1960s BATMAN. If you're going to have such a list, this Batman costume has got to be on it. Maybe it's the painted-on eyebrows. Maybe it's the chest emblem that looks like it was made in a 4th grade art class. Or maybe it's just Adam West's completely average physique. Whatever the case, it's lame:
DOLPH LUNDGREN'S PUNISHER. While the actual movie isn't any worse than the supposedly "better" later films, Dolph's outfit is far from anything special:
ROGER CORMAN'S THE THING. Granted, the film never saw the light of day aside from bootleg copies sold at conventions and on the 'net, but if you're going to include Michael Chiklis's version on a "Worst" list, then this has to be there, too:
1990 CAPTAIN AMERICA. In a word (or three letters), "WTF??"
1990 RED SKULL. Slightly better than his American rival from the direct-to-video film, this Skull was -- wait for it! -- Italian. His cheesy accent throughout the flick and his penchant for sending his kids to do his dirty work only added to the lameness:
CATHY LEE CROSBY WONDER WOMAN. A 1970s TV version before Linda Carter's iconic role, this outfit is, well, pretty pathetic:
ORIGINAL TRILOGY X-MEN MAGNETO. How uninspired was Ian McKellen's costume from the first three X-flicks? Very. Especially when you see what Michael Fassbender's costume looked like in the prequel. (That's right, a 1960s version of his suit is far superior to the 2000 version. Go figure!):
2002 GREEN GOBLIN. Even though it's one of the highest-grossing superhero films ever (and features one of the coolest costumes -- the hero's), how could the villain's outfit be so awful? Willem DaFoe has one of the most sinister busts in all of Hollywood; why the directors didn't make use of it, and instead gave us this, I'll never know:
TV THOR. One of my personal faves for outright heavy cheese, this Thor was actually featured in a 1980s Hulk TV movie. Don Blake turns into the Thunder God by -- wait for it! -- yelling "ODIIIIINNNNNN!!!"
Nate Winchester, that is: If guys like Angry Mark Waid don't want our business because we disagree with them politically, we gotta support those who not only share our values and beliefs, but want our business:
Please check out their blogs and give them your support!
So says writer Geoff Johns. Johns is the guy whose "Forever Evil" story arc in DC Comics features ... Superman arch-nemesis Lex Luthor joining the Justice League. This is the Lex Luthor who in contemporary comics does this sort of stuff:
But "evil is very relative."
Does anyone recall DC's (or Marvel's) "old fashioned" real heroes ever doing anything like that? I don't. Hell, if anything, the heroes were constantly grappling over the morality of actually following through and executing heinous villains -- villains that clearly deserved it. Just look at the classic DC Kingdom Come, for example, where Superman has taken the homicidal Joker into custody after a murder spree. Suddenly, one of the "new breed" of heroes, Magog, shows up and blasts the Joker to ashes for his crimes, right in front of the Man of Steel (see below). Magog's popularity skyrockets as a result of what he did, while Superman's approval rating plummets. Much of Kingdom tussles with the "appropriate measures" taken by the costumed vigilantes known as superheroes.
In the pages of the X-Men for the longest time the same debate took place. Storm, for one, refused to kill anything, even the savagely brutal Alien-esque Brood. Not to mention, the team perpetually struggled to keep the killing instincts of Wolverine in check. But this premise has long since gone out of date.
But, the above is what's actually a legitimate debate about the nature of "evil" and what to do about it, not declaring that "evil is very relative" and then showing one of your most vicious villains casually murdering people, followed by ... turning him into a "hero." It's also laughable how creators like Johns view evil as being "very relative," yet before Barack Obama's reign as president the nature of "evil" seemed quite clear to them:
Indeed. Evil wasn't "very relative" between 2000 and 2008. It was quite clear. Hell, Batman couldn't even go after al Qaeda -- AL QAEDA!! -- without there being a politically correct controversy, and when the creator of the tale, Frank Miller, morphed the story into one featuring a generic hero, he still got a ton of flak for it from "progressives."
Evil is "very relative." Unless a Republican sits in the White House.
Evil is "very relative." So relative so that one of the most popular superheroes ever cannot even go after the world's premiere terror organization, the one responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
Evil is "very relative." So much so that the current president gets comicbook "fist bumps," superhero endorsements, and numerous comicbook covers ... even though his lawlessness while in office equals and even surpasses that of his predecessor. That which these same creators didn't think were "very relative."
Guys like Geoff Johns are beyond boring already. The only thing "relative" to him and his comicbook cadre is how their stories will portray the political philosophy and party you agree/disagree with.
(Thanks to Nate for the tip to the original article.)
Via Chicks on the Right: Liam Neeson's new flick Non-Stop features villains all-too typical by contemporary "progressive" standards ...
SPOILER ALERT!! See spoilers "below the fold" ...
...the villain is not a hijacker but a terrorist -- someone who wants to murder everyone on the plane to further a political goal.
The terrorist is a 9/11 family member. Yes, you read that right; the terrorist is a 9/11 family-member who lost a loved-one in the World Trade Center on that terrible September morning.
It gets worse…
After 9/11, this 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist then joined the military but found himself disillusioned by the pointless wars.
The 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist is upset because America hasn’t done enough to ensure there will never be another 9/11. And so he figures that if he can get an air marshal blamed for a terrorist attack, America will wake up and anally probe us before we're allowed on a plane, or something.
It gets worse…
The villain's sidekick is a member of the American military willing to murder 150 innocent people for a payday.
It gets worse…
The one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.
Of course! But I especially like how the villain was disillusioned by the "pointless wars," but at the same time is pissed off that the US "hasn't done enough" to thwart another 9/11. That's some logic gold, there, eh?
... you're -- what else? -- a racist.
No, writer Joseph Phillip Illidge doesn't actually say that, but it's more than obvious via his between-the-lines snark. Just like with our president, any dislike just couldn't be due to his policies, right? No, it's his COLOR, dammit!
Hey, if Marvel wants to change one of their longest-established characters for no other reason than to just do it, go for it. And if those who love this move want to keep referring to those who don't as wannabe Klan members, go for that, too. It's not my fault if you like coming off as microcephalic jackasses.
The Corner's Thursday Links yesterday included a link to the Top Ten Coolest Guns in Sci-Fi. I was a bit disappointed as they were just hand weapons/rifle-style gizmos. So, as a result, you know what that means: Because no one demanded it, here are Hube's Coolest Sci-Fi Weapons (not just guns) of All-Time! I've limited the list to film -- TV and/or movies. If I included print, this list could be interminable.
THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE:
THE COMET EMPIRE:
KRENIM TEMPORAL WEAPON:
WAVE MOTION GUN:
We've discussed the rumors of Jordan, a black actor, playing the blond-haired, blue-eyed Johnny before; however, looking at the images of the entire quartet -- especially Teller as Reed -- all one can say is "WTF????" As someone noted in the comment section of the first link, what is this -- "Fantastic Four 90210??" Teller looks like he's thirteen. Bell doesn't appear much older. And the only one of the four I've ever seen in a film (which doesn't mean much, admittedly) is Mara (she played Heath Ledger's oldest daughter in Brokeback Mountain).
And, naturally, the PC Police are out and about, crying "racism" when anyone dares to take issue with Jordan playing the Torch. The funniest thing about this is that at least one commenter takes this on in ... an ironic way:
Why Jonny?[sic] Why not Reed? A black guy can't be smart? He has to be the dumb jock?
Really, I think Reed being black makes a ton more sense if you were going to racebend anyone. Not that they should be. They should be promoting black heroes instead of using white ones with black actors.
At the CBR forum on the topic, this comment might be even better: "Like someone suggested they should turn Richards and Grimm into gay lovers to fill the quota."
Via Weasel Zippers:
This was an advertisement for Al Gore's enviro-nut outfit? Niiiiice. But hey -- why do they assume aliens want a warmer planet? Was Gore part of The Arrival's conspiracy?
He'll be played by Paul Bettany who voiced Jarvis in the Iron Man and first Avengers flicks.
I recall Bettany best from his role of the savior angel Michael in the so-so film Legion.
Cracked has a [brief] list of The 3 Most Depressing Minor Characters in Famous Movies. But they missed one. Here's Jonah Goldberg (via his e-mailed "G File"):
But it leaves out The Gimp from Pulp Fiction. I understand it's awkward since the man the character is based on is now the vice president of the United States. But come on.
It could happen, according to Bleeding Cool:
But surely the most interesting proposition they raise is that Josh Trank and Fox are open to gender-swapping iconic F4 villain Dr. Doom, who is expected to be the Big Bad here as well. Here’s how they’re approaching casting the character: the studio is likely to go for a big name and isn’t ruling out switching genders for the role.
Uh ... whaaaaat??? Last May rumors surfaced that a black actor may take over the role of the Human Torch; now we possibly may get a Doc Doom with breasts. Why not change the team moniker to the Politically Correct Four? And why stop at the Torch and Doom? Why not an Asian Reed Richards and Native American Sue Storm? And, how about making the Thing out of dry ice instead of rock, so that when his body sublimates there can be ample room for a discussion of anthropogenic global warming?
Don't dare peek at this still from The Amazing Spider-Man 2 if you don't wanna be, well, disappointed.
DC Comics is making a "move" with many of its most popular villains joining hero teams. Lex Luthor becoming a member of the Justice League is the latest. You may recall that Marvel had Peter Parker's (aka Spider-Man, natch) body taken over by his arch-nemesis Dr. Octopus.
'Ya gotta like how comics' modern creators believe their most base villains can get a shot at redemption. I mean, it's not as if Luthor or Ock have ever plotted massive, Hitler-esque genocide, right? The funny thing is, just imagine if Luthor or Ock was a member of the NRA ... or was against gay marriage! Then they'd be relegated to some interdimensional hoosegow for the rest of their natural lives!
Furious D's The Offend-Bore Matrix: "The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest. The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest."
Cut to movie maker Harvey Weinstein who says the National Rifle Association (NRA) will "wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”
[Howard] Stern asked Mr. Weinstein on Wednesday whether he owned a gun. The Hollywood heavyweight replied that he did not and never would. “I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it,” the producer said. “I think the NRA is a disaster area.”
The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gun stocks — I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”
Mr. Weinstein thinks guns are necessary for self-defense, but only in other countries, during genocides and if the weapon is not personally owned.
Uh, what? Weinstein says he thinks it would have been right for Jews to have guns during the Holocaust (no sh**) ... seemingly ignorant of the fact that the Nazis purposely confiscated firearms from them.
It may surprise you that Weinstein is behind such movies as Pulp Fiction, Rambo 6, Jackie Brown, Planet Terror, and the Kill Bill series. And yet he said "his vision" is to "scare people away from firearms." As long as it doesn't interfere with his making some major cash, though, right? (And hey, you can hear his excuses already: "Well, I did say guns were OK for genocides and in other countries [Rambo, Planet Terror] and Kill Bill relied on knives, not guns. He'll purposely avoid the other two flicks, natch.)
But back to the Offend-Bore Matrix: You can bet your bottom dollar his coming anti-NRA film will do precisely what the Matrix states. Which means, it ain't gonna do anything to "bring down" the gun-rights group. If anything, it'll have the reverse effect, just like we witnessed in Colorado with the recall elections of various gun control state legislators.
Some fans of comics writer Gail Simone and her comic The Movement (sort of a superhero version of the Occupy Wall Street Movement) are miffed -- miffed, I tell you! -- that the WB show Arrow featured a group by that name in the recent episode. They're miffed because this Movement "is apparently an anti-government terrorist organization."
So? What's the problem? Isn't that pretty much the case? Let's take a look at some images from a few years ago:
Not only does Simone glamorize "Occupy" with her comic, there was also an anthology of "Occupy" stories in comicbook form. This, despite the myriad instances of violence, depravity, rape, trashing of property, and littering. But the Tea Party? First, it's a miracle Arrow didn't make its "Movement" some sort of Tea Party analogue. (Maybe I'm jumping the gun and they still might. I don't watch the show.) But secondly, comics didn't waste any time condemning the TP with its partisan vitriol, despite there being absolutely NO reasonable comparison between it and Occupy when it comes to causing disruptions and crime.
So, pardon me if I don't get all huffy about The Movement on a DC Comics-based TV show more accurately depicting the real thing than the wanna-be fantasy of the Tea Party in past comics.
Via Douglas Ernst: Filmmaker Kevin Smith is going to demonstrate how ... "brave" of a guy he is with his next endeavor: A movie titled Helena Handbag, about "mankind teaming up with Hell to fight a rapturing giant Jesus."
Gee, how "edgy!" How "courageous!" How "daring!"
As Doug says,
If Kevin Smith wants a movie that no one else would make, perhaps he could write a film that pits Giant Muhammed against Mothra. Giant Muhammed could also have a harem of topless women the size of The Sacred Mosque Al-Masjid Al-Haram. But Smith won’t go there because it’s easier to needle Christians with “Christzilla” than it is to make a film that lands on the radar of the world’s nuttiest Islamic clerics. Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims.” He’s the guy the Obama administration couldn’t act fast enough to pull out of his home for a perp walk. Crime? Daring to criticize Islam.
Not to mention, there's the little tidbit about being scared shitless. Just ask MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell about that: In a rare moment of complete honesty, Crazy Larry admitted that "I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do." When asked about, say, Mormons, O'D responded, "They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people (Muslims), I'm not going to say a word about them."
The ever-indignant Furious D has more. Which certainly makes sense since his Offend-Bore Matrix comes into play here. The OBM says
The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest.
So he makes films like Red State, a horror film about Hollywood's irrational fear of "psycho American Christians" inspired by America's craziest pseudo-Christian religious cult the Westboro Baptist Church which consists of 1 large family and approximately 5 other people, who haven't actually done any physical violence. In fact, all the Westboro dicks seem good at is attracting attention for being obnoxious.
It got him some attention, but the film wasn't the noble disaster he needed to bow out. So why not ... follow that up with an apocalyptic comedy about battling Jesus.
Indeed. And that's precisely the Offend-Bore Matrix -- it'll give more "cred" to Smith in the comfy bubble of Hollywood, but he won't make squat at the box office. And, Smith won't have a damn thing to worry about safety-wise, despite the "message" of flicks like Red State.
As we noted back in September, the writer of Star Trek Into Darkness is a known 9-11 Truther. This site does a terrific job of nailing down all the related nonsense. The conclusion:
While there have been Starfleet officials who have been bad guys in the previous Trek continuity, Marcus is special because he’s the very head of Starfleet. In the reboot universe Starfleet isn’t dealing with occasional bad apples, it’s rotten from the very top. It is an organization run by criminals, something that would not have fit in Roddenberry’s vision.
(h/t to Nate)
Comicbook writer Ed Brubaker ironically tweets:
Here's a real question: Can you still enjoy an artist's work if you find out they're an asshole later?— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) January 2, 2014
Some responses by some of our "buddies":
@brubaker I think it's hard to enjoy it if they're contemporary, and still working. Easier to look past someone being a jerk 100 years ago.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 2, 2014
@brubaker I have a whole bunch of people whose work I can't enjoy any more because of racist or homophobic statements.— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) January 2, 2014
After many answers, Brubaker subsequently tweeted
So the answers seem to be: Yes, no, it depends on the art/depends on how big an asshole/depends on the time they lived.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) January 2, 2014
To be fair, at least Marz (and Dan Slott) have stated that they are aware of the [business] chance they take by being outspoken on certain matters (usually political). But, once again, it's one thing to spout off on matters political, and another to be, as Brubaker pondered, a jerk about it. It would matter much less to me (and I'd be a lot more inclined to buy their stuff) if people like Marz, Slott and Simone tweeted left-wing politics ... but were a lot more gracious/respectful towards dffering opinions. Not to sound like a broken a record, but, y'know, Michael Jordan's 1990 comment about Republicans buying shoes, too, and all ...
Happy 91st birthday to Stan Lee today!!
Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists. If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers.
You can read the entire GQ interview with Robertson here. His supposed "praising" of Jim Crow laws is on page one, and the "comparison" of gays to terrorists is on page two.
As I've said in the past, I've never seen this show (and don't plan on watching it) but I do believe the network had every right to do what it wanted regarding Robertson. They axed him ... and then they brought him back. I totally understand how certain groups would get offended by some of his remarks; of course, the issue beyond the remarks is the media interpretation -- and coverage -- of such. As we well know, only remarks made (or actions taken) by certain people/groups are socially/culturally impermissible. This is why Robertson was so quick to be dismissed in the first place, while Capital One could have cared less about Alec Baldwin's noxious behavior (and hey -- where was GLAAD then?), not to mention MSNBC regarding myriad instances. Just to note two institutions, natch.
God, I hope so. io9 reports that some tweets over the weekend stated that a reboot script is in the hands of a studio right now. Zack Stentz characterized the script thusly:
Less a satire & more an actual adaptation of the Heinlein novel. An Officer & a Gentleman in power armor... I love the Verhoeven version too! But this was a chance to actually engage with the source material instead of just mock it."
To which all I can say is "HALLELUJAH!!!" Writers Stentz and Ashley Edward Miller have done work on Thor and X-Men: First Class, so I am optimistic. Hey, I dig the 1998 ST film, but it really is nothing at all like the novel. The book is, like the quote above says, more like An Officer and a Gentleman with powered armor. The personal "coming of age" story of Johnny Rico (who's Filipino, by the way, in the book) and political philiosophy is as important as the sci-fi action.
My father, who usually stays away from cheesy sci-fi actioners like Verhoeven's ST, actually watched it recently and was impressed by the F/X. But, natch, he asked me: "We have faster-than-light spaceships but use 20th century-style machine guns and body armor??" I hear 'ya, pop. But Verhoeven claimed he could use his budget for the amazing bug F/X or the powered armor of the novel, but not both. He chose the bugs. Still, I don't see how troops outfitted in budget-inexpensive-but-technologically sophisticated outfits and weapons couldn't have worked.
io9 links to an old page which discusses the differences between the book and the film.
Most science fiction deals with the future, obviously, hence the "fiction" part. In scifi literature, TV and movies, some future timelines appear more ... "realistic" than others. Notice I said "appear" because we are talking about science fiction. Older scifi efforts (like the original Star Trek) usually will appear more "dated" and hence, oft times, outright wrong.
So, first, let's take that of the original Star Trek (meaning, the original series and its spin-offs, not that of the two rebooted flicks). Here's a timeline of the "future" Trek history. The earliest stuff (that is, 20th-21st century), natch, is already incorrect. For instance, there was no interstellar probe launched in 2002, not to mention no Eugenic Wars which spawned the notorious Khan. However, a lot of the remaining timeline seems fairly feasible, especially since it was established in Star Trek: First Contact and the series Enterprise that Earth had the assistance of Vulcan. I do, however, have a beef with how quickly Earth was able to recover from its [largely nuclear] World War III and continue its scientific progress (which led to Zephram Cochrane's development of warp drive.).
I'm a huge fan of Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe which has, in the last few years, been updated with the "Fleet of Worlds" novels. Here's the Niven chronology. I think Larry has a very realistic outlook on the progress of human science; we're using fusion-powered interstellar ramscoops in the mid-24th century to travel between stars ... which takes years. And we'd still be using such if not for the intervention of an advanced species which sold us the secret of FTL (faster-than-light) travel.
What about Isaac Asimov's Robots/Empire/Foundation universe? Here's its timeline. Can humanity conquer the entire galaxy in 20,000 years? With the assistance of its robots (their actions are largely unknown to humans), why not? Only the early part of the timeline is unrealistic: we develop a "hyperatomic drive" by the mid-21st century and settle our first interstellar colonies by 2064. Ain't gonna happen.
The Alien-verse. According to this timeline of events, the supposedly omniscient Weyland Corporation discovers FTL travel in 2032 and begins practical application of it three years later with a spacecraft. Apparently this FTL tech did not lead to the elimination of the need for suspended animation, however (see: Alien, Aliens which occur in 2122 and 2179 respectively).
Then there's Snake Plissken's Escape From New York future. Somehow, in 1981, John Carpenter believed that in sixteen years Manhattan would be evacuated and turned into a maximum security prison. Oh, and that fusion power would be developed. (Remember that audio tape?)
1975's Rollerball (a classic, in my opinion) posited that nations no longer existed and corporations ran the planet ... by 2018. I think this could certainly happen at some point, just not four years from now.
In 12 Monkeys, time travel is invented some years after 1997, even after a virulent virus has eradicated most of humanity. Uh, right.
The 1993 flick Demolition Man thought that the ability to freeze a human cryogenically would exist in 1996.
The 1994 film Timecop predicted time travel by 2004. And you get to ride in a cool-looking vehicle to make a trip (see below).
1973's Soylent Green told us that by 2022 there'll be over 40 million people in New York City, food will be scarce and global warming will be out of control. Ahh, remember when people used to believe that Malthusian bullshit?
A book I started some time ago but set aside is John J. Lumpkin's Through Struggle, The Stars. I didn't set it aside because it was bad; other things occupied my interest, is all. Nevertheless, check out how many colonies various Earth nations have settled by 2139. Does this seem possible to you?
Lastly, how 'bout these which really blew it:
Today, Trimnell has still more following some e-mail queries as to whether he was going to "force [Scalzi] out into the open." Ed, of course, says "no" (that isn't his concern, after all), but what was interesting is that he links to an article by "Mrs. Instapundit," Helen Smith, regarding Scalzi's treatise from earlier this year in which he says "white guys have it so easy." I was unaware of Dr. Helen's post at the time, but it's telling she wrote about it because Scalzi and her husband, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, are supposed to be pals. At any rate, Helen wrote of Scalzi's conclusion:
I say “bullshit.” Straight white men are today’s whipping boy. Scalzi’s fawning commenters start out telling him how brilliant his little essay is while this Uncle Tim and some (but not all–some commenters fight back) of his sycophants eat it up.
In my upcoming book with Encounter Publishing entitled “Male Strike: Why Society’s War Against Men is Suicidal and What to Do About It,” I discuss these Uncle Tim types (those who put down other men) whose life is made easier by pandering to women and other men who are either Uncle Tims themselves or White Knights trying to save a damsel in distress. There is always a benefit to putting down straight white males. What’s yours, Scalzi?
She links to this site, which has a very good response to the author as well. Best line from it?
But the problem with Scalzi's piece isn't his metaphor or his condescension: it's their implication. SWMs (straight white males) must be properly silent and guilty for who they are, or they're assholes. Expendable.
Personally, I have less of an issue with Scalzi's [questionable] point(s) than with his condescension and snark. Like the usual comicbook cadre, I truly am at a loss to figure why these folks act the way they do when their career depends upon selling their wares to the public. Such relies on public goodwill and relations. As I've said ad nauseam, why in the world would anyone patronize a person who spits in your face?? I've bought all of Scalzi's Old Man's War novels, including the latest, The Human Division. But y'know what? That's probably the last one I'll purchase. Even if Scalzi wrote something that was WAY out there (say, like Communism is the greatest governmental system in the history of man), I'd still be inclined to buy his stuff ... as long as he treated those who disagree with him politely and amicably. Or, just ignored them.
And I know I've said this before, too: Is it because guys like Scalzi have "made it" that they don't care anymore -- about how they come across to the public? I mean, unlike comicbooks, which is a slowly dying medium (and may explain why guys like Ron Marz act the way they do online), science fiction novels, it seems to me, will continue to flourish for quite some time.
I just don't get it.
The big thing today is writer/blogger/reformed Muslim Bosch Fawstin's article at PJ Media titled 10 Truths Mainstream Comic Books Evade To Promote ‘Muslim Superheroes.' Bosch is extremely passionate, and takes no prisoners. You may remember how Marvel is rebranding the title Ms. Marvel with the title hero a Muslim with super powers. Bosch discusses this and a lot more; it's a must-read.
I sort of got a kick out of this, linked to by Bosch. Blogger J. Caleb Mozzocco couldn't understand why no one was reading JLA/The 99. The 99 was (is) an all-Muslim super-team who got their powers "through magical Noor stones," and the team name comes from the ninety-nine attributes of Allah. Mozzocco writes
I did experience a new emotion while reading this installment of the sales analysis though, beyond the usual shades of the gray and blue rainbow of sadness I generally get from the chart—shock.
Specifically, I’m shocked at how poorly JLA/The 99 seems to be selling in the direct market.
They received about as much press coverage as any comic book characters could hope to. In the six-issue miniseries JLA/The 99, the new heroes team up with The Justice League of America, the DC super-team (usually) composed of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the most popular and well-known superheroes who aren’t owned by Marvel.
It started off selling pretty poorly, and, in just four issues, is selling half as many copies.
Well, as Bosch says in his article, it won't matter how much a series is promoted in the press if the story is poor. (And, as Mozzocco's commenters state, the price is too high.) Merely making a big deal out of the fact that the characters are "different" -- in this case, Muslim -- doesn't mean squat if the story and art blow. And if the tale is preposterously PC. This will happen with Marvel's new Ms. Marvel, too, I guarantee it.
Elsewhere, Carl brings word, sadly, of how sci-fi author John Scalzi is acting just like the usual cadre of "progressive" contemporary comicbook writers when faced with the slightest degree of criticism. In this instance, writer/blogger Ed Trimnell took issue with Scalzi, and the latter responded thusly (my emphasis):
Out there in the stupidosphere comes the suggestion that …I am a stone-cold opportunist…(No, I’m not going to link to the blog post in question, because it is in the stupidosphere. You can probably find it if you make the effort. But why would you? Now, then -)
This appears to be Scalzi's M.O., especially now that he's "made it." As Trimnell says, if you're going to blog, and especially blog about politics, you have to expect disagreement. But if you're Scalzi -- not to mention some of our usual [comicbook] nemeses like Ron Marz, Kurt Busiek, Gail Simone and Mark Waid -- you don't have to take the dissension. You're "above" it all. You're "better" than those who differ with you merely due to the fact that you're more well known and financially successful. The only response to make to those who disagree (if you make a response at all) is snarky scorn.
Such a shame. I dig Scalzi's Old Man's War universe. But as with the snotty comicbook creators, why should anyone patronize you if you treat people (and their differing viewpoints) with smug contempt?
In the comics Twitter-verse, the aforementioned Kurt Busiek and Ron Marz are actually right about the issues surrounding Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty/A&E network. They've both correctly noted that this is not a First Amendment issue. But that didn't stop them from their usual snotty snark, natch:
Palin logic: Duck Dynasty guy's 1st Amendment rights are being violated, but David Letterman should have been fired for telling Palin jokes.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) December 20, 2013
Um, Kurt? Palin never demanded Letterman be axed for his vile remarks. Some of her supporters did, but not the governor herself. Indeed, when she accepted Letterman's eventual apology, what she did say was "Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction." This isn't the first time Busiek has ripped on Palin; back in early 2011 he took up the MSM narrative in wondering if the governor's "target" imagery was in some way culpable for Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords being shot but a psycho. (And be sure to read my response to Kurt in the comments to the previous link; it's directly related to being thin-skinned when getting responses to posted political opinions.)
And let's not forget our "pal" Ron Marz, of course, who tweeted yesterday:
What if Trey Radel resigned his congressional seat, but then we give it to Phil Robertson? Would that make everybody happy?— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 20, 2013
Indeed. Because Duck Dynasty's Robertson has so much in common with the representative who was busted for cocaine possession, right?
Nate tips me off to this Furious D post: The Sundance Channel is developing a series about -- wait for it! -- a "fictional head of the NRA." Furious D notes, rightly, that "something as politically charged as a channel founded by Robert Redford producing a show about the NRA, can only fail." Why? Because of the Offend Bore Matrix which states:
The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest.
Or, to put it more succinctly,
This is because those who don't think the NRA is the font of all evil will feel insulted and offended, and those who do think the NRA is the font of all evil will be bored, because it'll just be a regurgitation of everything they read about the NRA in the New Republic.
Furious says Sundance is doing this to get a "noble failure" in its coffers so it can get a "pat on the back" from its peers "at the next political fundraiser at George Clooney's beach house." Sort of like Lions for Lambs, y'know.
The new sci-fi actioner starring Tom Cruise looks quite good:
The film is based on the novel All You Need is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka and deals with a near-future Earth battling an invading race called "Mimics." Cruise plays "an officer who has never seen a day of combat when he is unceremoniously dropped into what amounts to a suicide mission." But somehow, he gets caught up in a recurring time loop, giving him an opportunity to change things -- for the better -- each time he [re]lives a new loop. This reminds me a lot of the Star Trek: TNG episode "Cause and Effect" in which the Enterprise is caught up in a "temporal causality loop." It keeps repeating the same segment of time over and over, until exaggerated feelings of déjà vu enable the crew to plan for the next loop in an attempt to get out of it. They are successful, and after encounter a Federation vessel (captained by none other than Kelsey Grammer himself!) which had been trapped in the loop ... for eighty years.
One of the more satisfying episodes of TNG is the third season's "The Defector." At the beginning of this installment, we see a Romulan warbird pursuing a Romulan scout ship. The warbird fires on the scout, crippling it and injuring its pilot, but the Enterprise (which was alerted to the incident and hence was nearby) quickly transports the pilot to sickbay and snags the scout with its tractor beam. The warbird, now in Federation space, backs off, cloaks itself, and retreats.
The pilot is tended to by Dr. Crusher, and is promptly interrogated by Commander Riker and Counselor Troi. He claims to be a logistics clerk who has stumbled upon a [Romulan] plot to drag their empire and the Federation into conflict. He states he has seen plans for a Romulan base on Nelvana III in the Neutral Zone, the supposed focal point for their thrust into Federation space. Needless to say, the Enterprise officers are skeptical. Almost matter of factly, and easily missed if one is not paying attention, is Picard asking Worf to come to his ready room.
After more questioning and continuing doubt (especially by Capt. Picard), not to mention feekinsg of homesickness spurred on by a visit to the holodeck, the "clerk" finally reveals himself to be one Admiral Jarok, which instantly gives his story a lot more credibility. Initially hesitant to reveal much, if anything, about Romulan secrets, a stern Picard informs Jarok that he has "already made his choice" -- that is, to defect -- and if he really wants to prevent a war between the two quadrant powers, he'd better inform the Enterprise crew of everything he knows.
As the Enterprise ventures into the Neutral Zone towards Nelvana III to check out ambiguous signals which may or may not be what Jarok has revealed, Capt. Picard remains unconvinced. Once it's confirmed there is no base, Picard orders the ship back to Federation space ASAP, but is suddenly confronted by two decloaking Romulan warbirds. Admiral Tomalak mockingly informs Picard that this time it is he who has ventured into the Neutral Zone (the last time the two confronted each was in the episode "The Enemy" where the Enterprise encountered Romulan shenanigans on a planet inside the Neutral Zone). He demands Picard surrender, which is refused. Tomalak pleads for Picard to consider his crew's lives, but again Picard refuses, saying "If the cause is just and honorable, his crew will follow him to their deaths." He then asks Tomalak if he "is prepared to die," to which Tomalak snorts that he expected more than idle threats. Picard then says, "Then you shall have it!" He motions to Worf, and then suddenly three Klingon Birds of Prey decloak around the Romulan vessels! Picard had clandestinely prepared for just this eventuality, natch!
Tomalak, totally busted, attempts a measure of saving face, exclaiming "You'll still not survive our assault!" To which Picard responds, "You'll not survive ours. Shall we die together?" Tomalak then nods to Picard and says "I look forward to our next encounter, Captain" and then he and his ships re-cloak and leave.
Despite the satisfying humiliation of Tomalak, Admiral Jarok is crushed. He's thrown his life away for nothing -- the entire thing was an elaborate ruse to ferret out [Romulan] traitors and get revenge on Picard and the Enterprise. The final scene shows Picard entering Jarok's quarters where he is tending to by Dr. Crusher. Jarok has committed suicide, but he left behind a letter with hopes that one day, if peace is established between the Federation and Romulans, his family will be able to read it.
Of course, this is impossible now, since the 2009 Star Trek reboot film establishes that Romulus is destroyed in Trek continuity proper. I wonder if a future film (or TV series) will return to the "main" Trek timeline.
... has debuted:
... and I thoroughly enjoyed it. When it first hit theatres, there was a big controversy over (and I don't think I'm giving anything away here, now) Superman killing General Zod at the climactic battle's end. I personally don't have an issue with how it all panned out, but then again I am not as versed in Superman lore as I am with that of many Marvel characters.
Nevertheless, it has been established that Supes has killed before, and that it caused him great torment afterwards. In Superman vol. 2 #22, Supes executed an alternate-universe Zod, along with his two cohorts (basically the same trio as that seen in the film Superman II) after they obliterated an alternate-Earth. Superman could take the chance that the trio would do the same to our planet, and so took the fatal action. I first learned about this incident in the TPB Superman vs. Aliens, of all things. Supes' despair over his actions was referenced because he was (at first) reluctant to kill any of the [Alien] xenomorphs he had encountered on a desolate asteroid.
In MoS, it is clear that Kal-El is in [spiritual] agony after snapping Zod's neck (see above), shown by his tears and bellowing scream following his fateful action. And just like the situation in the comcbook referenced above, Zod had vowed never to give up -- give up trying to destroy Earth -- as long as he lived. For me, killing Zod was the only alternative. There certainly wasn't any place to imprison him, given that the Phantom [Zone] space drives were all just destroyed.
There's certainly stuff to be nitpicky about in MoS, but I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I think it provides a more realistic situation with the [human] population coming to realize that there's a nigh-omnipotent alien living in their midst. Henry Cavill as Clark/Supes is excellent -- he's built like Hugh Jackman, and a better actor than Brandon Routh (Superman Returns). The distrust of the US government regarding Supes is very much like that of the truly excellent Superman: Secret Identity written by Kurt Busiek. In it, Supes just wants to be left alone, to live in peace and raise his family, and to help out humanity when he can. But the government hounds him, and he eventually has to come to an agreement with some higher-ups to have his persecution cease.
The Kryptonian backstory was very well done, with notable homages to the classic 1978 and 1981 films. I thought the planet's 100,000 year interstellar history was reminiscent of Zenn-La's -- home of the Norrin Radd, aka the Silver Surfer. Both civilizations journeyed the stars and planted their flag on thousands of worlds ... only to get bored and return home to live a risk-averse life of comfort and plenty.
I certainly look forward to the follow-up, which is supposed to feature both Superman and Batman.
Geez, ya'd think what with the way guys like Ron Marz, Dan Slott and Tom Brevoort were all high and mighty about what people asked regarding the new [Muslim] Ms. Marvel, the company would be more sensitive. Guess not:
A Hindu group has called on ABC to apologize following an episode of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. that suggested the god Vishnu, like the hero Thor, might be an alien.
In the Nov. 19 episode, which tied into the events of Thor: The Dark World, Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and hacker Skye (Chloe Bennett) have an exchange designed to deliver exposition about the Asgardians, who in the Marvel Universe are ancient aliens who were mistaken for gods when they visited Earth thousands of years ago. “Do you think other deities are aliens, too?” Skye asks. “Vishnu for sure, right?”
Normally this would be a non-story despite what the group thinks (it later states that it "believes in free speech, but..."), but considering the ridiculously PC nature and rabid manner in which many of the company's creators go after any fan (or non-fan) who dares utter something critical of their characters, creators or stories, I frankly hope this ruckus kicks them in their pompous asses.
That said, Universal Society of Hinduism? Get a life. And I'm certain just about any other religious group, Christian included, would have objected had the actors referenced their religion. I doubt, however, that Marvel would have been brave enough to mention a Muslim deity or figure since to do that would have brought on death threats. Hindus aren't known for doing that sort of thing. (Just recall MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell's remarks regarding criticizing the "right" religion.)
Here: The Boycott on Normalcy.
... if he means it. The comic writer on CBR today:
There are likely people who will avoid my work because of this column. There are certainly those who already do so because I don't hide my convictions or my politics on Twitter. And that's fine. Orson Scott Card didn't hide his beliefs either. This is what I'm doing about it.
Isn't that big of him? It's "fine" if you skip his work because of his obnoxiousness on Twitter. What a guy. But at least (on paper) he doesn't have a beef if you say "F*** you" to him by thumbing your nose at his product. And as we've noted here ad nauseam, there's plenty of reason to do just that if you're right-of-center with your politics. For instance, he tweets
So yet another "bad guy with a gun" was stopped by trained, armed law-enforcement officials, not some yahoo with a concealed-carry permit.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 2, 2013
In other words, you who believe in gun rights should "STFU" because we have people like those in the TSA to defend us.
His column is on Orson Scott Card, by the way, whose Ender's Game just hit theatres. Card, as you may recall, isn't particularly fond of gay rights.
UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments section by Andrew, Marz's fellow (and much better) writer Peter David takes him to task for his column. I can't say I agree 100% with David, but he's spot on regarding the radical left and their boycotts and [political] pressure.
UPDATE 3: Marz has finally opined on the ObumbleCare disaster -- and it's the GOP's fault! But of course!
Remember: "There are certainly those who already do so because I don't hide my convictions or my politics on Twitter. And that's fine."
It sure is.
That's what Comic Book Resources' Brett White ponders. His beef is multi-fold, and even tosses in a neat little PC nugget to assuage the contemporary audience:
They're hitting Christopher Nolan-level dramatic highs to prove to everyone turned off by the super-silliness of those two films that things are different now. But that course correction involves moody lightning, slow motion pain faces, and grandiosely somber music -- three things that just don't get me as excited as Anthony Mackie's Falcon going head-to-head with a plane mid-air.
The older I get, though, the more I realize that I have very specific ideas of what I want from the X-Men. I find it hard to relate to what younger fans want, and I am not that enthralled with what director Bryan Singer wants to give me. At what point was it decided that the central characters of the entire X-Men film franchise would be Wolverine, Professor X, and Magneto? The three oldest, whitest dudes in the entire canon? It feels like I'm 8 years old again and all I want are some X-Men action figures -- but my parents bought me the old good guy who doesn't fight, the bad guy who makes speeches and controls metal, and the angry guy that's filled with metal. While I have to appreciate the fact that I have these toys, because otherwise I'd be a brat, I have to admit I wouldn't mind having a few more, maybe Rogue or Storm or Gambit.
Brett's problem is that he is thinking precisely like a fan-boy. Which is OK, certainly, but one cannot seriously maintain that manner while pondering a cinematic version of great comics. A couple points:
I could care less if there is little superhero action in DOFP. I just want a damn good story, like the way Claremont and Byrne told it. If Singer can get close to that, I'll be happy.
Remember, this flick is supposed to tie all the X-films together. If it does that without making me laugh and tells a great story, it'll be a hit.
Bleeding Cool has it.
It looks like someone had the "brilliant" idea to "up the ante" from the first; however, that's hard to do. The original (from 2005) was an extremely well done suspense/horror flick about a deranged serial killer who preys upon tourists in the Aussie Outback. It takes a really good horror film to suck me in; Wolf Creek did just that. John Jarratt is eerily creepy as the madman.
And I see my main question about the [original] story has been answered ...!
I happened -- purely by accident, but I'm glad -- to catch this PBS program last evening, and even for a well-seasoned comics guy, I thought it was quite entertaining. It's divided into three parts, basically dividing the Comics Age into their three main segments: Golden, Silver and Bronze Age. I know less about the Golden Age than the others, and learned quite a few neat tidbits about it. For instance, at one point, 70 million comics were sold around World War II. At the time, that was half the American population! And, for GIs fighting abroad, comics were their reading material of choice!
I didn't enjoy the Silver Age as much, mainly because I knew just about everything presented. What was cool, however, were the "insider" nuggets offered up by guys like Jim Steranko (Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD) and Neal Adams during their stints in the late 60s and early 70s. Adams' recounting of a DC editor telling him and writer Denny O'Neil that he wanted Green Arrow and Green Lantern together in their own book -- because they both had "green" in their names -- was hysterical.
I fell asleep during the Bronze Age-present segment, but I'm certain I didn't miss much. The previews leading up to it showed a lot from the comicbook films from the last thirteen years or so, and I read that the "bubble" of the 1990s was discussed.
The entire program is available for free for a limited time at the link above.
... and was underwhelmed. While I can appreciate the myriad homages to the classic 1982 Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, the story was pretty unoriginal and included way too much consipracy nonsense that writer Roberto Orci dabbles in.
*Sigh* I really don't have much to add from what I wrote here, despite then not having seen the film. One thing stuck out at me: If the film's message was supposed to be so ... "anti-military" (Admiral Marcus' clandestine attempts via Section 31 to prepare for war against the Klingons is the "real" bad guy), then why are Starfleet personnel now decked out in overtly Nazi-esque gray uniforms, complete with hats? Oh yeah, right -- maybe that's precisely it. Yeesh. And that ending? Kirk's speech about "not getting revenge?" Cheeyeah. Got it. "We created Khan and co. just like we 'created' al Qaeda/bin Laden/Muslim fundies." Or something.
If there was a need for the gratuitous "real Trek universe" Spock appearance ("new universe" Spock summons him for info on Khan), then why couldn't he also have filled in 'ol pointy ears about the Klingons, hmm? That Admiral Marcus was spot-on -- conflict with the Klingons was inevitable??
Newsarama has the hype.
Although Star Trek is best known these days as a film franchise, could a return to its first medium – television – be in the works? Could be.
Sky News reporter Joe Michalczuk tweeted on October 8 that during a press junket for the film Ender’s Game, Star Trek co-writer/producer Robert Orci told him that the franchise’s producers had met with CBS to do a new Star Trek television series. Neither Michalczuk or Sky News have published a formal article elaborating on this and Orci hasn’t made any public comment on his own, so this second-hand statement can be seen as a potential, but unconfirmed report.
This contradicts an earlier report that said JJ Abrams claimed CBS said it was not interested in a new Trek TV series.
Of course, there's no indication of just what the series would be about. It's highly unlikely that much -- or all -- of the "rebooted" universe cast would be willing to move to the small screen. And contrary to comments I have seen here and there, the "real" Star Trek universe does still exist. That supernova which [ridiculously] "threatened the galaxy" (as noted by "real" Spock in the 2009 reboot film) only annihilated Romulus, as far as we know. Spock stopped further destruction from occurring via the enigmatic red matter. Thus, there's a plethora of stories that could be done in what seems to be a popular idea: An anthology-style series.
Consider the possibilities: Episodes detailing the changes in the quadrant after Romulus' destruction. How Section 31 has influenced the Federation. Stories about the Dominion War. Episodes dealing with Starfleet Academy. io9 has some intriguing ideas in this thread.
Ace notes a few nuggets I had never known about Gene Roddenberry and his beloved Star Trek. Like, Gene never dug the idea for the best of all the Trek films, The Wrath of Khan. He did not want Spock to die at the end (OK, I can dig that), but he also had an issue with the "paramilitary" aspect of the film. Uhh, what? Hey dude, what about all those original series episodes featuring, y'know, Klingons ad Romulans which the Enterprise (and Starfleet) had to fight? Gene also wanted a plot he had pushed for years to be used: The 1701 going back to 1963 to the time of the Kennedy Assassination. This, in a movie.
OK, so let's consider this: Would Kirk and co. thwart Lee Harvey Oswald? What could you do that wouldn't make the flick hopelessly political? Would Roddenberry take an Oliver Stone-like tact and have the Enterprise discover Oswald wasn't really the shooter? If not, what would happen in the altered timeline? Would JFK end the Vietnam War before it really got rolling? Would the turmoil and social unrest of the late 1960s be no more?
No, to all of the above.
Like in what is considered the best episode of the original series, "City on the Edge of Forever," Kirk and crew would have had to ensure Kennedy's death to preserve the timeline. (Recall that in "Forever," Kirk and Spock had to "undo" McCoy's saving of Edith Keeler [Joan Collins] to prevent the Nazis from ultimately winning World War II.) The plot indeed used the Guardian of Forever from that episode. After "losing ships to V'Ger" (Star Trek: The Motion Picture), some Klingons discover the Guardian, and use it to jaunt back to 1963. Somehow, preventing JFK's assassination results in the Klingons dominating our portion of the galaxy by the 23rd century. (I'd love to hear the explanation for that.) William Shatner noted that the plot's climax "would find Spock standing on a grassy knoll in Dallas, firing that infamous `phantom shot'... thereby guaranteeing a brighter future for all of mankind." The film also would have included Kirk vociferously trying to persuade Kennedy about his mission, and the president touring the Enterprise. Paramount nixed the idea, obviously. I mean, preventing the death of one of the country's most popular leaders leads to a dystopic future? That wouldn't exactly have sat well with a lot of Americans.
Roddenberry apparently was distraught at the rejection; he tried to get the plot approved for ST III and then ST IV, but no dice. (Ironically, ST IV involved time travel, but instead of allowing JFK to be killed, Kirk saved a couple of whales.)
Hey, I'm a huge time travel fan, and I have to admit I kind of like this idea. The problem with it is (was), it certainly wasn't original. "City of the Edge of Forever" was way too similar -- Kirk having to allow a death, and a very unpopular one at that, to preserve the timeline. No doubt it would have been Trek-gastic to see Kirk and Kennedy chum around and the latter strolling through the Enterprise, but as noted above, how would the Klingons know that allowing JFK to live would ensure their dominance some 300 years later? If anything, it seems like his death logically would result in that as the former president was very pro-space program. Kennedy's challenge to land on the moon by the end of the 60s was met despite his death in 1963; does anyone think it wouldn't have been had he lived?
From Cracked: Four Famous People Who Have No Clue How to Handle Criticism.
The "military thriller" novelist is dead at age 66. Of his work, I'll best remember his Red Storm Rising as it came out my senior year of college and I skipped a few classes to finish the damn thing. It was that good. (It's about a hypothetical World War III scenario ... but would come off as "dated" now, I'd wager.)
Titled "Age of Ultron," natch:
Last night was the long-awaited debut of Marvel's Agents of SHIELD on ABC. While it was good, it certainly wasn't great. It was definitely formulaic, clichéd, and predictable, but it had its moments.
*Agent Coulson. Of course, there's a ton of speculation about how he survived Loki's death stroke in The Avengers. Or, did he? Ron Glass's character Dr. Streiten (Glass played Harris in the 1970s sitcom Barney Miller -- how many of you knew that?) brought up the most significant point regarding that, leading me to conclude that Coulson is ... an LMD -- Life Model Decoy. Also, for me, Coulson's humorous side in Agents didn't really jibe with his [very] serious demeanor in the Marvel films.
*The gadgets. This is what SHIELD is all about, natch. It was great to see they pulled no punches when it came to such.
*Ming-Na Wen's Melinda May. She's probably the best actor on the show, and as such drastically assists the show's gravitas. We know there's something in her past that discomforts her, and she wears that burden "well," so to speak.
*The connections. Not only were there myriad mentions of the Iron Man films and The Avengers most especially, but hat tips to the comics, as well. Tell me you didn't know the SHIELD flying car wasn't going to pop up at some point? (The effects were too cheesy, though.)
*Agent Coulson. There were as many negatives as positives regarding Clark Gregg's character. As mentioned, he seemed out of character from that of the films. Some of his dialogue seemed forced, and again, the humor seemed too out of place, even though there's certainly room there for it.
*The Brit twins. Sorry, but give me the Gaffer any day over these mewling twits. (That's right -- I meant twits, not twins.)
*Chloe Bennet's Skye. If she's this annoying already, I worry 'bout the future. Plus, as Bleeding Cool notes, how does an anarchist hacker who lives in her van look so good?
*Beware plot convolution. I always worry that a show like this will devolve into what became of Lost, Battlestar Galactica and/or The X-Files. In other words, logic-defying plot ideas, complete nonsense, and/or ties to other episodes that make no sense or are completely ignored. I never really watched Lost so I cannot speak to that personally, but I know many folks who hated what became of it. Regarding BSG you may have read my many posts about it. And as for X-Files, even with the two films you still gotta be going "WTF???"
Of course, I'll stick with it (hey, I did with Falling Skies, after all, for a season), but if the BAD above occur, I'll be saying "see 'ya" very soon.
UPDATE: Noted SHIELD creator Jim Steranko rips the show's premiere.
Carl sends me word of the latest issue of Daredevil whose writer, Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid, has included a brief Trayvon Martin allegory. But first, just so you know Waid's mindset on that whole deal, let's go back to the time of the George Zimmerman verdict:
Zimmerman initiated the conflict. That is the bottom line. Had he done what 911 TOLD him to do, that kid would be alive today. Full stop.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
Remember, it's Racism Savings Time tonight. Don't forget to set your clock back 60 years before you go to bed.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
@AcidAttack89 Agreed system is flawed, but if races were reversed in this case, defendant would be on death row right now.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And, of course, there were the typical "come backs" by Waid to those who dared to question his tweets on the issue, such as:
It's times like these that you get to see just how many of your followers are racists.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And there's plenty more where they came from. *Sigh*
So now we have Daredevil #31 where DD is fighting against ... the Sons of the Serpent?? This shows you how pitifully desperate Waid is to keep his ridiculous NarrativeTM alive. The SoS have been around since Marvel's earliest days. They're a -- wait for it! -- white supremacist group! But, y'see, Marvel's earliest days weren't exactly great days for American blacks. The Civil Rights movement was still in its infancy, after all. (One of the SoS's earliest appearances was in the pages of The Avengers where they went after Giant Man's [black] assistant, Bill Foster, who later assumed the role of Goliath himself using Pym's growth-changing formula.) But that doesn't matter one iota. They're a perfect way for Waid to make his "point" about Trayvon Martin in 2013! After all, we know how widespread and numerous white supremacist organizations are these days, right? I mean, other comicbook writers have told us so, too. There was Ed Brubaker in Captain America, and even Rob Liefeld in the same title.
Here's the panels from the issue of Daredevil in question. Now granted, when Carl tipped me to this, I was expecting a bit more. The whole Sons of Serpent stuff is just one of a few plots that Waid is juggling around here. But in these two panels, look at what Waid says. The "suspicious-looking Black teenager" line is patently obvious (and notice he adopts the PC capitalization of the word "black"), but notice the others -- the defendant is an "entitled society harpy" with a "long and recorded history" of racism, and the black teenager who was shot was an honor student who happened to be tutoring another kid. Of course, the only real connection to the Zimmerman/Martin matter is the line "suspicious-looking Black teenager." To me, it's a good bet Waid is counting on people making that obvious link, and then hopefully buying the rest of the "connections," which actually happen to be total bullsh**. George Zimmerman certainly ain't "entitled," nor is he a member of the hoi polloi. (And, he's not even white.) And Trayvon Martin wasn't an honor student who tutored other kids. (Ironically, it was Zimmerman who did that.)
Oliver Sava at AV Club says the above
... is a great way for Waid to explore a major theme of the series in a different context. Fear is an essential part of Daredevil’s character, and Waid’s plot looks at fear on a broader scale as New York City citizens rebel against a justice system that has betrayed them. This anger is bred out of fear that the system in place is no longer serving the best interests of the public, and all it takes is the smallest spark to turn that fear into a raging fire.
Which makes sense. Waid didn't necessarily have to get all the facts about the Zimmerman case right to make the [supposed] larger point that Sava notes above. The problem is, in the Zimmerman case, the justice system (and the mainstream media, natch) had a bias against Zimmerman from the very beginning. From constantly referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" to completely ignoring cases that mirrored his (with the races reversed), the verdict then led to preposterous yammerings like "Keep your black/boys inside, now!" as if white-on-black racist killings and a crooked justice system are today akin to those of 1950s Mississippi. The sad fact is that young men like Trayvon Martin have much more to fear from other teenagers ... who look like him. But just don't bring that up to Waid, though. Besides referring to you as a "racist," he may shout something like this.
Alas, this is all totally predictable. Waid, like other comicbook "geniuses" Erik Larsen, Ron Marz, Dan Slott, and, regrettably, Kurt Busiek, lives in an insulated bubble, a product of northeast urban liberalism which essentially deifies certain narratives. And, again, the comicook fan has to ask him/herself: "If this guy feels the way he does about my cultural and political beliefs, then why the f*** should I turn my hard-earned money over to him?" The answer is you shouldn't. But it is your choice, of course. I chose long ago not to part with any cash to purchase something by someone who vociferously trashes my political (and other) beliefs. It's perfectly natural, after all. Waid and other "progressives" do it all the time. Just ask Orson Scott Card, among many others.
Avi over at FCMM has more.
... let's jump on rapper A$AP Rocky who committed the sin of standing an "awkward distance" from gay NBA player Jason Collins when the duo introduced the next act at the MTV Video Music Awards, and appeared to make "mocking facial expressions" toward him. Philly.com's Gabrielle Bonghi writes that A$AP's actions "sparked outrage of all kinds on the internet."
But of course. But the PC Police and radical multicultis are once again in a bind. They're outraged at the rapper's supposed homophobia; however, he is a minority, so they cannot show too much outrage at him.
Also, here's a good question for 'ya: what's more shocking: A rapper being homophobic, or being charged with assault?
Thanks to a tip from my comics pal Carl, I say THE question is: Think there would be an outcry if a popular movie's writer was a known Obama Birther?? Cheeyeah ....
The writer in question is Roberto Orci. It seems Orci has a reputation on Twitter (and elsewhere) as a conspiracy theorist, specifically about the aforementioned Sept. 11 terror attacks. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that someone who believes such is ... "socially accepted" enough to gain a position as a writer of one of Hollywood's biggest franchises. And not only that, but actually write such conspiracy mongering into his scripts. If you have't already seen it, Into Darkness is very much a 9/11 [Truther] parable. You can check out our past summary of the flick here.
Now, imagine if Orci were a Birther ... and Into Darkness included a sub-plot about Admiral Barnett not being actually born on a Federation planet, thus being ineligible to be the head of Starfleet Academy. What do you think the media would say, then? Orci would be denounced as a complete lunatic, much like what Orson Scott Card has faced with his comicbook writing, and most recently with his film Ender's Game. With the mainstream media (and Hollywood), it's very simple: Trutherism = good, Birtherism = bad.
UPDATE: Carl has more here, including why Orci deleted his Twitter account, and an interesting tidbit regarding Ender's Game.
The consumption of media is changing. Kevin Spacey is at the forefront of that change. He knows that the customer is the ultimate driver and the Big Content managers can only fight against that tide for so long before they have to change. Netflix (and Mr. Spacey) are ahead of the industry in meeting that need. "Form factor" is big industry buzzword and so is "platform agnostic". Both mean that the means of consumption (i.e. viewing) of the movie/tv show should be ignored. What matters is "engagement". That is, how loyal is your audience, how well can you measure them and ultimately, can you sell to them? A show like House of Cards is way too smart for major networks. It is deft and assumes you have a brain which is anathema to the major networks. Methinks this is going to be the new normal in fairly short order.
The comics and entertainment world is abuzz with word that Ben Affleck will be the new Batman in the Man of Steel sequel. I read many "HUH??s" on Facebook and Twitter last night, but overall I think [nutty-but-right-in-this-case] comicbook guy Erik Larsen's tweet pretty much sums it up:
Mr. Mom played Batman. Think about that. Ben Affleck is certainly a less controversial choice than Michael Keaton. Sheesh.— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) August 23, 2013
Indeed. Think about how nuts everyone went when it was announced that Keaton was playing the Dark Knight. And hell, Affleck's already played a superhero. And apparently, I'm one of the few that thought Daredevil wasn't all that bad.
But so what? (Warning: Rambling rant to follow):
Despite what the film's director and star Matt Damon claim, the movie is very political. But, much of it's just stupid political if you ask me. As you may have heard by now, "Elysium" is the name of the huge space station orbiting Earth and home to the very richest of the planet's [former] citizens. These folks essentially can live forever thanks to the pinnacle of modern medical technology. Just don't ask how this tech works, however. I had to guffaw when bad guy Sharlto Copley's disintegrated lower skull was instantly rematerialized in one of these medical pods. C'mahn.
You're sure to ask just how this tech is so miraculous ... when even those on Elysium are still using alpha-numeric keyboards and large screen LC monitors or their computers, for one thing. It's supposed to be 2154, after all. That's over 130 years from now, dammit. Consider where we were 130 years ago and then tell me we'll still be using such tech for computers. Not to mention, given the year, why the hell were there 1970s model automobiles on the streets of the dilapidated Los Angeles? 1970s!! I mean, really? The poor residents of LA couldn't use makeshift 2110 model cars? Even 2080 models?? I know that director Neill Blomkamp wanted to give the city a sort of "Cuba" feel -- like how cubanos have to make do with revamping old 1950s-era American automobiles among other tech -- but this just goes too far.
But, after all, those are just scifi nits. The big question is, how the hell did the world situation come about that gave us this ritzy space station, and the ridiculously poverty-stricken planet below? All of LA looks like Rio de Janeiro's favelas, even once-modern downtown with its skyscrapers and all. Blomkamp wants us to analogize the situation to the US-Mexico relationship, or even the Western world to the Third World in general. We see "illegals" taking off from LA in a desperate attempt to reach Elysium to make use of a medical pod. The pod won't work, however, unless you have a tattoo of an Elysium citizen. (Get it? Green card, Social Security card, etc.) For some reason, the citizens of Elysium refuse to share the miraculous medical tech with Earth. At all. Really. I mean, one damn medical pod can instantly heal anything and any number of people, yet Elysium refuses to even loan one out. (I guess this is supposed to be analogous to the dastardly pharmaceutical cos. not giving free drugs to poor nations.)
Poor Matt Damon, who's accidentally irradiated at work and hence has but five days to live, is merely given a few pain pills to ease his agony. Such sets in motion the main plot: Damon will somehow get to the space station and heal himself. I won't offer up any spoilers from here on out, but my question remains: How could such a situation come about? Elysium ruled Earth with an authoritarian fist, via their robotic police force. It would have taken many years -- decades, at least -- to construct such a station; did the "evil" one percent manage to build it all ... by deception? Perhaps with a promise that anyone could venture to live there sometime?
Blomkamp certainly isn't the first to relay such a message. In the 1970s we saw the likes of Soylent Green (starring Chuck Heston) and Rollerball (starring James Caan) where wealthy corporate types have control of the world and care not much about anything but themselves. In the former, the Soylent corporation begins making food out of people after it, and many other corporations, have essentially trashed the planet's ecology. In Rollerball, nations' borders are defined by which major corporation is HQ'd there, and the public is kept placated by ultra-violent "sports" like the film's title.
"Progressives" will champion Blomkamp's vision; however, the important thing to consider is just how and why certain countries are successful ... and others aren't. The same "progressives" will clamor that the US (like other developed nations) has basically "robbed its way to prosperity" from the very beginning, starting with the Native Americans. Certainly, a chunk of this has merit, but not nearly to the degree "progressives" would have us all believe. This isn't the post to now delve into all such reasons; just consider what I noted above, and then ask yourself to what degree countries like ours obligated to help others less developed. And how.
By way of the inimitable Nate Winchester comes word of a new ... novel that purports to be something of a "case study" of what would happen if the Religious Right ever got its way. It's called Christian Nation and, well, you can just guess at the usual "progressive" clichés:
Christian Nation is a work of speculative political fiction, arising from the counterfactual of a McCain/Palin victory in 2008 followed soon after by McCain’s sudden death and Sarah Palin’s ascension to the presidency.
When the book opens, eight years have passed since the Holy War ended in victory for the fundamentalist Christian forces. Americans live in bondage to a comprehensive authoritarian law called The Blessing, enforced by a totally integrated digital world known as the Purity Web.
Yeesh. As a big fan of alternate history, I believe the single biggest factor involved in establishing an alternate reality is the plausibility. So, how exactly did Palin manage to pull all this off?
Struggling with perspective and memory, the memoirist recounts the country’s long slow descent to religious authoritarianism, propelled by economic distress, a second major terrorist attack, and the fanatical ambitions of an extremist evangelical minority.
Oh, I see. So after another radical Muslim terror attack (which kills substantially more than 9/11, FWIW), we traded what those fundies wanted ... for what other fundies wanted. Got it.
Interestingly, Nate mentioned to me that this whole premise makes an interesting addendum to our post about Orson Scott Card, which soooo irritated the [comicbook] Left with its fantasies about Boss Obama creating a national police of disaffected "urban youth" ... even though Obama actually stated a desire to create a civilian "security" force some years earlier. Can someone point to me where Sarah Palin has indicated where she wanted to create a fundamentalist Christian government here in the United States?
Hilariously, the irony of some of the reviews put up at the book's website seems to have escaped the author/publisher. For instance,
Though McCain did not win the 2008 election, in recent years controversial actions like drone strikes, invasions of privacy and unlawful detainment have been condoned in part due to greater worries over terrorism. So it’s not for us to say, “It can’t happen here.” This disturbing book argues that much of it already has.
Uh, helLO?? And just which administration has done that?? The irony that is completely missed by the author via his HAL-9000esque (thanks, Ace) dialogue is beyond head-scratching. He has his protagonists pondering how the Right would completely overlook "their self-proclaimed values and their own interests" in order to get power ... and that if Obama had won in 2008 this same Right would be "screaming bloody murder" if he took the same measures that President Palin did. Apparently author Fred Rich must exist in the reality in which his novel is set. After all, in our reality it's the Left which was screaming bloody murder about George W. Bush's methods of fighting the War on Terror -- for seven long years -- but now that "their own" inhabits the White House, these very same measures, and much, much more, are EMBRACED by the Left. Or, at least, their complaints are kept very mute. And why is that? Yep: They're overlooking "their self-proclaimed values and their own interests" in order to get (and maintain) power.
At least the Kirkus Reviews blurb knows precisely what the book's intended purpose is: "Dystopian, wonkish fun for the Maddow set.”
Even more gut-busting hilarity ensues at Ace's, where he dissects the stodgy -- and ridiculous -- dialogue (or, as Ace calls it, "Compelling and Realistic Simulacrum of Human Speech") of the book. Be sure to read this one all the way through. It'll make your day for sure. But before all that, Ace has the money quote: "When Alex Jones prattles on about this, the right goofs on him; when 'Frederic Rich,' leftist fantasist extraordinaire does, W.W. Norton books says 'Let's publish that.'"
Oh, Ace also bets that the terror attacks in the novel actually were not enacted by Muslim fundies, but by some Christian militiamen framing Muslim fundies. Because that's how the fringe "progressive" Left rolls, after all. It's the same 35-some percent that believes G.W. Bush orchestrated/knew about 9/11, y'know.
Here's USA Today's review of the book. And here's a [very cheesy] video summarizing the story:
The vid includes a blurb comparing Nation to Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. Uh huh. Aside from the fact both are alternate history, that's where any and all similarities end. Remember what I said about "plausibility." I liked this comment about the video (at YouTube): "I'm an atheist and I found this ridiculous and idiotic."
I'm always fascinated by those who "warn" about a Far-Right Christian takeover of America. I really -- and I've tried! -- cannot fathom how such could realistically (key word) come about. Lefty scifi author Joe Haldeman's novel The Accidental Time Machine (which I liked a lot, by the way) unfortunately spent a lot of time on a future America ruled by a similar regime found in Nation. I had to laugh at the premise. Tom Kratman's Caliphate approaches the same American society from a bit of a different angle: radical Muslim attacks against the US leads to Islam basically becoming illegal in the country, and the world geopolitical breakdown includes a US "empire" which encompasses all the Americas, and Muslim caliphate presiding over Europe and much of Asia. Though seemingly more plausible than Haldeman's scenario, I still couldn't buy many of the actions taken by the future US and especially the Muslim domination of Europe as if those countries' majorities would just sit still and meekly accept their new overlords.
At any rate, expect to see Christian Nation proferred about by many of the usual suspects as "insightful," "prophetic," and "realistically frightening." Which, of course, it's anything but.
He's (at left) been in the news in recent months first because he was slated to write a Superman tale (which was delayed due to the outcry), and lately because his classic scifi novel Ender's Game will soon be out as a major film. These instances had to deal with the controversy of Card being vehemently anti-gay.
Despite my (and other comics bloggers') posts either defending Card from boycotts or (more in my own case) pointing out the hypocrisy of the boycotters, I believe it safely can be stated that Card is pretty much a nut. A big nut. If calling for a revolution if gay rights continue to expand in the US wasn't enough for you, maybe this is:
Where will he (Obama) get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
Really? Really? Card thinks Boss Obama will actually be able to cull a "national police force" out of disaffected urban youth" to act as his personal ... gang? Even [ridiculously] allowing for the fact that if Obama wanted to do such -- how would he manage to do it?
This is 9/11 Truther territory, folks. But the problem with the contemporary comics world, though, is that they put out comics about the "truth" regarding 9/11, whereas views like Card's are in desperate need of Maoist re-education. Thus, I don't give much more than a shrug to the screaming and yelling from comics creators (and fans) about Card's nuttery.
UPDATE: As Nate notes in the comments, Card, in his original article, states that his is just a "silly thought experiment" and that he wasn't serious about it. But -- he also then writes
It isn't my work as a writer of science fiction and fantasy that prepares me to write about unlikely events. My job in writing sci-fi is to make impossible events seem not just possible but likely. Inevitable.
I admit this is one of the rare instances I didn't go to check out the original source material (which was linked to in critical article I linked to originally); however, while I agree that Card's "disclaimer" lessens the impact of his lengthy treatise, as noted he qualifies such enough throughout to get a reader wondering.
The former, whose highly regarded Ender's Game will shortly be released as a major motion picture starring Harrison Ford, is anathema to Hollywood types and is the subject of a rather large boycott effort. Why? As we've noted here several times, Card is a Mormon and outspoken opponent of homosexuality. Polanski is a highly regarded film director and producer who just happened to have brutally raped a 13 year-old girl in 1977. He subsequently fled the country and hasn't returned since. He was rewarded for this with myriad awards, including Academy Awards.
Angie Hartley pretty much nails it:
In 1977, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to raping then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer inside the home of Jack Nicholson. Before his sentencing, he fled the country and has not returned to this day.
Geimer, who is releasing a memoir in September about the attack, has expressed forgiveness of Polanski. In 2003, when her attacker was nominated for an Academy Award, she wrote in the L.A. Times:
I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular.
If people including Samantha Geimer can look past the wrongs of Roman Polanski, why can't we also ignore the crazy bantering of Orson Scott Card? For gay rights activists, the crime Orson Scott Card committed isn't really a legal offense, but the wound is very fresh. It's wise to do whatever they can to bring attention to their cause, but it might be a bit of a stretch to reject a film with so many well-intentioned contributors for just one crazy, old sci-fi writer. Still, for a group like Geeks OUT, it means a lot to have so many science-fiction fans standing against something they might otherwise hold sacred.
I'm sure Hartley knows that the issue is a fundamental difference between "progressives" and classical liberals (modern conservatives). The former want to eradicate the latter, not just debate/argue with it. To the former, there are certain issues which, if violated, are much worse than actual crimes like Polanski's. Orson Scott Card's "violation" is one such example: Being an outspoken advocate against the gay agenda. But anally raping a minor? Yeah, it may have been rape, "but it wasn't 'rape-rape,'" in the words of Whoopi Goldberg. Hell, we see this with our current administration and, of course, the mainstream media, too. Boss Obama and company tiptoe around [accurate] terminology like "War on Terror," "Radical Islamists" and the like, but there's never any vacillation when it comes to using harsh language against domestic political and cultural opponents. Never. (Here's a recent example. Here's another.)
To be sure, I abhor Card's past screeds against gays and find his recommendations quite dangerous if there were actually any way to implement them. And, I've no problem with any group or individual who wishes to nix seeing Ender's Game because of this. Or, any group or individual who wishes to boycott anything out of some strong conviction. But DON'T pretend that you modern "progressives" and Hollywood types occupy some moral high ground. Because you don't. Not at all. Even on iota. You make excuses for people like Roman Polanski, praise him, and bestow awards upon him. He RAPED a 13 year-old girl!
I'll never forget the one Academy Awards show (it was 1999 -- I just checked) when the Academy [remarkably] gave Elia Kazan a Lifetime Achievement Award. Why do I say "remarkably?" Because in one non-hypocritical moment, Hollywood bestowed an honor on a guy who was/is a cultural enemy. Kazan had named names back in the day -- Communists in Hollywood during the so-called "Red Scare" of the early 1950s. During the 1999 presentation, many of those in attendance remained seated and silently mouthed opposition. Among those I remember were Nick Nolte and Ed Harris. (One who bucked the trend and even gave a standing O to Kazan was Warren Beatty.) Yep. Those two, and many others, perfectly exemplified the above mentioned "political/cultural" hatred of [fellow American] enemies to a tee. They were still livid at what Kazan did half a century prior, and to which Kazan had stated was "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful and wrong." But that doesn't matter to "progressives" in the poli-culture wars.
Always keep this post in the back of your mind the next time a Hollywood type/modern "progressive" lectures us all about some "moral" issue.
As we noted here, the next Avengers [film] villain will be the dreaded mechanoid Ultron. But the powers-that-be have stated that the robot will not be created by Hank Pym, aka Ant Man/Giant Man/Goliath/etc. So, how will Ultron come about? Bleeding Cool offers up some suggestions:
Could J.A.R.V.I.S. be Ultron? Modelled on the brain waves of Tony Stark?
Next, we have the return, somehow of Agent Coulson in Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. And there’s a mystery something that “he must never know.”
Is Agent Coulson a Life Model Decoy? Could he be an artificial intelligence.
Could Agent Coulson be Ultron?
Of these, the first one is great possibility in my view. A commenter to the B.C. article offers up this:
I love how all these comics news sites are publishing articles "predicting" that Tony Stark will be Ultron's creator in the movieverse, when Whedon pretty much spelled that out already. (I haven't read where Whedon has alluded to that. -- Hube)
And not a single one of them mentions how the movieverse Iron Man helmet kind of resembles the Ultron helmet, or that having Stark accidentally create Ultron finally gives everyone a reason to put Tony back in the Iron Man suit (once you can control an army of Iron Men from a distance, it'll take a reason like this to explain why Tony would *ever* want to risk his life stepping into an Iron Man armor again; having the AI gain sentience and try to take over the world would certainly make ME think twice about ever allowing an Iron Man suit to leave the house without me again).
Perfectly logical. I'm sold.
Via Screenrant, the biggest news (for me, at least) out of Comic-Con this year is the title of 2015's Avengers sequel: The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Why? Well, frankly, many (most?) consider the evil robot to be Earth's Mightiest's greatest enemy of all-time. He was recently the nemesis in a multi-title Marvel epic, but for me the best tale featuring the dastardly mechanoid is Kurt Busiek and George Pérez's from early volume three Avengers.
Ultron was created by Hank Pym (as seen way back in Avengers vol. 1 #58) and amazingly quickly gained sentience and turned on its creator. Once having escaped, it (he) "evolved" himself, and created the Vision. The idea was to use Vision against the Avengers, but much like Ultron did with Pym, Vizh turned the tables -- and ended up joining the team!
Ultron subsequently has menaced the Avengers many, many times. What has made him so formidable since their first battle is the fact that he managed to steal a supply of adamantium (y'know, the same stuff Wolverine's claws and skeleton are made out of) and "evolve" himself again -- this time with a body made of the stuff (Avengers vol. 1 #66-67). He at one point even managed to infiltrate the so-called "sentient" Iron Man suit. This he was able to do, along with his many other re-creations/rebirths, via to the so-called "Ultron Imperative." In essence, the Imperative is a "suggestion" implanted deep within an electronic/computer system, and at a designated time activates. Then, its victim is compelled, however necessary, to reactivate Ultron.
This movie announcement is also somewhat of a surprise as we saw in the post-credit scene in The Avengers the smirking visage of Thanos. Thus, we expected him to be the bad guy in the sequel. He still may show up, of course (maybe be responsible for activating Ultron?), but it's a lot more doubtful now.
The latest example is Falling Skies, the alien invasion TNT series that is now (if you can believe it) into its third season. io9's Charlie Jane Anders looks into this problem.
I gave up on the show in the middle of season one. Initially, of course, I was all like "Alien invasion series?? Sign me up!!" But sadly, the series quickly degenerated into what we saw in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica (though, admittedly, with BSG it took roughly three seasons to do so): Nonsense plots in an attempt to "build characters." In Skies' case, it's as Anders says:
But forget about the fact that this show has a yawning gap between the things it tells us are important, versus the things it spends time on. I don't know, thematically, what this show is about — except, in a vague sense, "family is important."
With BSG you know the ship and the fleet are escaping the Cylons and searching for Earth. With Skies you know ... well, I don't have a f***ing clue. Look, I know that TV demands inter-character drama and all, but why can't it be just a tad realistic?? Are we so inundated with a clueless public these days that they'll buy anything?
Who knew? I've written about this -- sort of -- in passing before, but an author who was allowed to "play" in sci-fi legend Isaac Asimov's Foundation/Robot/Empire Universe has expounded upon the theme to a much larger degree. But first, a quick synopsis:
In Asimov's interconnected stories and novels, humans developed positronic robots in the early 21st century. (The film I, Robot pretty much highlights this, and Star Trek: TNG's Data's positronic brain was a big hat tip to Asimov.) As more and more robots took over the work of humans, resentment against the mechanical men grew widespread. On Earth, robots became delegated to doing work well away from humans (usually outside of the huge, domed underground cities -- see The Caves of Steel) while the first wave of interstellar travelers, the so-called "Spacers," made optimum use of them.
Over the course of a few thousand years, the Spacers ended up settling some fifty new worlds, and their societies became heavily dependent upon robot labor. Back on Earth, robots remained despised. Spacer society came to despise the home planet as backward, and Earthlings as even "sub-human." Ironically, it took two of the most advanced Spacer robots ever created to drastically alter this dynamic. For, the Spacer worlds' societies were slowly dying out: Their dependence on robots for just about every aspect of their lives was destroying basic human initiative. Indeed, the typical Spacer had innumerable robots to tend to every conceivable chore: cooking, waiting meals ... even dressing and bathing their masters!
These two robots -- R. Daneel Olivaw and R. Giskard Reventlov (the "R" standing for "Robot") -- devised a plan by which to circumvent the embargo placed upon Earth by the Spacer planets: the "Zeroth Law" of Robotics. This law supercedes the legendary Three Laws of Robotics created by Asimov, and which were deeply embedded into each and every robot ever created. (Well, not exactly every one, but that's a post for another time ...) This law permitted robots to consider the greater good of humanity over that of individual human beings. Olivaw and Reventlov concluded that, if the status quo were allowed to continue, humanity would eventually perish as the Spacer worlds dissolved, and Earth continued its one-planet stagnation. What was needed, they argued, was for Earth to generate a second wave of interstellar settlement -- one without robots. And, one that would depend solely on human drive and initiative.
And this plan was put into effect. But it came at the cost of Earth. After all, as humans always do, people needed an incentive to leave their planet. A mad Spacer had devised a means to eradicate the hated Earthers, and even though the robot Reventlov had discovered the plot, he allowed it to proceed. That "Zeroth Law," after all. This plan would make Earth's crust permanently radioactive, a poision which would only continue to increase, slowly killing out Earth's teeming billions. Except that, with the aid of Daneel and Giskard, Earth's second wave of settlement -- the "Settlers" -- would vacate the planet and spread forth into the Milky Way.
And this they did. Over the course of some twenty thousand years, the Settlers established a Galactic Empire and eventually the Foundation, as depicted in Asimov's Empire and Foundation books. And all without robots. (Except one notable one, of course, as noted here.) Because the fifty Spacer worlds showed what would happen if humans were dependent.
Author Roger MacBride Allen, in his Caliban, probably described in the most intricate detail the effect robot slave labor would have on human society. Allen is the aforementioned author allowed to "play" in Asimov's universe, and his first novel takes place as those "second wave" Settlers are busily spreading through the stars, while the Spacers continue to just hang out on their fifty worlds. One of the Spacer planets, Inferno, is facing ecological ruin, and its inhabitants have to swallow their pride and call in Settler expertise and assistance to literally save their world. The planet's society eventually becomes an uneasy hybrid of Settler and Spacer cultures, with the Settlers constantly attempting to demonstrate that robots are a detriment to human development.
And no person in the novel does that better than Dr. Fredda Leving. Allen uses an academic presentation by her -- to a group of Settlers and Spacers both -- to show just how robots have disintegrated virtually all human drive and initiative. As Caliban's Wiki entry states, "It is her thesis that the superabundance of robotic labor has caused humans to become indolent and nearly incompetent at accomplishing even trivial tasks." Allen does a good job at illustrating this at a personal level, too: though there is a Spacer protest group interrupting Leving's speech and which eventually leads to a riot, these Spacers are shocked at the pain inflicted upon them by rival Settlers during the scuffle ... even the most trivial of injuries are barely withstood by the Spacers -- because they have been completely coddled all their lives by their robot servants.
Does this sound familiar in contemporary society? I believe so. "Progressives" have been successful in cultivating a similar culture of dependency among some of the poorest of our society. No one I know seriously argues that this segment of the population is "well off" or even "very comfortable" like the Spacers in Asimov's books; however, the problem is that too often they are "comfortable enough." They are given (yes, given) just enough have all their needs provided -- food, shelter, and even communication and transportation -- so that the incentive to "go beyond," if you will, decreases or evaporates altogether. And then the so-called "cycle of dependency" slowly becomes entrenched. There's no more "What can I do to better my situation;" instead, it's merely "What can you do for me?" Gone is even the most remote sense of shame about getting any sort of governmental/state assistance; now it's "I'm entitled to it." And people (especially politicians) who attempt to limit such aid, or who may ask for something like, say, means testing, let alone cut off aid, are derided as the devil incarnate. "How dare you?" "Don't you have a heart??" "You're so callous!!" And it's not just individuals. Corporate welfare has a similar effect. With politicians of all stripes in their back pocket(s), and guaranteed markets and/or prices for their products (every wonder why milk and sugar, for example, are so damn expensive?) businesses lose their motivations too.
Human incentive may be the most misunderstood (purposely or otherwise) aspect of our nature, especially by "progressive" academic theorists. Communism, for example, posited that the New Man would be "altruist in spirit, communal in outlook, sacrificial in his labour for the common good." But as economist Bryan Caplan notes,
The classic argument against socialism is that it gives people bad incentives. What’s the point of working, conserving, saving, quality control, and/or taking out the garbage if they don’t pay? The classic socialist reply is that capitalism creates the selfishness it purports to benevolently channel. Socialism will give birth to a “New Socialist Man” who loves his neighbor as himself....
I’ve always considered the New Socialist Man position to be not just weak, but absurd. Ever heard of Darwin? People are selfish because of billions of years of evolution, not capitalism. End of story...
I take hindsight bias seriously. Many mistakes really are hard to see until you actually make them. But socialism wasn’t one of them.
Indeed. Asimov's and Allen's tales are only [science] fiction, but they rightly understand human nature. One of the more guffaw-inducing lack of such understanding occurs in a different sci-fi universe, Star Trek: The Next Generation. Does anyone recall Capt. Picard's lecture to the rescued 20th century capitalist in the episode "The Neutral Zone"? "We're no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things," he tells him. 24th century humans may no longer be obsessed with such, but you can bet your bottom dollar they'll still be important to them. But even more absurd is the notion that, with things like replicators and holodecks available to anyone, that folks in their right mind would freely volunteer for an organization like Starfleet and put their lives in jeopardy against races like the Klingons and Romulans. Face it, the vast majority of humanity would gladly hang out all day inside their holodecks and only come out to eat the food and drink the beverages provided by their replicators. "End of story," as economist Caplan said above.
Alas, as with anything else, the only way we'll change is when a tragedy or emergency hits us. With communism it was the lack of freedom, the grinding poverty, the secret police, and the millions killed. In Asimov's Robot societies it was ecological and planetary decay. With our own society it will be the crushing debt and economic collapse. Would that we rectify the situation before it's too late.
Via the Hollywood Reporter: "According to a new study, seven television shows about serial killers were added, an increase of more than 35 percent."
The article notes how Hollywood and the media love to take credit for changing views on homoexuality due their positive portrayals of gays; however, when it comes to violence (y'know, like in seven new shows about killers), it's "Who, me?"
But of course.
Inspired by Taste of Cinema's list of "The 20 Worst Special Effects That Ruined The Movie," 'ol Hube is gonna have a go at some F/X moments that, in his view, while not ruining the flick, may have come close to doing so. And, hopefully, he can find some YouTube clips or images to show you what he means. And keep in mind he ain't gonna be unfair like ToC; I mean, they use made-for-SyFy flicks which are designed for parody purposes.
LIFEFORCE. A little known scifi flick which I actually like, it stars Star Trek: TNG's Patrick Stewart. The plot is basically this: A space shuttle discovers a mysterious ship in the tail of Halley's Comet, and some of its [very attractive humanoid occupants] are taken aboard and taken back to Earth. They turn out to be some sort of energy vampires, and they end up turning London into a war zone. It's an admittedly different tack on the vampire legend, one that'd be a lot better if not for the pathetic effects:
ALIEN 3. I don't know which Alien sequel is worse -- this one or Alien: Resurrection. Nevertheless, this second sequel fell short in one of its trademarks: Kickin' F/X. Granted, this was the dawning of the CGI era (Terminator 2 had just kicked box office ass the year before), so producers/directors probably got full of themselves thinking it could substitute for old fashioned plastic, latex and goo (more cheaply, too). But it sure didn't in this scene where the "dog Alien" confronts Ripley in the infirmary:
I'm not kidding: This scene led to guffaws from the audience at how fake it was. Because of the CGI. It would have been a lot better to utilize the original film's "slow moving" creature for a much more realistic (and frightening) effect.
TOTAL RECALL. This is on Taste of Cinema's list, and rightly so. This original Ahnuld version (1990) is a kick-ass film from start to finish, but if any one scene can ruin it ... it's this one:
You're already probably laughing (on purpose -- "Two weeks!!") at Ahnuld's malfunctioning robot disguise upon entering Mars customs, but when he finally reveals himself you'll be unintentionally howling -- at how awful the ersatz Schwarzenegger is done.
STAR WARS (EPISODE IV, 1977). This probably isn't fair since the original, "non-special" version was way ahead of its time at the time. But twenty years later showed us how inadequate the genuine article really was, especially the climactic Battle of Yavin. I always recall one scene after the Death Star first dispatched Tie Fighters to take on the X-Wings ship-to-ship. It's quick, but look how stiff the ships move in the original:
Check out the entire vid for great comparisons of the entire battle!
JAWS 2. Granted, the sequels that follow are undeniably worse; however, this was still fairly big budget and star Roy Scheider was still at the helm. So, how were the shark effects even worse than the original? Good question. I mean, check it:
I AM LEGEND. There's no excuse for this lameness. The film was made within the last decade, after all. Why are the albino vampires so CGI bad -- especially in the finale when they invade Will Smith's inner sanctum?
The killer virus must have led to mutant, elongated jaw bones, I guess.
THE THING (2011). This is another example of thinking CGI is inherently superior to old-style plastic and goo. This is the prequel to John Carpenter's scary-as-sh** 1982 classic, yet never really comes close to its 30 year-old predecessor mainly because of the effects. Don't get me wrong -- they're good, but take a gander at the following clip. The F/X indee are fine, but they're too ... "clean," not to mention quick. Carpenter's version showed fairly slow transformations, allowing the audience to wallow in the gore. But look at how fast this poor chump transforms into the Thing in the prequel:
DEEP BLUE SEA. This whole flick about mutated "super" sharks is littered with shi**y CGI effects (how can something move that fast in a liquid environment??), but perhaps none is worse than when Samuel L. Jackson gets nabbed by one:
Comics dolt Ron Marz shows his "vast intellect" again:
Delightful to see right wing, which howls about film/video game violence, now lacerate Jim Carrey because he's not supporting violent film.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 24, 2013
Um, Ron? Carrey starred in the very flick he's bitching about (Kick Ass 2). And while he claims filming wrapped a month or so before the Sandy Hook tragedy (and hence his views have since changed), here's the question(s): Did he give his paycheck back? Did he put his wallet where his [big] mouth is? There's no indication he has as yet, via a reading of various news sites today. A fan asked Ron just this (about Carrey's paycheck), and Marz refused to address it. Shocking.
So, with Carrey, as with way too many other "progressives," it's all just words. With Marz, it's (again) utter cluelessness.
Who (what) are the coolest/baddest/neato-est mechanical creations in all of entertainment that you may not know about? In movies, comics, novels ... you name it. I'll name a few now, natch -- because no one demanded it!
R. DANEEL OLIVAW. Scifi master Isaac Asimov's ultimate robot, he becomes the guiding force for humanity's expansion throughout the Milky Way beginning with his first Robot novels (like Caves of Steel). Once Asimov died, his estate allowed other scifi writers to "play" in the Robot/Foundation universe, and for the culmination of everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) related to robots and the Foundation, check out David Brin's mindf*** Foundation's Triumph. Olivaw, as usual, is the central figure.
THE VISION. Marvel Comics' "Android Avenger," he was the creation of another Marvel robot, Ultron-5. Fitted with the brain patterns of the then-dead Wonder Man and reconstituted from the android frame of the Original Human Torch, Vizh eventually overcame Ultron's influence and joined the Avengers. My favorite era of Vision stories is Steve Englehart's run on Avengers from the mid-1970s, especially Avengers #147 when Vizh takes on three of the Squadron Supreme (including the super-strong Hyperion) to rescue his love, the Scarlet Witch.
R. GISKARD REVENTLOV. Another of Asimov's creations, this telepathic robot helped to form the "Zeroth Law" which superceded the original Three Laws of Robotics. It allowed robots to look out for humanity as a whole rather than individuals. Giskard deactivated after he, using the Zeroth Law, allowed a madman to turn Earth's crust radioactive (see: Robots and Empire). Why? Well, the madman's actions led to humanity spreading forth into the galaxy, but the [human] destruction of that action was too much even for Giskard's positronic brain.
THE IRON GIANT. The name of the protagonist of the lovable 1999 animated film is about a, well, giant robot that falls to Earth and is discovered by a little boy. Eventually the robot's true purpose is discovered, but the big guy "overcomes" it and shows what a true hero he is. Voices include Harry Connick Jr. and Vin Diesel as the Giant.
ADAM LINK. Before there was the awesome Star Trek: TNG episode "Measure of a Man," there was the episode of The Outer Limits featuring this robot. A robot, Adam, is charged with killing his creator. He goes to trial in a typical courtroom. Great scifi, but just try not to laugh at Adam sitting at the table in court.
SASQUATCH. Yes, I said "Sasquatch." Back when there was a show called The Six Million Dollar Man, one of the most popular episodes (go figure) was the two-parter featuring 'Squatch going up against Col. Steve Austin. Of course, it may help to fill you in that 'Squatch was a robot (else why would he be on this list?) and he was a servant of a group of aliens -- aliens like a very hot Stefanie Powers in a mini-skirt. Trivia: Wrestler Andre the Giant played 'Squatch.
IQ-9. This guy was the "comic relief" (sort of) of the awesome anime show Starblazers, or in the original Japanese Space Battleship Yamato. In that original, IQ-9 was called "Analyzer." I can only guess how ... "less" of a humorous diversion this robot was in the Japanese version, as I've read many times that the original was much more violent (i.e. realistic) than the American counterpart.
IMPERIOUS LEADER. This leader of the Cylons from the original Battlestar Galactica series (1978) was fashioned to look like the original reptilian race which created the robotic race. Voiced by Patrick MacNee (The Avengers ... the British spy series, not Earth's Mightiest Heroes) he (it?) was always seen in a darkened room barking orders to either the traitorous human Baltar, or the protocol Cylon Lucifer.
THE HUMAN ROBOT. One of Marvel Comics' (then Atlas Comics) earliest creations, this mechanical dude was revived in the comics Bronze Age in a terrific What If? issue (#9) which asked "What If the Avengers Had Fought Evil in the 1950s?" Even better, Kurt Busiek included M-11 (his technical designation, based on his first appearance in Menace #11) alongside the 1950s Avengers in the epic Avengers Forever mini-series. (Unfortunately, Immortus destroyed the 1950s Avengers timeline, but Marvel revived the group years later in Agents of Atlas.)
Because -- you guessed it! -- nobody demanded it, it's time for yet another Hube culture-oriented list, this time a subject which gets the hackles up on "progressives" (ex. 9/11 Truthers) and conservatives (ex. Birthers) alike: Conspiracies. In no particular order:
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976). So good it keeps me watching every time it's on, stars Dustin Hoffman and (ultra-lib) Robert Redford play Washington Post reporters Bernstein and Woodward who slowly uncover what happened during Watergate.
CAPRICORN ONE (1978). There's still a whole cottage industry on the 'net dedicated to moon landing conspiracies; this flick plays on that as government entities nab three astronauts from their rocket moments before the first manned launch to Mars, and convince them they need to stage the whole deal. (Budget cuts play a big role, go figure.) The trio realize, after acting out their parts, that the gov. can't afford to let them live, so they steal a jet to escape. Unfortunately, it's almost out of gas; sas such, they crash land in the desert, separate, and the chase is on! OJ Simpson is one of the astronauts, and Elliot Gould is the reporter who pieces together the truth. Many other stars abound in this flick including James Brolin, Sam Waterston, Telly Savalas and Hal Holbrook.
NO WAY OUT (1987). Guaranteed to elicit big "WTF???"s when the "secret" is revealed, Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman and Sean Young star in this political thriller. Hackman is the Secretary of Defense who accidentally kills a lady friend ... who Costner has also been seeing. To help cover his tracks, Hackman invents the story that a Russian mole killed her. Major "WTF"s ensue. Will Patton (Falling Skies) is great as Hackman's loyal aide.
J.F.K. (1991). Star Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the Big Easy district attorney who takes it upon himself to prove that the Warren Commission conclusions about President Kennedy's death were so much bullsh**. I actually include this on the list because if you manage to stay awake for all the three-plus hours of the film, you deserve kudos. I managed to make it on my third viewing, the first complete one.
SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (1964). Ever wonder if our military guys planned a coup right here in the U.S. of A.? This flim will scare the beejeebees out of you, then. Burt Lancaster plays the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who plans to oust the president (Fredric March). Kirk Douglas plays a Lancaster underling who blows the whistle. The scene where Lancaster and March confront each other is classic.
MINORITY REPORT (2002). In 2054 a trio a psychics called "precogs" (for "precognition") are the basis for a new police unit: "Precrime." In other words, they'll stop the crime before it's ever committed. The unit's chief, Tom Cruise, unearths a frightening truth about the unit's origins, and is then framed. Great evilly deviousness by Max Von Sydow.
VALKYRIE (2008). Speaking of Tom Cruise, one of his better roles is in this flick where he plays a disillusioned Nazi officer during WWII who joins the [very true] conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.
BLUE THUNDER (1983). Helicopter pilot Roy Scheider discovers a plot by -- who else? -- the government to use a highly sophisticated new chopper for "the quelling" of domestic disturbances. Malcolm McDowell is the gov. agent who tries to stop him. Great urban aerial battle scenes.
SOYLENT GREEN (1973). One outta two predictions ain't bad. Global warming leads to food shortages (that's the "one") and overpopulation (the "missed one") exascerbates it. Police guy Chuck Heston stumbles upon a conspiracy that the Soylent Corp. is making its new "Soylent Green" outta ... people. Yummy.
THEY LIVE (1988). "First World" aliens have been using Earth as their "Third World" for decades. Roddy Piper discovers the secret via a special set of sunglasses. Still wondering how the aliens could whisk someone away at faster-than-light but couldn't safely protect their cloaking transmission.
io9 (again) asks the question. My clear favorite is Starship Troopers; what's yours?
I gotta admit I didn't know all the entries on the list were based on novels ... like Soylent Green, for instance. Nevertheless, despite its unfaithfulness, it remains a classic. As does Children of Men. (Though technically based on a novel of the same name, CoM indeed borrows heavily from Brian Aldiss's Greybeard which was published nearly thirty years prior. I highly recommend the book.)
Number 12 on io9's list is "Almost Every Philip K. Dick Movie." Blade Runner is an example, though in my view, though "unfaithful," it isn't very "unfaithful." The novel is indeed much, well, "freakier" (Earth is contaminated cesspool for the most part, real-life animals play a key role, and the scene where Deckard is almost trapped in a fake police station is surreal) but the central elements are all there.
What are some other entries that are worthy?
io9 has a year-old article about films that were considered and even almost made, to one degree or another. Some were quite fascinating:
First, you guessed it -- an MSNBC panel labeled pro-lifers as white supremacists: Panel Suggests Racist Motivation by Pro-lifers, Goal of 'Reproducing Whiteness'
So I think that there's a kind of moral panic, a fear of the end of whiteness that we've been seeing a long time in that I think, you know, Obama's ascension as President kind of symbolizes to a certain degree. And so I think this is one response to that sense that there's a decreasing white majority in the country and that women's bodies and white women's bodies in particular are obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege. And so I think it's just a kind of clamping down on women's bodies, in particular white women's bodies, even though women of color are really caught in the fray.
Of course, what this dolt (University of Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Salamisha Tillet) fails to realize is that pro-lifers don't just care about white babies. And, since black women are approximately five times more likely to have an abortion than white women, how is lobbying to eliminate that statistic ... an example of wanting to preserve the white race??? Unbelievable.
Elsewhere, I was alerted to a recent (and past) post by one of my favorite scifi authors, John Scalzi, on the subject of white privilege. Scalzi has written the superb Old Man's War series, the most recent book of which is The Human Division. Unfortunately, Scalzi, like many other a successful liberal, feels the need to assuage his guilt over his having "made it" by giving a rhetorical hat tip to his fellow "progressive" academic types (like the above Professor Salamisha Tillet). But Michael Z. Williamson takes Scalzi to task:
Predictably, when invited to discuss the issue further with the above people, in a polite email, Scalzi completely ignored the issue. I can't presume his motives, but someone did suggest that the purpose of his posts is more to promote his books in the guilt-ridden, white, racist, liberal sellout market than to actually accomplish debate.
I have no doubt from his scribblings that Scalzi played life on the easy setting. Now that he's gotten rich, he needs to properly excoriate his success to avoid being a bad liberal.
An actual racist (I've met a few) would say, "Well, yes, I've done well, because I'm genetically and intellectually better than those lesser races." They would have no reason to get upset with his post, because it would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear: That they're at the top of the heap, awesome.
I had lengthy discussions with black writers and editors about Scalzi's post, and their concurrence seemed to be that it was shallow. I'll go a step further: It was an elitist white male passively-aggressively talking down to others about how awesome he is, but he feels guilty about it, so don't judge him too harshly.
How about going even further? If Scalzi is so guilty about having made it, partly (mainly?) because of the "leg up" he initially started with, why doesn't he abrogate the rights to his published properties to a minority writer and let him/her continue the stories? The same premise applies to the imbecilic Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, et. al.: Really put you money where your mouth is. Resign your position and hand it over to a member of a minority group. Otherwise, you're a bloviating hypocrite like way too many a vocal "progressive."
UPDATE: Nate notes in the comments a blogger who has dissected Scalzi's "progressivism" quite thoroughly.
UPDATE: Scalzi digs in deeper, claiming he doesn't feel guilty about being a straight white male, and delves further into the usual I-know-better-than-you condescension. In spades.
In honor of the upcoming Man of Steel and as an homage to the terrific io9 scifi site's "12 Weirdest Moments From Superman: The Movie," 'ol Hube is doing his very own list. Why? You guessed it -- because no one demanded it, natch.
1) Goofy Powers. Everyone I knew guffawed when Supes tossed that "S" from his chest at the bruiser, Non, in his Fortress of Solitude. What was that -- Kryptonian cellophane? And that white beam from the Kryptonians' fingers which did, well, pretty much whatever they wanted? Whaaa ...? And don't get me started on Clark's kiss on Lois which caused her to forget! COME ON!!
2) Zod kicks an astronaut; guy barely moves. When Zod, Ursa and Non are freed from the Phantom Zone and land on our moon, they terrorize a few astronauts who are there. Check out when Zod picks up the one -- he kicks him ... but the astronaut merely floats away. With Zod's new yellow sun-induced superpowers and the moon's low gravity, that astronaut should have at least reached escape velocity! After all, a few seconds before, Ursa did pretty much that. Check out the effect of Zod's lame boot:
3) How did the Phantom Zone Trio reshape Mt. Rushmore in, like, two seconds? You tell me, 'cause it's stupid:
4) What super hearing? In the climactic battle in the Fortress of Solitude -- when Zod and co. hold the upper hand (and Lois hostage) -- Superman begins whispering to Luthor (who Zod had ordered killed, again -- more on that in a moment) about "getting them all into this molecule chamber." Uh, wait a second: How is it remotely possible that Zod and crew can't hear every word Supes is saying? (Not to mention how Supes would forget that Zod, et. al., could hear him?)
Speaking of which ...
5) Why do Zod and co. just stand around while Superman and Luthor chat (whisper) to one another? What are they doing? Notice that even the mute Non sorta motions to Luthor while he heads over to Supes in a "Hey, wait a minute" sorta way:
6) Why does Luthor continue to court Zod's "goodwill" after the villain orders his death several times? Seriously. I know Luthor is a maniacal genius psychopath, but there are at least three times Zod orders him killed (the White House, the Daily Planet, Fortress of Solitude) yet Lex is still there trying to wheel and deal with the general. Lex had remarked at the attack on the Daily Planet building that "Ya'd think with all this accumulated knowledge these guys would learn to use a doorknob;" one would think Lex would get the hint that Zod couldn't care less about him, any deals notwithstanding.
7) Dad didn't teach Kal-El very well in those twelve years. Ah, yes -- the 'ol diner scene where a bully trucker kicks the sh** out of a recently depowered Clark Kent. OK, I'll easily buy that the trucker is now stronger; however, what did Jor-El teach his son in those dozen years leading to adulthood? You mean to tell me there wasn't at least one course in fighting techniques and/or self-defense? And if you're thinking that Jor-El probably skipped those lessons because his son is invulnerable on Earth, keep in mind that Clark tells Lois (in the diner, too) that "They knew." Meaning, his parents knew about the potential threat from Zod and co. (and perhaps others).
8) Young kid climbs over rail at Niagara Falls, no one cares. OK, yeah, the mom of this moron won't win any parenting awards, but what about the public in general? Was this Apathy Day in Canada or something? Not to mention -- what kid is this fearless that he'd do something like this?? Lastly, is there a strange gravity gradient or something at the US-Canada border that causes people to fall a lot slower than normal? The kid would'a hit the drink long before Supes got there if there was real gravity.
9) Best winter garb: Thin Members Only jacket and penny loafers. Right after the above-mentioned diner scene, Clark tells Lois he has to go back (to the North Pole) to see if there's some way to regain his powers. So what does he do? He walks there ... with the clothes he's wearing at the moment.
10) Zod's heat vision has problems with tankers. After zapping a few cars with his heat vision -- cars which instantly blow up (despite Zod not even having a line-of-sight to their gas tanks), it suddenly takes the General what, a good thirty seconds to attempt to blow up the fuel tank on that tanker??
11) How does a snake bite hurt Ursa? After she, Zod and Non land on the Planet "Hooston," she picks up a rattlesnake to check it out. Like any such snake would, it promptly bites her ... and she reacts in pain! Like ... why? She just got through traveling through the vacuum of space, yet a mere snakebite causes her to wince. Uh huh.
12) "We used to play this game as a kid." In the final battle at the North Pole, Supes inexplicably creates duplicates of himself to confuse Zod and crew. One of these doppelgangers tells Lois "We used to play this game in school; he was never really good at it." I used to think Supes was talking about himself here, y'know, as in here on Earth with his [human] friends. But no -- he's preposterously referring to him and Zod ... as in back on Krypton. Did the producers ever bother to watch the first film? Supes (Kal-El) was an infant on Krypton, and was promptly launched into space by his pop when the planet was about to blow up. Zod was an adult who was caught and sentenced to eternity in the Phantom Zone alongside Ursa and Non. YEESH.
Saw a great quote on Twitter last night about the whole NSA/spying flap: It used a classic line from M*A*S*H's Colonel Flagg (from the episode "Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler"). In the episode, a shell-shocked bombardier has come to believe he is Jesus Christ, so Hawkeye and BJ call in Dr. Sidney Freedman, the show's every-now-and-then psychiatrist. Unbeknownst to the protagonists, recurring CIA nutjob Flagg has also been dispatched to investigate the matter.
In the conclusion, Flagg lets Freedman have it in Col. Potter's office:
You're not smart, Freedman. You're dumb. Very dumb! But you've met your match in me! Chandler may get out as a psycho -- he's small potatoes. The army can teach my mother how to drop bombs. But, you, Major, are here to stay! Right here, shrink! Where we can make sure you remain loyal to the country that's gonna hound your every step!
From the National Review writer in his e-mailed Morning Jolt this morning:
And as Jonah mentioned a few Goldberg Files ago (my link -- Hube), our evil Starfleet admiral — hey, we haven't seen one of those since Star Trek: Insurrection! — is evil because he's trying to "militarize" Starfleet (you know, that big armada of torpedo-armed starships with crews organized by naval ranks) to prepare for a war with the Klingon Empire he thinks is inevitable. What Abrams & Co. have decided is the plot's "evil plan" is actually absolute common sense, and our heroes' brief interaction with the Klingons only confirms the admiral's analysis that the Klingons are relentlessly hostile and aggressive.
I wrote about this as well, natch.
Maybe the whole thing is meant as a very, very subtle parody of the pacifist nature of future humanity, and how our "progess" into a nonaggressive, conflict-avoiding culture will slowly but surely quietly doom us when we encounter an alien culture like the Klingons or Romulans.
Which some may argue that's just what the Boss Obama administration is doing to the country now ...
Bleeding Cool has a pic of the Oval Office from next year's sure-to-be-blockbuster X-Men: Days of Future Past. The guy behind the desk is obviously ... Richard Nixon. It's already been established that the film will take place in the early 1970s; it'll be curious if Watergate will play into the film considering 1) X-Men First Class director Matthew Vaughn has already been shown to be somewhat of a Kennedy assassination truther, and 2) the current situation with Boss Obama and all his scandals. It wouldn't be surprising if Marvel's Merry Mutants figure into the scandal which brought down Nixon; First Class had the mutants being key figures in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"Days of Future Past" remains one of the all-time classics not only in X-Men lore, but in that of comics in general. Creators Chris Claremont and John Byrne showed how a terrifically intricate tale could be told in one title, and in two issues. They didn't need a ridiculously drawn-out crossover across multiple titles and innumerable issues.
The comicbook tale actually takes place about eight years later than what will be seen in next year's film: 1980. It centers around Senator Robert Kelly (seen in the first X-Men film) and his assassination by the Mystique-led Brotherhood (of Evil) Mutants in that year. Thirty-three years in the future (ironically, our current year of 2013), we witness a dystopic technologically-regressed United States in which mutants are either all dead or imprisoned. Humans with mutant potential are carefully watched and regulated. How did all this come about? Because, as a result of Kelly's murder by the Brotherhood, like a domino effect, one thing led to another against mutantkind, ultimately ending up with the robotic Sentinels taking over North America and ruling it -- for the "good" of human[ity].
Some of the few mutants left alive in 2013 include Magneto, Colossus, Storm, Kitty Pryde, Franklin Richards (son of the Fantastic Four's Reed and Sue Richards), and Wolverine. There's also Rachel Summers (daughter of Cyclops and Jean Grey), a powerful psionic who has devised a plan: She will use her mental powers to place the mind of 2013 Kitty Pryde with that of her 1980 younger self. If successful, Pryde will convince the X-Men of her mission, prevent the assassination of Senator Kelly, and then -- hopefully -- the dystopian anti-mutant future will cease to exist.
Summers' efforts are successful. Kitty's minds trade places, and the adult version (now in 1980) convinces the X-Men of why she is there and what the team needs to do. The X-Men set out for Washington DC to thwart Mystique's plan, and the first issue's closing panels show the clear surprise of the Brotherhood at the X-Men being in DC. But they're no less determined to kill Senator Kelly!
The second issue is mainly an all-out donneybrook between to the two teams. Those familiar with the X-Men films but not so much the comics may recognize a few characters aside from the obvious: Pyro (played by Aaron Stanford in the films) has a flashy costume and is British, and the Blob (played by Kevin Durand in X-Men Origins: Wolverine) who's enormously obese and whose only weakness is Wolverine's claws. The X-Men are ultimately successful in preventing Kelly's murder; however, the visceral fear of mutants still surfaces as a result of the massive battle between the two mutant teams. The waning panels witnesses Sebastian Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon in First Class) suggesting to Senator Kelly a ... "remedy" for controlling mutants: Sentinels. Thus, we're left pondering whether the X-Men and the future Kitty Pryde really were successful in preventing the dystopian future.
(Side note: Of course, using multiverse theory, the dystopian future of "Days" did continue to exist in Marvel lore, known as Earth-811. However, Rachel Summers later traveled to the past herself to join [our universe's] X-Men, and was still later pursued by the ultra-powerful Sentinel Nimrod.)
Some of the events in "Days" wouldn't make much sense (if that's even possible in comics) today based on subsequent events in Marvel books. For instance, in 2013, again, Franklin Richards was one of the captive mutants alongside the elderly Magneto. As we learned in the late 1990s, Franklin is one of the -- if not THE -- most powerful beings in the Marvel Universe. He created the "pocket" universe known as "Heroes Reborn," and was then responsible for returning the various Marvel heroes from that universe to the Marvel Universe proper (Earth-616). Thus, instead of sending Kitty's mind back to 1980, why not concentrate on freeing Richards ... and then have him eradicate the Sentinels and "restore" reality the way it was meant to be? In addition, in the second part of "Days," a Sentinel blasts Wolverine, leaving only his adamantium skeleton remaining (see above). But as we saw during "Civil War," the villain Nitro zapped Wolvie the same way ... and then Logan completely regenerated himself (due to his mutant healing factor).
At any rate, back to this post's title: Will (an attempted assassination of) Richard Nixon be the impetus behind the film's version of "Days?" It makes sense, especially from a traditional Hollywood perspective. After all, Republicans are almost as bad as Nazis when it comes to tinseltown villains. It's easy enough to presume Nixon would have no qualms about ordering the manufacture of the robotic Sentinels, and then siccing them upon mutantkind.
What do you think?
Michael Douglas's throat cancer the result of ... giving oral sex. No kiddin'.
Considering who the recipient was (is) -- Catherine Zeta Jones -- I can think of a lot worse fates.
I read that former prez Bill Clinton has endorsed a comic written by long-time US representative -- and noted civil rights activist -- John Lewis titled March. The book "focuses on his (Lewis's) youth in rural Alabama and the start of the Nashville Student Movement." Unfortunately, Lewis was one of those who claimed members of the Tea Party shouted racial epithets during the 2010 Obamacare vote ... epithets that were never proven, despite innumerable recording devices at the scene (press, individual cell phones, etc.) and a $10K award for such proof by the now-deceased Andrew Breitbart. Nevertheless, Lewis, of all people, deserves some slack about that given his history.
The little-known TV network The Hub will be featuring a cartoon titled "SheZow" starring a tranvestite superhero. No sh**. Newsbusters' Randy Hall explains:
The 26-episode Australian-Canadian animated series begins with the death of the boy's Aunt Agne, who was the previous SheZow. The ring was meant for Guy's twin sister, Kelly, but her brother decided to put it on himself as a joke.
Once on his finger, the ring won't come off, and since it was intended to be worn by a female, Guy must wear a large wig, a purple skirt and cape, pink gloves and white go-go boots to gain access to the many powers it bestows, including tremendous strength, speed, flight and his strongest ability, a sonic scream. (Yeah, no gender stereotypes here.)
Whenever trouble arises, the boy says the magic words “You go, girl!” to become the cross-dressing superhero and returns to his secret identity by shouting “She-yeah!”
He/she also has a "beautility belt" which includes items such as "laser lipstick" and "vanishing cream." Uh ... right.
I still say that it would have been better to have Shezow be a girl because there aren't enough female superheroes, but does it promote transgender? I don't think so. Barely promotes drag queens at best, but I'm only judging by one episode.
Here's the opening of the 'toon, FWIW.
Comics guy Erik Larsen, a big lefty who believes the GOP "stole" the 2000 and 2004 elections (but thus far, no word from him on how the IRS shenanigans may have aided Boss Obama in stealing 2012's), apparently is not a big fan of comics legend John Byrne. A while back, the duo had a bit of a feud regarding artwork, which Byrne turned into a topic at his website. A couple days ago, Larsen tweeted the following about Byrne:
@tombrevoort but the big difference is that you would like him to work on Marvel books. I have no interest in him working on mine.— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) May 30, 2013
So Larsen doesn't want Byrne working on his books. Oooooh, golly. But here's the thing: Larsen is nowhere near Byrne when it comes to comicbook talent. In a discussion of comicbook greats, Byrne should certainly occupy some air time if you're at all serious about the topic. The "Dark Phoenix" saga. "Days of Future Past." The re-imagining of DC's Superman. Memorable run on the Fantastic Four. Larsen, on the other hand? He'd probably raise a few "Who??" He did average artwork on Spider-Man. Created a character called the Savage Dragon. Whoopee-freakin'-do.
Perhaps the bloated, overhyped entity that is Image Comics has done "wonders" for Larsen's ego.
Hey, you know the drill by now: Because absolutely no one demanded it, here's Hube's picks for the top of each Trek TV show. The five in each category are in no particular order either, for what it's worth.
Disagree with me? Let me know in the comments. Hell, let me know if you agree, too, dammit! Here we go ...
THE ORIGINAL SERIES
THE NEXT GENERATION
DEEP SPACE NINE
Five days ago I wrote about Star Trek Into Darkness:
But preparing for conflict against the Klingons? Remember that in this era the Federation is pretty much constantly at war with them. The Klingons are troublemakers to the extreme, brutal warriors who have moved away from reason and enlightenment (as described in an episode of the prequel show Enterprise). Even in the sixth Trek film, Capt. Kirk's own words came back to haunt him ("I never trusted Klingons, and I never will"), not to mention he explicitly told Spock to "Let them (the Klingons) die" when Spock informed a Federation confab about the Klingons' desired peace initiative. (Brought about, of course, because their empire was dying.) Thus, what is so wrong about preparing for what is almost a certain conflict with the Klingons? In fact, it makes a helluva lot MORE sense in Into Darkness's case what the Federation (Section 31) was doing than what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney actually did, since, as I noted, Khan and the Klingons are much greater threats.
Jonah Goldberg in his (e-mailed) G-File from yesterday:
In Star Trek Into Darkness a major plot driver is the notion that any "militarization" of Star Fleet is an unthinkable outrage. This is crazypants. We know that the Federation is in fact destined for a brutal and devastating war with the Klingons -- the idea that the Federation should be better prepared for it isn't fascistic; it's common sense.
Just like the villain of the new Trek stated last week, new "Scotty," Simon Pegg, had this to say about the film's theme:
"In the face of overwhelming militaristic might, you can argue John Harrison is in fact kind of a strange dichotomy between freedom fighter and terrorist, and the militarized Starfleet is slightly more the heavy handed aspects of American foreign policy," Pegg says. Admiral Marcus (played by Peter Weller) has weaponized the Enterprise because he thinks war with the Klingons is inevitable, and Pegg believes there's an argument to be made for his view. But, he adds, "There is always diplomacy, and there is always an alternative to violence...."
There is a parallel with the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the decision to attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing proven to do with 9/11, and yet [President] Bush used that as an excuse to start a war with those people. You can always see the Klingons as like Iraq and John Harrison the proxy for Osama bin Laden."
Admiral Marcus certainly seems like a stand-in for former Vice President Cheney. "Absolutely," Pegg laughs. "He's definitely a Republican."
Wow. How "brave." Hell, why not make it a Vietnam War parable, then? Y'know, an internal struggle between two factions of Vietnamese which had nothing to do with the US, yet [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson staged a military incident to thereby allow the US to get involved ...
It's become quite tiresome to point out the stupidity of these comparisons, especially given Trek lore and canon.
SPOILERS BELOW THE FOLD.
(Keep in mind what follows is stated without my having seen Star Trek Into Darkness as of yet. I'm not certain I will see it, either.)
The film's villain, "John Harrison," is actually Khan -- the classic villain from the Original Series and the second Trek film (and played by Ricardo Montalban). It is hard to see how Khan could ever be considered anyone's "freedom fighter." However, an in-depth synopsis of Into Darkness can be found here, and even with some differences (the new Trek is set in an alternate reality), I still think the connection to big 'ol bad Bush and Cheney is questionable. Indeed, the one connection to the "real" Trek universe -- Ambassador Spock -- fills in Kirk and co. all about the evil that is Khan in this sequel. So, consider:
Hmm. OK, I say make the comparisons to Bush/Cheney! The only really objectionable facet to this whole scheme in my view is Section 31's attempts to recruit Khan for its own ends. But preparing for conflict against the Klingons? Remember that in this era the Federation is pretty much constantly at war with them. The Klingons are troublemakers to the extreme, brutal warriors who have moved away from reason and enlightenment (as described in an episode of the prequel show Enterprise). Even in the sixth Trek film, Capt. Kirk's own words came back to haunt him ("I never trusted Klingons, and I never will"), not to mention he explicitly told Spock to "Let them (the Klingons) die" when Spock informed a Federation confab about the Klingons' desired peace initiative. (Brought about, of course, because their empire was dying.) Thus, what is so wrong about preparing for what is almost a certain conflict with the Klingons? In fact, it makes a helluva lot MORE sense in Into Darkness's case what the Federation (Section 31) was doing than what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney actually did, since, as I noted, Khan and the Klingons are much greater threats. If we're making a comparison, then, it seems to me to justify the former president's actions.
Of course, it can always be argued that what Bush/Cheney did was perfectly reasonable based on several rationales (most of which I still disagree with), but certainly some of them include not allowing a despot like Saddam Hussein to continue to thumb its nose at the international community especially in a post-9/11 world ... to permit him to become an even greater threat.
RELATED: Since guys like Pegg and Cumberbatch want to make present-day comparisons, let's make some of our own. How does our present political world compare to the Federation's of Kirk's time? Here's what I say:
THE FEDERATION: Essentially the First World -- the US, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea.
THE ROMULANS: China and North Korea.
THE CARDASSIANS: Russia.
THE KLINGONS: The Muslim Middle East.
THE FERENGI: Switzerland.
As usual, because no one demanded it, it's time to take a peek into what cracks Hube up. And the following Saturday Night Live sketches do just that. First, Hube's Top Six, followed by some Honorable Mentions. In no particular order:
MORE COWBELL. Possibly Will Ferrell's funniest skit during his SNL tenure, he cracks up virtually all his companions, especially Jimmy Fallon. Christopher Walken is classic yet again as producer Bruce Dickinson (yes, the Bruce Dickinson):
JAMES BROWN CELEBRITY HOT TUB. Eddie Murphy had a gazillion funny sketches while a part of SNL; there is none funnier than this one. Whoever thought up this idea is my kind'a writer. So hilarious, Murphy even cracks himself up:
ARSENIO BECKMAN. Host Rob Lowe's best-ever sketch, here he mocks former late-night host Arsenio Hall. Note the finger extensions on Lowe's hands, and especially the audience as the skit progresses:
DICK IN A BOX. Cast member Andy Samberg's and host Justin Timberlake's "SNL Short" classic about the perfect gift for anytime, anywhere:
THE RESTAURANT ENTERPRISE. One of the best offerings from the early Phil Hartman and Dana Carvey era, host William Shatner becomes the proprietor of the now-drydocked USS Enterprise ... which has been converted into a restaurant. Carvey as villain Khan absolutely steals the show:
STEVIE WONDER & FRANK SINATRA. Eddie Murphy and Joe Piscopo do up a gut-busting bit with an "alternate" version of "Ebony and Ivory":
SEE BELOW THE FOLD FOR SOME HONORABLE MENTIONS ... !!
MR. NO DEPTH PERCEPTION. Kevin Nealon was never my favorite cast member, but this may be his best bit:
GERMANY'S MOST DISTURBING HOME VIDEOS. I loved just about every "Sprockets" offering; this one is my fave. This is my favorite Mike Myers character by far, and this is a rip on "America's Funniest Home Videos," natch:
DEBBIE DOWNER. Rachel Dratch's character had a few follow-ups, but none tops this debut. All the cast members cannot keep a straight face:
SPACE THE INFINITE UNIVERSE. Will Ferrell (as Harry Carey) perplexes host Jeff Goldblum with his constant -- and hilarious -- ad libbing:
THE McLAUGHLIN GROUP. Only political junkies will find this funny, and as I am -- and as a fan of this show -- I threw up a lung the first time I saw this. Dana Carvey's show host John McLaughlin is so spot-on it's scary, and each of the guests nail their real-life counterpart as well:
SAMURAI DELICATESSEN. The only entry I have from the original SNL cast, this John Belushi-helmed skit always kills me. There are several other "Samurai" skits; this, however, is the best:
JIZZ IN MY PANTS. Coming off the success of "Dick in a Box," Samberg, Timberlake and crew at the very least equaled their success with this raucous video short:
Avi over at FCMM points to an article which -- surprise! -- excoriates American "bigotry, nativism and xenophobia" for the creation of Iron Man arch-villain the Mandarin. Avi does what he does best -- dissecting the unspoken hypocrisy and one-sidedness of the article -- and I largely agree with him. He notes that, by far, the US is hardly alone when it comes to offensive and stereotypical portrayals of [foreign] characters. This isn't to excuse what has transpired before in this country; however, it needs to be noted that 1) The US has largely excised such characterizations from its entertainment outlets, and 2) Marvel was actually at the forefront of combating prejudice and bigotry in the comics field. Article author Andrew A. Smith fails to note the irony, too:
Speaking of Marvel, that publisher introduced the Yellow Claw in the 1950s, but also — perhaps indicating changing times — heroic Asian-American FBI agent Jimmy Woo. And Marvel gave us the Mandarin. A Chinese mastermind with long fingernails and longer mustache, he was just another Fu Manchu clone for years.
In the 1950s Marvel intro'd an Asian-American FBI agent ... yeah. Not only was that "indicating changing times" (not "perhaps"), it was actually very forward-thinking. And Marvel did a lot more in the following decade, too, in the realm of [racial/ethnic] inclusion.
Marvel has tried updating him (Mandarin) now and again to excise the racism element (and make him more relevant), but because that’s the character’s core, it never really works.
I beg to differ. Mandy has never been my favorite Iron Man baddie, but his constant "updates" through the years have certainly moved away -- excised -- the "racism element." That is, unless you believe (like Smith seems to do) that simply because he is Asian -- and a villain -- that that in itself is racist.
Smith wants Mandy "retired" as a villain, and on that I agree. But I think that's Marvel has pretty much done all it can with the guy.
I haven't yet seen Iron Man 3 (I know, can you believe it??), but from what I've read from hardcore IM fans, the Mandarin characterization is pretty pathetic.
RELATED: Some of the Mandarin's stand-out moments in Iron Man history:
In Mandy's first-ever appearance (Tales of Suspense #50), we see Stark -- in the heat of battle! -- calculate how to deflect one of Mandy's karate chops ... using his "built-in slide- rule calculator!" Also note the classic insult: "Who's laughing now, Sunny Jim?"
One thing I've always pondered: Why in the world is there a big "M" on Mandarin's chest? Ya'd think there'd be his name in Chinese characters, right?
Iron Man #100 was the climax of yet another IM-Mandy scuffle, and it's one of the better ones by far. Mandy's plot involved political subterfuge, nuclear weapons, the giant robot Ultimo, and an incredible all-out action 100th issue (with great art by the late George Tuska):
One of the sillier Mandarin moments came in the late #50s of IM's book when Mandy attempted to ... take over the union that organized Stark Industries' workers?? (His stage name was ... Gene Khan.) Not too big a goal for a wannabe world dictator, huh?
In John Byrne's "Dragon Seed" saga, the origin of Mandy (and Iron Man, to a degree) was retconned. It involved original IM bad-guy Wong Chu and the very Chinese myth about dragons:
In the [lame] 1994 Iron Man cartoon, apparently Marvel wanted to move way away from the Chinese origin, so they gave Mandy ... green skin:
Possibly even sillier than the #50s Gene Khan schtick was when Mandy assumed the role of some businessman and wanted to ... make a movie where he (as Mandarin) battled Iron Man. Cool new battle armor for the villain, but c'mahn:
Then there was the WAY overly drawn-out cross-over title tale where Mandy attempted to stop all of the world's technology (from functioning) and turn the planet into a battle of the feudal warlords. Could have been done in two issues but took a lot more than that to conclude. Lame Tom Morgan artwork doesn't help either:
Finally, one of the BEST Iron Man issues comes in the form of one #69 -- my first-ever comicbook and an incredible all-out slugfest between 'ol Shellhead and Mandy. Yes, Iron Man has his infamous nose in this issue, but penciller George Tuska is at his best here. George is always great when it comes to action sequences, and oh man does he not disappoint here! Take a gander at some the panels.
So says director John Carpenter:
So a lot of the ideals that I grew up with were under assault, and something called a yuppie came into existence, and they just wanted money. And so by the late ’80s, I’d had enough, and I decided I had to make a statement, as stupid and banal as it is, but I made one, and that’s ‘They Live.’ … I just love that it was giving the finger to Reagan when nobody else would.
'Ya just gotta love that nonsense "when nobody else would" line. Yet another example of how limousine libs live in a cuddly bubble. That, or totally devoid of actual reality. I mean, really -- anyone who lived through the 1980s was treated to a daily barrage of anti-Reagan messages, whether serious or via satire. As Christian Toto notes, Saturday Night Live regularly had a field day with The Gipper. And does anyone recall the "special" Nightline broadcast where Ted Koppel and a bunch of other MSMers sat around dissecting a Reagan speech? It was an Old Media bias extravaganza. And the comicbook field was certainly another part of the bandwagon:
Ah yes, the 'ol "Nancy is REALLY the one in charge" bit. But that ain't nuthin':
And just a little bit of anti-Semitism mixed in for good measure ...
And these are just the panels I could find on Google. There's many more, including Frank Miller (in his old liberal days) with The Dark Knight Returns, and I know there's a "funny" panel in What If? (vol. 2) #19 where a member of Reagan's staff informs The Gip that the android Vision has taken over all the world's computers ... to which Ron asks "He's taken over all the world's pewter??" Yuk yuk.
Comic Book Resources has the Top 25 Greatest Iron Man Stories Ever up, and thank goodness the fans showed some plain 'ol good common sense. Well, for the most part, that is. As the post title notes, Iron God-Men David Michelinie and Bob Layton claim the top three spots with "Demon in a Bottle" (#1), "Armor Wars" (#2) and "Doomquest" (#3). Admittedly I haven't read any of the recent entries (approx. 2005-present) so I cannot make an informed judgment. I have heard a good amount of praise for writer Matt Fraction's run on the title, and he has a few spots on the list.
But here's some that had me shaking my head a lot (or a little):
But LOOK! Layton's (and Michelinie's) "AW2" has now seen print!! (I'd get it, but Layton filled me in on the entire plot many years ago ...!)
So say the rumors. Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle and Friday Night Lights) is in the running. To which comics guy Ron Marz makes yet another interesting Tweet:
All those movies with a black guy playing Nick Fury were box-office disasters, and no fun to watch, right? #Torched— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 2, 2013
Well duh, Ron. Maybe that's because the African-American Nick Fury was already well established in comics continuity before the latest crop of Marvel films came out (that featured the character). Marvel's popular Ultimate Universe is where the Samuel L. Jackson-based character began -- over a decade ago at the turn of the milennium.
On the other hand, where has there been a black Human Torch/Johnny Storm in comics? I haven't bought a new book in some time, but I keep up with what is going on regularly. I don't recall ever seeing an African-American Torch. Spinoff's article author Steve Sunu indicates same. Such a deviation certainly doesn't mean the reboot FF film won't be successful; however, it could be problematic if there's a decent amount of concentration on the team's origin. Maybe one way around that is to make Sue and Johnny half-siblings, or one adopted. That sounds easy enough. And a new FF film, however altered, certainly can't be much worse than the original two!
That all said, why the change in the first place? Is this just another example of needless political correctness for the sake of ... political correctness?
UPDATE: The ultra-PC creator Gail Simone chimes in with her "coherent" thoughts:
I swear to god, I am NOT going to listen to a bunch more dumb outrage about a black actor being cast in a superhero movie. GOOD. #FuryRules— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 3, 2013
Why the hash-tag "FuryRules"? Is there really a pissed off fan base out there regarding Samuel L. Jackson being cast as Nick Fury? If so, where? As I noted, at least this Fury actually has a basis in the comics. A black Johnny Storm does not. I really wonder what Simone's reaction would be if, in the upcoming Captain America sequel, a white guy was cast as the Falcon. Or, what if a movie studio took one of her characters ... and completely altered him/her?
I've opined in the past already that I could care less if African-American actors are cast as characters that were originally portrayed as white (or something else) in the original comics -- because most of the most popular characters in the biz were created when blacks were still considered second-class citizens. We've seen Heimdall portrayed by a black actor in Thor; Jamie Foxx is slated to play Electro in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man 2. And big deal. But, again, the Fantastic Four is a bit different. It's a major property of one of the Big Two comics companies with a rich (and immense) continuity history. It'd almost be akin to putting out a film with a black guy playing Superman ... just for the sake of having a black guy playing Superman. In other words, it really makes no sense.
But whoever said political correctness ever made sense?
Watch Art Laffer get his ass handed to him by Peter Schiff.
To me, these sorts of analysis is very helpful in determining analytics for economists. It is a really good means of determining their "optics" as it were. (NB: analysis here means reading past performance and analytics means using that past performance to predict the future)
If Schiff was as right as he was (and he was) and Laffer was so completely wrong (but never in doubt) I would tend to listen to Schiff more than Laffer.
With a big hat tip to the hard copy of Entertainment Weekly, let's take a look at some noted apocalypse films, their major players, and how it all turned out. Because, as usual, no one demanded it.
We're purposely excluding alien invasions (too easy) like in Independence Day and War of the Worlds, and films in which most of humanity lives on, as in Deep Impact and Armageddon. The focus here is on man's own mistakes, whether intentional or not, which lead to his demise (or almost demise), and seemingly natural occurrences out of his control.
The Movie: On the Beach (1959 and remade in 2000).
Cause of Apocalyse: Massive nuke exchange in WW III.
The Threat: Radiation eventually making its way to the southern hemisphere.
The Hero: Gregory Peck (later, Armand Assante) as the American sub commander.
The Payoff: None, really. The last refuge for humanity, Australia, will eventually succumb to radiation poisoning. Peck/Assante vamoose in their sub hoping that after some years they'll be able to come back out again. But to what?
Classic Moment: When the sub tracks a radio signal to San Diego ... only to find that a wind-pounded window shade is responsible.
The Movie: The Road (2009).
Cause of Apocalypse: Vague, but most likely an asteroid/meteor strike or a major ecological catastrophe.
The Threat: Increasing cold, cannibal gangs.
The Hero: Viggo Mortensen, who never gives up leading his son to what they hope is a sunnier south.
The Payoff: Bleak for Mortensen, but the son looks like he'll make it thanks to the generosity of a family of strangers.
Classic Moment: All of Robert Duval's guest appearance.
The Movie: The Omega Man (1971, remade as I Am Legend in 2007).
Cause of Apocalypse: A plague that kills most of humanity, but turns some into acid rock loving, albino homicidal hippies (see right). (In the remake, they're vampire-like creatures.)
The Threat: The acid rock loving, albino homicidal hippies.
The Hero: Chuck Heston (later, Will Smith).
The Payoff: Heston manages a cure, but will he survive long enough to disseminate it?
Classic Moment(s): Chuck beds a black chick (way ahead of the social climate of the time) and Christ symbolism at the end.
The Movie: Planet of the Apes (1968 and remade, dreadfully, in 2001).
Cause of Apocalypse: Maniacs, who went nuts and "blew it all to Hell."
The Threat: Apes who now rule, hate humans.
The Hero(es): Chuck Heston as astronaut Taylor, along with rebel apes Cornelius and Zira (Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter).
The Payoff: Heston escapes, to show that Man is "better" than Ape. Plus, he gets a little ape nookie (see left).
Classic Moment: "YOU MANIACS!! YOU BLEW IT UP! AH, DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!"
The Movie: When Worlds Collide (1951).
Cause of Apocalypse: A rogue star hurtles through our solar system, which will decimate the Earth.
The Threat: The star Bellus.
The Hero(es): Pilot David Randall and Dr. Cole Hendron.
The Payoff: Fortunately, the rogue star Bellus is carrying with it a planet -- Zyra -- to where a few humans can rocket off in order to restart the human race.
Classic Moment: Earth's last moments; the film won an Oscar for best special effects.
The Movie: Mad Max (and sequels) (1979).
Cause of Apocalypse: Fossil fuel depletion ... which amazingly didn't lead to a cessation of using gas guzzling vehicles like the V-8 Interceptor (at right).
The Threat: Insane, homicidal biker gangs led by Toecutter, and later The Humongous.
The Hero: Max (Mel Gibson) and a handful of still-dedicated cops.
The Payoff: More like payback. Max makes waste of the gang who killed his wife and boy, and later Humongous's horde of killers.
Classic Moment: Max chasing Toecutter right into the front of a Mack truck.
The Movie: The Day After (1983).
Cause of Apocalypse: The US and USSR finally do it to one another.
The Threat: Like in On the Beach for the survivors, creeping radiation. Also, starvation, illness.
The Hero: Dr. Russell Oakes (Jason Robards), a doctor who works to help others until he basically collapses.
The Payoff: None. Looks like we ain't gonna make it.
Classic Moment: If you've ever seen it, tell me you didn't look outside when it was over to make sure everything was still there!
The Movie: The Quiet Earth (1985).
Cause of Apocalypse: Energy experiment goes awry, changing physical constants of the universe. The only survivors on Earth are those who died at the exact moment of the Effect.
The Threat: The Effect will happen again soon and who knows what it'll do the next time.
The Hero: Zac Hobson (Bruno Lawrence) worked for the lab involved in the experiment, and only he can stop the Effect from occurring again.
The Payoff: WTF is up with that ending?? Incredibly cool vista, but WTF was it??
The Movie: The Matrix (1999).
Cause of Apocalypse: Humans grow distrustful of mechanical servants and try to destroy them (actually seen in the animated collection The Animatrix.) They fail, and the machines retaliate, using human bodies as living batteries.
The Threat: The remnants of humanity must continually steer clear of the murderous probes of The Matrix, the Sentinels.
The Hero: Neo (Keanu Reeves) who is The One.
The Payoff: Should have ended at the first film as the two sequels blow chunks and make it impossible to follow the ultimate resolution. At least at the end of Matrix it appears Neo is unstoppable.
Classic Moment: Neo smashing right through Agent Smith (Smith at left).
The Movie: Damnation Alley (1977).
Cause of Apocalypse: An all-out nuclear exchange.
The Threat: World War III has caused the earth to tilt further on its axis, and radiation has mutated various lifeforms.
The Hero(es): Tanner (Jan Michael-Vincent) and Maj. Eugene Denton (George Peppard).
The Payoff: Making it across the devastated US to find a Shangri-La in ... Albany, New York??
Classic Moment: Marveling at the ultra-cheesy F/X, especially Paul Winfield getting eaten alive by mutated cockroaches, and Michael-Vincent attempting to kick car-sized scorpions.
The Movie: The Terminator (1984).
Cause of Apocalypse: Automated defense system becomes self-aware and destroys humans.
The Threat: Aside from launching nukes across the globe, SkyNet begins to assemble Terminator cyborgs to eradicate the remaining surviving humans.
The Hero(es): Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton)
The Payoff: Uncertain. Four films seem to indicate that Judgment Day is inevitable, but it just keeps getting pushed back.
Classic Moment: Too many to mention. My fave is when the landlord knocks on Arnold's door demanding rent, and a list of possible responses pops up in the cyborg's field of vision. He chooses "F*** you, a**hole."
The Movie: Waterworld (1995).
Cause of Apocalypse: Melted polar ice caps result in just about all of Earth's surface being covered by H2O.
The Threat: Dennis Hopper's "Smokers" who have a reliable supply of fuel (thanks to their base on the Exxon Valdez!) and pillage anyone they stumble upon.
The Hero: Kevin Costner's "Mariner."
The Payoff: Costner's persistence pays off and the map on the back of a little girl leads to (supposedly) the only remaining dry land on the planet.
Classic Moment: Costner taking the girl and her companion underwater to see a late, great city once seen on land.
The Movie: Reign of Fire (2002).
Cause of Apocalypse: Construction dudes in London unearth a mother dragon who then begins to lay eggs and wreak havoc. Humans can't keep up and the creatures set fire to just about everything, effectively trashing the planet.
The Threat: The dragons still rule years after everything has been laid waste. Going outside is risking death. Trying to fly is death.
The Hero(es): Christian Bale's Quinn, and Matthew McConaughey's Van Zan (at left).
The Payoff: Quinn, Van Zan and some others discover a way to stop the dragon threat once and for all: Kill the mother. But it ain't gonna be that easy!
Classic Moment: Van Zan and co. showing how they can beat the flying beasts in the air.
UPDATE: Fellow Watcher's Council member Dave Schuler of the Glittering Eye offers up some entries I left out.
Via io9 we see news that the classic soap operatic Space Battleship Yamato -- aka Star Blazers in the US -- has been remade using updated animation. I absolutely loved the original series, which is over thirty years old. I wrote about the three main series here, when the live-action movie debuted in Japan.
Here's the new intro (in Japanese):
I am totally diggin' this news! Via Bleeding Cool:
Here’s how Deadline describes it;
“…a team of explorers travels to the farthest reaches of space to investigate a mind-blowing alien artifact called Ringworld, an artificial habitat the size of 1 million Earths. They discover the remnants of ancient advanced civilizations, mysteries that shed light on the origins of man and, most importantly, a possible salvation for a doomed Earth.”
This is a bit different from Larry Niven's novel, as you might expect. The book is a part of Niven's vast "Known Space" universe, and utilizes numerous species from it. This wouldn't make a lot of sense to the casual viewer, of course (I was a bit lost myself when I began the book as I hadn't yet read older Known Space stories), so the "doomed Earth" part noted above is an obvious deviation. But that might be all they really have to change. A human vessel could discover the amazing artifact, land and encounter evidence of advanced races, and also as noted discover humanity's origins: the alien Pak race which I wrote about in-depth here!
And then there's Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End:
"Childhood’s End" follows a peaceful alien invasion of Earth by the mysterious Overlords, whose arrival ends all war and turns the planet into a near-utopia. [Michael] De Luca (The Social Network) is producing with UCP.
I read this Clarke novel many years ago, and unlike Bleeding Cool's reviewer I dug it. As noted above, advanced benevolent aliens arrive on Earth and essentially impose a peaceful Utopia upon us. But at what price? Children becoming part of an advanced hive mind? One of the coolest parts of the novel, in my opinion, is when one of our scientists stows away on board one of the Overlord's starships in order to visit their home planet.
Also apparently in development by SyFy: "The Man in the High Castle" based on the novel by the same name by Philip K. Dick, and "Eyes of the Dragon" based on Stephen King's book. I read the former because it was a recommended alternate history story; however, I was unimpressed.
And, are you ready for a "Tony Stark-in-space" scifi series?
When an alien armada is sighted in the region of Pluto, the Earth government turns to a young billionaire industrialist — who has the only ship ready for interstellar travel — to greet the aliens and avoid a catastrophe. Powered by secret alien technology discovered on Earth in the 1960’s, the ship engages in a firefight that sends them spinning through a wormhole into an uncharted region of space. Lost in the universe, the team struggles to survive as they encounter new planets and alien species, searching for a way back home.
Sounds very Star Trek: Voyager-ish, so with a Stark analogue? Count me in! (Yes, I liked Voyager.)
Well, despite the air of mystery created by Kevin Feige, the EW TV spot pretty much spoils The Mandarin’s nationality. At the beginning of the footage, The Mandarin announces, “My fellow Americans. My soldiers will destroy your country.” So, by addressing his “fellow Americans,” it looks like The Mandarin is claiming to be a homegrown American terrorist.
As the title says, "Oh, brother." It's bad enough that the film will have a different version aired in China, and that the Red Dawn remake had to be redone to make to baddies North Koreans instead of Chinese. I'm not saying (and there's no indication) that Mandy's ID was altered to assuage our Chinese overlords; however, the "disgruntled/vengeance-seeking 'one of our own'" bit is exceedingly boring already. Not to mention that Iron Man was refreshingly pro-American while being anti-war at the same time.
This revelation has the potential to be a huge disaster.
So asks Newsarama. The only one I'd LOVE to see would be #5 -- the Vision.
Others on the list I'd like to see: #2's Hank Pym, #3's Scarlet Witch, and #4's Black Panther.
Forget it: #10's She-Hulk, #9's Tigra, and #7's Captain Marvel (recently Ms. Marvel).
Roland Emmerich talks Independence Day sequels. (That's right -- plural!)
... he plans to wreak a new round of havoc in two sequels – ID Forever Part 1 and ID Forever Part II. The films take place 20 years after the original, when a distress call sent by the first wave of aliens finally brings reinforcements to Earth. ”The humans knew that one day the aliens would come back,” explains the director, who completed two scripts with Independence Day co-writer Dean Devlin and has given them to White House Down writer-producer James Vanderbilt for a rewrite. ”And they know that the only way you can really travel in space is through wormholes. So for the aliens, it could take two or three weeks, but for us that’s 20 or 25 years.”
After the mass destruction of the original Independence Day, what’s left for new aliens to destroy? “We’ve rebuilt,” Emmerich answers, with a smile. “But [the aliens] also do different things.”
This sounds not unlike Marvel's 1970s adaptation of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. When the comics giant got the go-ahead to do a comics series based on the classic sci-fi novel, they set it 100 years later -- in the year 2001. The "martians" learned from their mistakes (namely, their lack of defense against basic Terran microbes), and they also manage to disable our nuclear arsenals. This backdrop is the basis for the Killraven Amazing Adventures stories beginning with issue #18 in 1973.
I have a question about ID2, though, from the above quote: If the aliens can traverse a wormhole in 2-3 weeks, why have they waited 20 years to answer the distress call? Unless (and I'm guessing here), their distress call can't travel via wormhole like their ships can; it has to go through normal space at the speed of light. Thus, after receiving the distress summons, the aliens only need those 2-3 to get to Earth.
Of those in the original film, so far only Bill Pullman (the president, but of course he won't be president in the sequel ... I think) is on board. And this sounds cool too:
It’s a changed world. It’s like parallel history. [Humans] have harnessed all this alien technology. We don’t know how to duplicate it because it’s organically-grown technology, but we know how to take an antigravity device and put it in a human airplane.
Oh yes! Massive reverse engineering of alien tech to create a whole new type of society? Huzzah!!
In anticipation of their coming silver screen debut, Comics Alliance's Andrew Wheeler takes a ... well, "look" at a history of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy. But he tries so damn hard to be "cute" you won't get the real picture. So, I'm here to give you the lowdown on the original crew (because after that, with few exceptions, they pretty much sucked IMHO).
As Wheeler notes, the team's first appearance was in Marvel Super-Heroes #18 written by Arnold Drake and drawn the master Gene Colan. The first GoG were highly appealing to me because of their hard science fiction feel. Their first appearance is about all Wheeler makes plain, though. He says the team was composed of "four men from different worlds who banded forces to fight the Badoon," but doesn't say that these worlds ('cept one) are all planets in our own solar system. Nor does he mention that two of the team from worlds not Earth are actually genetically engineered humans.
This original incarnation of the Guardians had many cool adventures throughout the 1970s, most of which included time travel. (Of course! How else could they interact with the Age of Marvels?) An excellent chronological history of this team can be seen in Defenders #26, when they journey back to the 20th century and acquire the aid of Dr. Strange and the "strangest NON-team of all" in their [future] battle with the Badoon. In addition, Captain America and the Thing also ventured forward in time to help out the GoG as seen in Marvel Two-In-One #5. Speaking of Marvel Two-In-One, it was in #69 that the 1,000 year old Vance Astro encounters his younger version. (Which, if you read the above-mentioned Defenders #26, you realize Vance can't be that young here as he'll be jetting off to the stars in a mere eight years from the time of this ish.) Old Vance tries to convince his younger self not to get on that rocket ... but the old adage about no two things can simultaneously occupy the same space (or something) begins to wreak havoc on the planet!
In the late 70s, Jim Shooter had the GoG travel back in time to help the Avengers battle Korvac, aka Michael. If you want to read an all-out battlefest issue, as well as some heart-wrenching Shooter dialogue, get a hold of Avengers (vol. 1) #177.
One of the neat things I'll always recall as a teen was in the GoG's [brief] regular appearance in Marvel Presents, specifically #3, where new teammate Starhawk lectures the GoG and humans in general that “Harsh though it may sound, your race’s period of oppression cannot be permitted to excuse whatever excesses it may commit.” The human race had just overcome near extinction at the hands of the Badoon, and were pretty damn bloodthirsty as a result. Starhawk warned the Guardians that, having possession of FTL travel, humanity must not carry this negative emotion to the stars. This was written as pages of text, not word balloons.
Years later, Starhawk appeared as one of the "Cosmic" Avengers alongside Thor, Commander America (descendant of you-know-who), Jhen the Gammazon (She-Hulk's successor), Tachyon Torch (Human Torch's descendant) and Irondroid (employee of Stark Interplanetary) in volume 2 What If? #19.
Most recently (according to the "Hube Calendar," which incorporates cessation of new comics purchases effective around 2004), the Centaurian Yondu's race was featured in the opening sequence of the spectacular Avengers Forever. The "Galactic Avengers Batallion" led by Earth Emperor kin Jonz Rickard (descendant of perpetual sidekick Rick Jones) swarms Centauri-IV and annihilates a substantial portion of the populace in retribution for planning an uprising against the Terran Empire.
Amazon has several editions of the Guardians of the Galaxy stories noted above in trade paperback format.
Dwight Schultz's Lt. Reginald Barclay is one of the more endearing recurring characters on The Next Generation. (Barclay went on to also guest on a few episodes of Star Trek: Voyager in its later seasons; he assisted is trying to find a way for the vessel to get home.) In season four's "The Nth Degree," the bumbling lieutenant and Geordi LaForge are investigating a mysterious probe near the Federation's Argus [Telescope] Array. As their shuttle actively scans the probe, suddenly the duo is enveloped in a brief, bright light. LaForge is unaffected, but Barclay is knocked unconscious. The shuttle hustles back to the Enterprise, where Barclay awakens and appears none the worse for wear.
However, something has definitely changed with the lieutenant. For example, as the probe chases the Enterprise and endangers it with increasing radiation, Barclay overrules LaForge with a hasty shield modification. Barclay's modification, though, increases the Enterprise's shield strength by 300 percent. LaForge, Picard, and Riker are all aghast at what Barclay has just accomplished. Later, Barclay demonstrates remarkable acting skills working alongside Dr. Crusher, who shortly requests a medical once-over of the officer. She discovers that the hemispheres of Barclay's brain are essentially acting as one, single unit now -- giving the lieutenant an approximate IQ of 1500!
Shortly thereafter, Barclay uses the holodeck to create a computer-neural interface (telling the computer how to build it!) as a solution to make up for the "time lag" difference of "just" using the computer to prevent one of the Argus Array reactors from overloading. Once attached to this device, however, Barclay refuses to disconnect himself; he "becomes" the computer and assumes control of the ship!
Defying all authority to cease and desist, eventually Reg creates a space-time distortion which shunts the Enterprise ... 30,000 light years distant! The center of the galaxy!! Suddenly, a huge holographic head appears on the Enterprise bridge and begins spouting off personal observations. Barclay then enters the bridge, having disconnected himself from the interface. He explains that the Cythereans, as the "big heads" call themselves, are "just like us" -- they're "exploring the galaxy." The only difference between them and Starfleet is that the former ... never leave their home. The Cythereans usually reconfigure technology to bring another race's starships/devices to them; however, in this case, the Cythereans reconfigured Barclay. (Well, his brain, at any rate.)
This is what Trek is all about, and you can tell just that by the smile on Riker's face upon hearing what the Cythereans ultimately were up to.
-- The Argus Array telescope featured prominently in a later episode, the 7th season's "Parallels" which features a dimension-hopping Worf.
-- The Enterprise spent a few weeks in the company of the Cythereans. Why the f*** didn't they bring back (and then make use of) their advanced technology? Y'know, like at least the FTL method by which Barclay brought them to the center of the Milky Way?
-- The Enterprise-D isn't the first Starfleet vessel to journey to the Milky Way's center. In Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, the Enterprise-A did it, too. Except that, in the latter's case, using standard warp drive protocols, there is absolutely no way for the 1701-A to make it in the time-frame that they did. It'd take several years to do so ... at warp 9.
Iron Man: Rise of the Technovore, "an original direct-to-video anime movie produced by Studio Madhouse in conjunction with Marvel," comes out in one month. And here's the trailer:
If you've never seen some of the Japanese-made Iron Man anime featured on the cable channel G4, be sure to check 'em out -- they're pretty well done!
Douglas Ernst has the story on how director Shane Black views arch-villain Mandarin:
We use as the example Colonel Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now,” this guy who may have been an American, may have been a British National, someone who is out there doing field work, supervising atrocities for the intelligence community who went nuts in the field and became this sort of devotee of war tactics, and now has surrounded himself with a group of people over which he presides, and the only thing that unifies them is this hatred of America. So he’s the ultimate terrorist, but he’s also savvy. He’s been in the intelligence world. He knows how to use the media. And taking it to a real world level like that was a lot fun for us.
Oh my gad. As Iron Man was a pro-American/pro-good capitalist tour de force, IM3 has the potential to be just the opposite. We now know that the "Extremis" storyline has a major role in the film; it looks like Black took a lot more than just the technical aspect of that tale. In the comics, writer Warren Ellis had a field day using a not-so-concealed analogue of radical filmmaker John Pilger to grill Tony Stark about his life and company.
As I mentioned in this post about Isaac Asimov's Robot/Empire/Foundation universe and Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe, these authors have allowed other authors to "play" in what they've created (Asimov posthumously). Which leads me to ask the title of this post. I can think of one right off the bat: Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers universe. As far as I know, there was a comicbook series based on the film by the same name, and there is at least one [role-playing] book that utilizes the novel's background. But no new stories in either novel or short story form.
Then again, maybe it's a good thing. After all, look at what Paul Verhoeven did with his 1998 film adaptation. The Terran Federation was turned into a semi-competent quasi-fascistic regime with minimal concentration on how the Federation came about in the first place (and why it worked). To continue the novel's philosophy, it'd take an author that would be truly dedicated to Heinlein's vision. in other words, no "progressives." Off the top of my head, I could see the aforementioned Niven or his sometimes writing partner Jerry Pournelle playing the Troopers-verse.
What are some others?
For all we see/hear about how our [future] creations will eventually turn on us and possibly destroy us (The Terminator, The Matrix, Battlestar Galactica, Colossus: The Forbin Project, I, Robot, the Sentinels in the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past), there is is a highly regarded well-known science fiction series that features human creations which seek to save us at virtually any cost: Isaac Asimov's combined Foundation, Empire and Robot universe. These series were always loosely related in Asimov's early days; it wasn't until the 1980s that he began to "officially" connect them. The original Asimov works in each area appeared in the 1950s, and covered approximately some 15,000 years of future human history. Humanity's key development wasn't so much the hyperspatial Jump, but the robot. Asimov's Robot novels are loosely tied to his early Robot short stories, many of which feature noted robot genius Susan Calvin (played by the gorgeous Bridget Moynihan in I, Robot). By the Robot novels' time, some robots have been built in Man's image -- literally. The Spacer societies -- those who have settled the first fifty extra-solar planets -- have developed and made use of these humanoid servants for myriad purposes. The most popular -- and ultimately most influential -- of these robots is R. Daneel Olivaw.
R. Daneel (the "R" standing for "Robot") becomes the partner of noted human detective Elijah Bailey in helping to solve several high-profile killings. (See: The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn.) Another robot, [R.] Giskard Reventlov, was constructed with the ability to detect, read, and influence human thoughts. In the crucial connecting novel Robots and Empire, Giskard conceives of the pivotal "Zeroth Law" which overrides Asimov's legendary "Three Laws of Robotics" by permitting robots to act out of regard for humanity as a whole instead of individual humans (the First Law). Using this new Zeroth Law, Giskard allows a madman to make Earth's crust radioactive, thus forcing the vast majority of humanity to venture forth and begin a new wave of settlement across the galaxy. All in the name of preserving humanity.
But that's far from all. R. Daneel Olivaw becomes humanity's ultimate guide, conceiving of various plans through the millennia to maintain and preserve humanity's dominance, and survival, in the Milky Way. Asimov died in 1992 but his estate permitted other authors to "play" in his universe. The "Killer Bs" -- David Brin, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford -- together put out "The Second Foundation Trilogy," which greatly expands upon Isaac's ideas and concepts. The ultimate finale is Brin's Foundation's Triumph which pretty much explains everything you ever wanted to know about regarding the Galactic Empire/Foundation. Perhaps the most controversial was Olivaw's use of "mentalic dampers" -- hidden satellites around each human planet (20 million in all!) which kept the populace calm and tranquil, but also diminished creativity and curiosity. This, psychohistory's and the Foundation's inventor Hari Seldon finally realizes, is what has kept humanity's technology curve static for so very, very long. It was the robots fulfilling their purpose to the extreme ultimate ends.
In another science fiction universe, and one whose time-frame is much closer to the present day, that of Larry Niven's "Known Space," it is a group dubbed the ARM -- the Amalgamated Regional Militia or the police force of the United Nations, which is dedicated (in large part) to suppressing advanced technologies that could endanger the delicate balance of peace which Earth enjoys beginning more-or-less by the late 22nd century. Some of the earliest tales of the ARM are featured in The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. Hamilton is an ARM agent whose arm was severed in a space mining accident. However, he developed a "psychic arm" which in many ways is superior to the real thing. One of the technologies Hamilton stumbles upon (and has to help suppress) is a "time retarder device."
As humans move into the 23rd and 24th centuries, many extra-solar colonies are settled. In the Niven-authorized "Man-Kzin Wars, we learn that the ARM has "secret societies" that have traveled to the various human worlds to continue their work. The "Man-Kzin Wars" books are assemblages of short stories detailing the centuries-long conflict between humanity and the felinoid Kzin. In many of these tales, we see how the ARM resorts to making use of many suppressed technologies, discoveries and inventions in order to defeat the Kzin. One of these is a stasis field which Earth uses in its most destructive counter-attack against the Kzin to help liberate the human colony at Alpha Centauri. In another, the ARM plans to unleash the "Tree of Life" virus, detailed in Niven's novel Protector, on the planet Wunderland. This would turn a substantial number of humans into the ultra-strong and ultra-smart Protectors who would be more than a match for the brutal Kzin. Yet another is using an A.I. (artificial intelligence) as the brain of an interstellar vessel. All of these inventions/technologies are stored in an ultra-secret "black vault" on the moon.
So, back to the original question: Will we need such overseers to ensure that we don't destroy ourselves? Surely we cannot permit rogue regimes (and terrorist groups) to acquire weapons of mass destruction; however, contemporary [international] laws largely hamstring more powerful (and lawful) nations such as the United States from thwarting such proliferation. In Niven's future Earth, the United Nations was the planet's governing body which passed laws by global referendum. This is what empowered the ARM to do what it did. Niven's United Nations makes the present-day UN appear even more of a eunuch than it already is.
Humanity's present technological curve is staggering when you stop to think about it. Consider how far we've come in just 100 years. Then imagine where we could be 100 years from now. Brin's robotic intervention can account for avoiding this staggering fact in his Foundation book; Niven retroactively incorporated many newer technologies such as nanotechnology (that he didn't/couldn't foresee) into his later novels, in particular his last Ringworld sequel novel, and the "Fleet of Worlds" series. Without someone, or something, to "watch over us," the manner of destruction we could face is varied. A rogue nation or group could set off an EMP which could set large areas back to the Stone Age. The same entities could release a pathogen to wipe out a sizable chunk of the population. And what about a "gray out" from nanotechnology run amok?
The ever-present thin line balancing personal [civil] liberties and national (or planet) security is always a tough issue. How much law enforcement intervention is the public willing to allow in the name of security? We saw what happened after 9/11; devout civil libertarians claimed the US government drastically overreacted. But what would happen if a catastrophe like one noted above occurs? And then there's the question of should we ever let it get to that point? Because if something like an EMP decimates most or all of the United States, the Patriot Act will look like a parking ticket.
If this is half as awesome as it looks, I'm gonna go 'nanners.
How does Star Trek deal with the issue of homosexuality? Easy: Create a genderless society where an inherent disposition towards one gender or the other ... leads to social ostracism! Such was the case in "The Outcast," from Star Trek: The Next Generation's fifth season. The Enterprise is assisting the J'naii, the aforementioned genderless race, in resolving a "null space" issue where a shuttle has vanished. Commander Riker is teamed up with Soren who proves to be quite inquisitive. The two take an instant liking to one another, and Soren reveals that "she" has an affinity for males ... meaning, she leans towards the female gender.
Soren informs Riker that no one among her society must know for she would be sent away for "psychotectic treatments." Riker, being from the highly enlightened Federation, says that such is stupid, cruel, and inhumane, and that it won't stop their budding relationship. Unfortunately, Soren is spotted showing affection for 'ol Number One, and later when Will shows up to work with his new squeeze, he's informed that "she's" been taken away for treatment.
Riker plans on a rescue, and Worf pops by the commander's quarters to inform him that he'll assist. The two clandestinely beam down to the surface of Soren's planet, scrap with a few of the genital-less guards, and as Riker whisks Soren away, she pleads for him to stop. "Why? What's wrong?" Riker asks. It's too late: Sorin has already been "treated." She says "she" knows what "she" did was wrong, and that "she" is "better now." Despite a "But I love you!" from Riker, Sorin remains umoved. "She" tells Will that "she's" sorry, and runs away. The commander and Worf transport back to the Enterprise.
This episode is really Trek's first attempt at addressing homosexuality. Which does and doesn't make sense: Does in that the then-current social climate probably made it too risky to produce such an episode. Doesn't in that you'd expect a society like 24th century Earth to have plenty of homosexuals, with many serving openly in Starfleet. At least Riker's reaction to the J'naii's "solution" to people like Sorin indicates revulsion and horror. Which brings up another point: You'd think a society with whom the Federation does business -- meaning, basically as enlightened as the Fed -- would have eradicated such "treatments" for "deviants" like Sorin long ago.
The Atlantic has a discussion about the latest happenings in the hit show The Walking Dead. Two of the participants argue that the show is a showcase for political conservatism. Take Jeffrey Goldberg:
Andrea, the civil-liberties lawyer of dubious character, ventures to the prison from Woodbury on a misguided mission to make peace between Rick and the Governor. Andrea, like any good liberal, believes that dialogue between two warring parties will inevitably lead to understanding and compromise. "I cannot excuse or explain what Phillip has done but I am here trying to bring us together," she tells Rick, who answers, "There's nothing to work out. We're going to kill him." This exchange echoes a common debate we have in post-9/11 America: Can we come to agreement with Iran/the Muslim Brotherhood/the Taliban -- take your pick. These debates are interesting, in part, because, though we can have our obvious suspicions (as I do) about the incapacity of, say, the Iranian regime to compromise with the United States, we cannot know with 100 percent certainty whether such compromise is, in fact, impossible, because we have only an imperfect understanding of Iran and its leaders.
While it is true that we can't say with 100% certainly that any negotiation/compromise is "impossible" with groups like the Iranian government, what we can ascertain very well is that, at least with groups like the Iranians, is that their rhetoric towards other countries needs to be met with counters of a similar nature. For instance, when Iran says that Israel should be "wiped off the map," why would it be impolitic to respond thusly: "Any move to make good on that statement will result in the utter destruction of you, your regime, and your nation"? Obviously, such a statement would be anathema to Boss Obama. or any contemporary "progressive." To them, groups like the Iranian government are just "misunderstood," and/or act the way they do because it's our fault (usually for meddling in their affairs in the past).
When it comes to outfits like al Qaeda, this is where the attitude of Rick and his group should prevail. There is no redeeming value of such orgranizations. They exist solely to effect terror on populations, to ward over women, children and the meek with complete and harsh authority, and to kill anyone who would challenge them. Period. I happen to think the Governor is more akin to the Iranians (crazy, but possibly able to be dealt with on nakedly self-interest concerns only); however, the world situation with the undead lumbering about everywhere clearly alters this equation. It's kill or be killed. Ironically, Boss Obama has [hypocritically, mind you] adopted this attitude in numerous ways: keeping Guantánamo Bay open, maintaining rendition, continuing US military efforts in Afghanistan, and most controversially, with unmanned drone strikes.
As two of the article writers ponder, all this may be moot. The show's writers may not even be cognizant of any of the above. Goldberg says "I think there's a reasonable chance that they've simply lost control of their characters, and are simply winging it, minute-to-minute." Which I can certainly see ... and which would be a crying shame. This is precisely what occurred with Battlestar Galactica after its first couple seasons. Like TWD, BSG was an immense hit. But then it got silly. (In fact, I wrote a post about this.) TWD hasn't reached the levels of BSG absurdity -- yet -- but it sure might. Rick seeing visions of his wife? Ugh. Little-to-no concern about the copious quantity of blood spatter when zombies are attacking? Yeesh. Zombie found in drinking water well? Let's get it out despite the fact that doing so won't make the water drinkable. Uh huh.
You may recall the insanity surrounding some of the Galactica crew by them not wanting to wipe out the enemy Cylons when they had a chance ... not to mention the very motivations of the Cylons changing midway through the series (apparently the writers weren't prepared for further seasons). Oh, and how about the "revelation" that several of the Galactica crew were humanoid Cylons who had infiltrated the Colonial Military many years before? Funny how even the recent Blood and Chrome movie revealed that the final development of the humanoid versions of the Cylons was still way off. *Sigh*
Ah well. I'll be staying with The Walking Dead ... but I have been losing interest. By BSG's fourth season, I had barely tuned in. I hope this is different.
Jay Nordlinger: "So, a lesson is reinforced: When it comes to comedic frontiers, the [Three] Stooges can be expected to have arrived first."
Let's face it: If you're a guy, you probably dig the Stooges. If you're a chick, you don't. It's highly doubtful that the trio could thrive in today's "hyper-safe, politically correct" environment ... which is what makes them all the more funny (get this) ... eighty years later (from the earliest shorts). Their physical slapstick just cannot be topped. Take the first three-or-so minutes of this part of "Rhythm and Weep":
Or this insanely hilarious Curly moment when his head gets caught in a mine shaft (from "Cactus Makes Perfect"):
Or the crowded car scene from "False Alarms":
I could go on and on and on ... nevertheless, this is comedy. Anything that is still funny 80 years later is the real article, folks!
Fans of The Terminator films and The Matrix trilogy would do well to seek out 1970's Colossus: The Forbin Project. Way ahead of its time in scope, it deals with a massive supercomputer (which has been put in charge of the US's defenses) who hooks up with its Soviet counterpart to ... literally take control of the planet. Unlike Terminator's Skynet, however, Colossus doesn't want to eradicate humanity -- it merely demands it do its bidding in order to survive. (Which may be due to the era in which the film takes place -- Colossus may actually need humans for maintenance and upkeep.)
Younger viewers may chuckle at the huge screens, printers, and the mountain in which Colossus is housed (indeed, miniaturization doesn't seem to have been considered in the early computer age), but figuring that an Einstein-like genius like Forbin would have to utilize the technology of the era to construct what he wants, it makes perfect sense.
The "eerieness" quotient soars when Colossus demands to keep a 24-7 watch over Forbin, and when the computer belches schematics for humans to build its "voice" (see above pic). The now-anachronistic "vocoder" Colossus voice still chills to the bone -- especially when it lectures Forbin that "freedom is an illusion," and how Forbin "will come to love" Colossus eventually.
The flick stars Eric Braeden, probably best known for his long stint on "Young and the Restless," but whom I'll always remember as the bad guy from Escape from the Planet of the Apes. Colossus is based on a novel by the same name, but what I didn't know is that the novel has two sequels: The Fall of Colossus and Colossus and the Crab. These sequels appear to be a bit silly after reading their synopses, but who knows. I've ordered the original, at least, because the novels are usually always [a lot] better than the film versions.
Oh, and if you didn't already figure it out, yes -- this very blog's name and images are [partly] an homage to this great film.
Newsarama's Graeme McMillan does it again with his famed Top Ten lists, this time hitting upon a topic of most interest to yours truly! Here is his list, with any comments by me to follow:
#10. The Legion of Super-Heroes. Featured Superboy traveling to the future to assist. And when he returned to the present, he lost all memory of what he had just did. Was never highly impressed by any of these stories.
#9. Prisoners of Doctor Doom! The first-ever appearance of the evil Doc in FF #5 made use his notorious "time platform" to send three of the quartet back to Blackbeard's time to nab some treasure. The Thing wanted to remain, but he couldn't, natch.
#8. Lost In Space-Time. Being an Avengers fan and a time-travel fan, I simply cannot believe I haven't read any of these stories. So, I promptly rectified that and ordered the TPB on Amazon yesterday!
#7. Doomquest. David Michelinie, Bob Layton and John Romita Jr.'s masterpiece, Shellhead and Doc Doom travel back to King Arthur's time. Was reprised -- in reverse -- almost a decade later (and exactly 100 issues later) when IM and DD go forward to the year 2093. Michelinie/Layton concluded the trilogy many years hence with Iron Man: Legacy of Doom.
#6. Armageddon 2001.
#5. Legion Quest / Age of Apocalypse.
#4. DC One Million.
#3. Avengers Forever. I'd have this at number one, hands down. And here's why.
#2. The Return of Bruce Wayne.
#1. Days of Future Past. The easy choice, I suppose, for the top spot because as it says the tale "changed everything for the X-Men, and created literally decades of stories ..." And, as you probably know, it'll be a major motion picture next summer!
One of the best science fiction series of all time (and true to creator Gene Roddenberry's "positive" vision of the future), I am intimately familiar with each and every episode of this late-80s/early-90s syndicated show. Each week I'll be dissecting an episode, good or bad, which will, if you're not a fan, will spark interest in you.
Our debut post is dedicated to one of the very best episodes of the entire series -- voted on by fans in 1994 as one of the Top Five TNG offerings ever. It comes from what is arguably TNG's finest season, season three: Yesterday's Enterprise.
The Enterprise-D encounters a disruption (rift) in the space-time continuum and while observing it a ship comes through the rift. We then see the bridge of the Enterprise-D undergo a massive change -- it's noticibly darker, Worf is missing, the Starfleet uniforms are different, and ... Tasha Yar is back as security chief. The timeline has been altered by the arriving ship. Yar announces to the incredulous crew that the ship that came through the fissue has Starfleet registry NCC-1701 ... C -- the Enterprise-C. Picard's vessel's predecessor was believed destroyed defending a Klingon outpost from a Romulan attack some 22 years prior. But that was in the timeline we know -- not this altered one.
The Enterprise-D away team transports over to the C and discovers that, though heavily damaged, the ship is salvagable, and there were many survivors of its [obvious] last battle. Wait -- "salvagable?" Why is that important? Because in this altered timeline, the Federation has been at war with the Klingon Empire for years ... and is losing. The C's Captain Garrett informs Capt. Picard that her vessel was in the middle of a battle against the Romulans in defense of that Klingon outpost. Picard informs Garrett that there is no record of her ship's battle, and more importantly, of it defending the Klingons. Data hypothesizes that had the Enterprise-C battled the Romulans on behalf of the Klingons (and most probably destroyed, as it was the C against four Romulan Warbirds), it would have been considered an honorable act by the Klingons ... and possibly prevented the war in which they're now engaged. As it is, it probably appears to the Klingons that the C fled the battle, even though it actually -- accidentally -- vanished in the space-time continuum fissure, brought about by high-energy weapons fire and explosions.
There's one crew member that definitively knows something's up: Guinan. As Data states in the episode, "Perhaps her race has a perception that goes beyond linear time." Indeed. Though she can't put a concrete finger on what is amiss, she frantically tells Capt. Picard that something is wrong -- that "all this" is wrong, and that Tasha Yar shouldn't even be here. She convinces Picard to have the Enterprise-C return through the space-time fissure, even though it will mean certain death for them. The stakes are huge: The lives of the crew of one Federation vessel vs. that of countless billions killed in the war with the Klingons.
Despite the opposition of officers like "Numbah One" Will Riker, Picard discusses the issue with Capt. Garrett and it's decided the C will return through the rift. However, just when things get started, several Klingon vessels show up and attack!
Capt. Garrett dies in the first wave of the attack, leaving Lt. Castillo to lead the C back to its proper time. However, Tasha Yar, who has become infatuated with Castillo, asks Capt. Picard to allow her to beam aboard the C to assist in its return -- since she's not supposed to be alive anyway. Picard agrees, and the 1701-C enters the rift as the Klingons return and pound the living sh** out of the Enterprise-D.
Suddenly, we see things as they were at the very beginning of the episode: Work informing Picard of a space-time disruption ... but now it has disappeared. The timeline has been returned to normal.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" is a gem of the Next Generation series. Five out of five stars, easily.
Grammys? What Grammys? Since music pretty much sucks these days, I opted to watch Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome this past Sunday, a prequel one-shot movie featuring a young Will Adama as a pilot in the Colonial Defense Forces. It's ten years into the Cylon War, and things haven't been going so great for the Colonials. Adama is cocky and enthusiastic, but his first experiences aboard the Galactica show him to be in the clear minority when it comes to vigor in destroying the robotic enemy. And why is that? Well, keep in mind that in this "re-imagined" Battlestar Galactica, the human race created the Cylons to serve them. (In the original 1979 series, the Cylons were "replacements," so to speak, of a near-extinct reptilian species.) It seems many Colonials aren't too hip to go to war with something created by them -- and subsequently treated rather despicably by them.
Adama and a colleague are ordered to transport a computer specialist to a remote ice planet on a secret mission. Supposedly, this specialist will upload a virus into the Cylon systems diabling their communications and defenses, thereby allowing the Colonials to mount a massive offensive. But OOPS! The specialist turns out to be a Cylon sympathizer whose "virus" seems to be akin to that which we saw in the original 2004 BSG [re-imagined] mini-series (which allowed the Cylons to shut down Colonial defenses thereby allowing them to decimate the twelve Colonial worlds), in this case it would reveal the location of a hidden "ghost" Colonial strike force. The specialist, wounded, informs Adama that the Cylons "were only defending themselves" (why they went to war), that the Colonials should negotiate with the Cylons, and that robots seem to value life more than humans.
OK, that's enough since there's really nothing new here from the original [re-imagined] BSG, which contained much of the same overall theme. And how many times have we seen this before? The Matrix. The Terminator. I, Robot. And part of this blog's moniker, Colossus: The Forbin Project. That aside, I'll bring up what was bandied about when the new BSG hit the airwaves -- that almost everything we're treated to these days in entertainment and in particular, sci-fi, is "dark," where humans are always to blame for their own predicament, where the line(s) between good and bad (or evil) are blurred beyond recognition ... or are non-existent altogether.
Was the original Battlestar Galactica too morally unambiguous? In it, the Cylons were created by a human-hating reptilian race which was now all but extinct. The robots wiped out the twelve human colonies mainly due to the traitorous Baltar (who, in the new series, was essentially seduced into revealing defense secrets to a humanoid Cylon), and from there the surviving Galactica led that "rag-tag fugitive fleet" to the mythical Earth. Producer Glen Larson is a Mormon, and wove Mormon themes into the series (many of which remained in the newer version, at least in name). In the middle of its only season in a two-parter, the Galactica comes upon a mysterious being named Count Iblis to whom it is strongly hinted is the Devil. This Iblis is fearful of a group of mysterious white lights that have been tracking him, and now, the Galactica. In the second part, Apollo and Starbuck see something frightening in Iblis' ship (supposed proof of his real ID), and subsequently Iblis kills Apollo. The white lights appear again with an adjacent ship, and angelic-like beings all dressed in white take Starbuck to Apollo -- where he is brought back to life. The battle between good and evil, God vs. Satan is so obvious it'll hit you over the head with a hammer. But is that bad?
Probably the most obvious -- and popular -- of "just plain good (guys)" is Star Trek. Especially with The Next Generation, Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of humanity among the stars is simply hard to top. Only Earth and United Federation of Planets appear to have their collective act together in the Trek-verse; everyone else has major issues, whether it's the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, or the Borg. The instances of Capt. Picard trotting out treaties and principles that must be upheld despite questionable circumstances are too numerous to mention. Picard threatening to expose a Starfleet admiral because he clandestinely developed a cloaking device in violation of treaty ("The Pegasus")? Check. Picard threatening to expose a Starfleet admiral because he's forcibly removing a population from their planet ... because Starfleet wants the special radiation that surrounds said planet (Star Trek: Insurrection)? Check. Picard rhetorically beating down an over-zealous Starfleet admiral who sees a conspiracy in everything ("The Drumhead")? Check. That was Roddenberry's vision, and he was very protective of it.
Then there's one of my favorite novels, Starship Troopers. Robert Heinlein's masterpiece has a mathematically-derived moral humanity battling it out with a race of intelligent insects in a more-than-obvious Cold War parable. We never doubt who the good guys are; indeed, Heinlein quite often in the book shows us where we were as a species, and why it's so much better now (then, actually, since it takes place in the far-future); in other words, "good." Frequently dubbed fascistic by some critics because of its militaristic tone, the book actually should satisfy left wingers due to its message of "doing what's best for the greater good of all." Except that, the manner in which the sci-fi master gets to that greater good is the issue: Only through a term of military service does one become ingrained with the necessary moral compass to know what's best for all. Or, to put it more simply (as was quoted several times in the not-at-all-like-the-novel film), "Everyone fights, no one quits." And that meant everyone. Generals fought right alongside privates in the trenches. No special privileges were permitted, which was one of the major downfalls of the "old militaries" of the past.
The new BSG, like much of what we've seen in scifi over the last few decades, is awash in conspiracy, intrigue, hidden agendas, and corporate villainy. After a while, it becomes a real downer, frankly. People want to feel good too, which escapism like science fiction can do well ... if you let it. They want to see the future optimistically, to know we can grow ... and do better.
DC Comics has issued a statement in response to gay groups' protests against the anti-same sex marriage creator:
“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
Many of the commenters at the above link are less-than-satisfied, however. Which, again, in my opinion, is just plain hypocritical. Some stated that being against gay "marriage" means you're a bigot, plain and simple. If this is truly the case, then approximately half the US population is comprised of bigots. Not to mention myriad religious groups.
As often as I've opined about the preachy leftism in comics today, I've never called for a creator to be fired for his/her political views. As Siskoid and I agreed in the comments here, if you don't like the creator, just don't buy his/her stuff. It's that simple.
Avi Green informs us of an article where former Iron Man writer Denny O'Neil claims that Tony Stark is one of nine comicbook characters he considers atheists:
...Larry’s Google search revealed that there are at least 17 atheist characters on series television and – here comes the shocker! – nine in comic books. Among them is a fella I thought I knew pretty well because, for three years or so,I was his chief biographer. Tony Stark’s the name, and Iron Man’s the game.
Avi takes issue with O'Neil's characterization:
Oh good grief. So now Tony's been turned into an atheist? Now that is definitely contrived. If he doesn't believe in God, then he doesn't believe he worked alongside Thor in the Avengers, nor does he believe in Asgard. What next, will the Marvel staff claim he hired Bambi Arbogast as a secretary because she's an atheist too?
Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't it been established that Thor, and hence his homeland of Asgard, is/are actually "just" an advanced race of aliens? The Universe X series (a sort of future history of the Marvel Universe) used this premise, as did clearly the Thor and The Avengers films. Therefore, Avi's defense is moot. That, and it has been clearly noted many times throughout Iron Man's/Tony Stark's long history that he hates magic. Stark is the epitome of a pure scientist -- he defines reality with science. And, I cannot recall any explicit reference in Iron Man or The Avengers where Stark engaged in something religious. Feel free to correct me if I am in error, of course.
To me it is perfectly logical that Tony Stark is an atheist. And I've no problem with that. That is, until some hack "progressive" writer comes along and decides to turn Stark into what too many atheists seem to be today: Whiny, arrogant, holier-than-thou (an oxymoron, I know) quasi-sages who simply know better than you. Merely because they do not believe in a supreme being.
Any fan of John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing has probably seen its prequel, the 2011 film by the same title. Unfortunately for the newer flick, even modern CGI can't make up for its completely unoriginal story -- it's essentially just like Carpenter's film.
However, not only does Carpenter's version leave open the possibility of a sequel, the new one does too. The prequel ends exactly where the 1982 film begins. At the end of Carpenter's story we see the [American] survivors Kurt Russell and Keith David sharing a bottle of whiskey while they await certain death at the hands of the brutal cold. In the new film, star Mary Elizabeth Winstead torches what she thinks is the last remaining Thing, and then attempts to make it to a "nearby" Russian outpost some 50 miles away in the remaining snow vehicle. In both films, we never see what happens to these three.
So, why not find out? The possibilities are endless!
Personally, I like linking a sequel to the 2011 film. Have Winstead make it to the Russian base, and upon informing them of what happened, subsequently a whole gaggle of Soviet military personnel, scientists, etc. make their way down to Antarctica. Finding nothing at the wrecked Norwegian outpost, the Russians make their way to the American base, whereupon they discover frozen Russell and Keith. Around the same time, an American rescue party arrives to determine what happened at the American base since there's been absolutely no communication from it in many weeks. The story now becomes a Cold War parable as the two superpowers race to unlock the secrets of the alien spacecraft, and uh oh! Why isn't Childs dead?? MWAHAHAHAH!
Newsarama's at it again with the Top Ten lists, this time a Worst Comic Book Animated Series of All Time. I haven't seen all on their list, but enough of them to know they're pretty much right on the money. Here's the highlights:
#10 and #2: Fred and Barney Meet the Thing. So bad that Newsarama lists it twice. Some brainchild thought it would be cool to make Ben Grimm (the Thing) a teenager, and have him hang out with the stars of The Flintstones. Seriously. Oh, and "Benjy" Grimm (that's what he was called) changed into the rocky orange monster ... via a ring. And saying "Thing Ring do your thing!" For real.
#9: The Marvel Superheroes. Gotta give a little break here since these came out in the mid-60s. Then again, animation of that era wasn't this lame. Basically, these 'toons were still pictures taken directly from the comics and given occasional animation -- usually just a moving mouth, sort of Clutch Cargo style. My fave Iron Man was among these offerings, and its theme song was immortalized in the 2008 film several times -- like when Stark was playing craps in Vegas (the band in the background), and Rhodey's cell phone ringtone.
#8: Black Panther. This 'toon only saw the light of day in Australia(!), mainly because the animation ain't much better than #8's above! And it was made in 2009! Originally slated for BET (Black Entertainment Television), the John Romita Jr.-drawn show definitely had an anti-Western (and even anti-white) tone.
#6: Avengers: United They Stand. As the Newsarama entry says, where's the Big Three -- Cap, Iron Man and Thor? It's also bad enough that Hawkeye's outfit looks like that from the dreadful "The Crossing," but instead of turning diamond hard, the Vision turns into something like ... a stone statue??
#1: The Fantastic Four. This is the 1978 version which did not include the Human Torch. Really. Because of some copyright hassle, the Torch was replaced by HERBIE the robot in what made for a dreadful half hour of Marvel's First Family.
A couple days ago we filled you in on who's in for what is sure to be THE film event of 2014; now, Newsarama has still more details. For one, it seems at this point that Famke Janssen (Jean Grey) and January Jones (Emma Frost) won't be in the flick.
The plot looks to follow the comicbook story (Uncanny X-Men #s 141 and 142) pretty closely. Director Bryan Singer says that
"It has a lot of aspects of the comic. The actual comic of Days Of Future Past had a whole ton of stuff going on, so it’s like any of these things; you have to distill it. But I think the fans will be pleased that some of the most exciting parts of Days Of Future Past are going to be connected to this movie.
It sounds like it would be easy enough to have several "contemporary" X-Men (those from the first three X-films) portray those in the dystopian timeline -- the necessary Kitty Pryde being one of these) -- and then use the method to contact the past (to hopefully alter the timeline) as seen in the comic (Pryde exchanges consciousness with her younger self). Also, look for the giant robot Sentinels to play a big role (as they do in the comics).
Interestingly, X-Men: First Class director Matthew Vaughn briefly spoke about that film's upcoming sequel:
"I've got some ideas for the opening for the next film," Vaughn said. "I thought it would be fun to open with the Kennedy Assassination, and we reveal that the magic bullet was controlled by Magneto. That would explain the physics of it, and we see that he's pissed off because Kennedy took all the credit for saving the world and mutants weren't even mentioned."
Hmm, I know that Kennedy Trutherism is probably one of the most acceptable conspiracy theories to believe in, but sheesh. At any rate, Newsarama's Albert Ching posits: "Could it be that it's not Robert Kelly's assassination that the X-Men are trying to foil (as in the comics), but rather a much less fictional politician (Kennedy)?"
Very interesting indeed!
Part one of five here.
... over at The Comics Journal.
Newsarama reports that many of the X-film veteran stars are returning for what is sure to be a blockbuster next year. "Days of Future Past" is the classic Chris Claremont/John Byrne X-Men tale from 1981 which establishes a dystopian future (an alternate timeline much used, by the way, in many subsequent issues of X-Men) where mutants have been hunted down and either killed or interned, and North America is ruled by the mutant-hunting Sentinels. This future was triggered by the assassination of Senator Robert Kelly by a band of evil mutants in 1980. (Ironically, the future scenes in the comics take place in our current year of 2013.) Kitty Pryde (played by Juno star Ellen Page in X-Men 3) devises a plan to exchange her consciousness with that of her 1980 counterpart in an effort to prevent the senator's murder, and hence, the dystopian timeline.
Screenrant notes that hotshot comics guy Mark Millar has been tasked with making the film version of "Future Past" tie together all the X-related films. He'll have his work cut out for him. The X-films have paid little mind to continuity in their many offerings. Here's just a sample of the inconsistencies, some repeated from this past post of mine:
So far, Ian McKellen (older Magneto), Patrick Stewart (older Prof X), James McAvoy (young Prof X), Michael Fassbender (young Magneto), Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), Anna Paquin (Rogue), Jennifer Lawrence (young Mystique), Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), Nicholas Hoult (young Beast), and Shawn Ashmore (Iceman) are all slated to appear in Days of Future Past. It opens July 18, 2014.
Get this: Way- overhyped comics guy Rob Liefeld has penned -- wait for it -- a 100 page screenplay about the formation of Image Comics.
One question: Why?
Well, of course anyone familiar with this hack knows why: I doubt anyone in the industry has a bigger (and undeserved) ego than Liefeld. In the terrific book Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, author Sean Howe says that, essentially, Liefeld came upon the comics scene at precisely the right time. The early 90s were a time of ridiculous speculation in the industry; Marvel and main rival DC were churning out crossover after crossover (so readers would have to buy multiple titles to figure out what the heck was going on), putting out books with special covers (foil and chromium) and other "special" gimmicks. But perhaps most importantly they were [re]introducing a lot of "Number 1" editions. Fans hoarded these editions with the hope that years down the line they'd be able sell them for a lot of money.
It didn't work (for the fans, that is). Though Liefeld-drawn issues and titles with new Liefeld characters sold millions of copies, the novelty of all the gimmicks quickly died out. Comic shops had a glut of #1 issues (which, years later, you could pick up for around 50 cents in bargain bins). Still, Liefeld and other Marvel guys, their egos now as bloated as their wallets, ditched Stan Lee's company and founded Image Comics. (To give you an idea of the conceit the Image guys had, Howe notes that Todd MacFarlane, who gained fame drawing Spider-Man and created Spawn for Image, once bragged to a Marvel editor that he could sell a million issues of a comic that contained only blank pages -- as long as his name was on it.) (Minor correction added 1/27: MacFarlane actually said to editor Danny Fingeroth, "You sell a million, I'll listen to you. If I can turn in 22 blank pages and the kids buy a million copies, who cares how comic books have been done for the past 50 years?")
Just like when they were at Marvel, some of the Image guys (like Liefeld) were missing deadlines, which royally pissed off dealers who were (obviously) eagerly awaiting the books from these "hot" creators. Still, throughout the decade, Liefeld and crew remained in demand ...
... so much in demand that in the late 90s Marvel asked Liefeld and co-Image guy Jim Lee to return to the company in order to "re-imagine" some of their marquee characters: Capt. America, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four and the Avengers. In what was dubbed "Heroes Reborn," these heroes were cast off into a "pocket universe" where the Image duo would rework the heroes' origins and pretty much do as they wished. While Lee's books -- Iron Man and Fantastic Four did well, Liefeld's books, in particular Captain America, were dismal. Marvel ended up relieving Liefeld of his "Heroes Reborn" contract.
Take a gander at some of Liefeld's Captain America (vol. 2) #1 (courtesy of my now-defunct comics blog). First, here's Cap (Steve Rogers) and a guy named Abe:
Notice above that Rogers is about what -- roughly a head taller than Abe? Not so fast:
Look! Somehow, Rogers miraculously grew about two feet, or Abe suddenly contracted osteoporosis and shrunk by same!
And then there's Rob's remarkable grasp of human anatomy:
Yep, there sure are a lot of people out there with arms that dwarf people's entire bodies! Yet, perhaps there is no picture which best exemplifies Liefeld's anatomical ineptitude than this one:
C'mon, say it with me: "W. T. F.??"
The "Reborn" titles were merely a [bad] extension of what made the Image guys famous -- huge, action-based panels with ridiculously proportioned characters ... and very minimal story-telling/dialogue. To show you just how minimal, former Iron Man fanzine Advanced Iron's Bill Egan did an analysis of "Reborn" Iron Man and Acclaim Comics' X-O Manowar. Here's what he found:
Average # of panels per page: Iron Man: 3.18; X-O: 4.5 Total # of panels: Iron Man: 70; X-O: 99
Average # of words per page: Iron Man: 38.9; X-O: 136.23
Total # of words: Iron Man: 856; X-O: 2997.
See? X-O Manowar had roughly three and a half times more written story than Iron Man.
At any rate, if you contain your laughter, be sure to check out some of the pages of the Liefeld's aforementioned screenplay. (Note, too, his bad grammar.) Also, scroll down to see whom Rob wants to play who in the film (he wants Star Trek's Chris Pine and John Cho to play him and Jim Lee respectively).
Via Jonah Goldberg at The Corner:
Briefly sidelined by Sandy, FX’s The Americans started production in New York in December and gets a speedy launch on the network later this month.
The thriller, which stars Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys as embedded Soviet spies in 1981 Washington, DC, made an appearance during Wednesday’s Television Critics Association winter press tour — and producers were quick to emphasize who viewers should be rooting for.
“It might be a little different to believe and get used to, but we want you to root for the KGB,” said EP Joel Fields. “They’re going to try to get the Soviets to win the Cold War.”
History knows they’re fighting a losing battle, but the creative team behind the high-profile launch expressed a confidence that more than enough time has passed for American audiences to not hold a grudge.
Really? What's next -- a show about a team of Nazis embedded within the Warsaw Ghetto in order to track down and murder even more European Jews during the 1930s-40s? Hasn't enough time passed to "not hold a grudge"?
Fields also said “If you tried to tell a story like this about al-Qaeda now, it would be impossible; no one would want to hear it.” How 'bout that? Yeah, maybe 30 years or so hence, we'll be treated to The Infidels, about a team of covert American Islamic jihadists planning major terror attacks within the US. It'll work -- we won't hold a grudge, right?
The Japanese got the corner on the extension, for what it's worth:
It's not an entirely fair question, certainly, given the age of the franchise, but we'll try to be as even-handed as possible. Take a gander at this most-cool graphic (via Insty). In my view, the winner is Jane Seymour (at right; Solitaire from Live and Let Die). She still is seen on those commercials pitching her product line (for whatever store chain it is) and she looks fabulous. And who didn't want Owen Wilson to take advantage of her overtures in Wedding Crashers??
And the "Uh, yeah -- OKs":
First, I admit I dig it for the sheer unbridled fun and patriotism, but anyone with a dose of moderate reality has to admit that the original Red Dawn (1984) is an unadulterated piece of excrement. And it starts right from the very beginning (literally) with what we have to accept before the attack begins:
I suppose if we can buy all of the above, then we can also accept that much of the mixed Soviet/Cuban/Nicaraguan landing forces arrived via "masqueraded" commercial jets. (Shot-down Air Force Colonel Powers Booth tell us so.) I suppose we can also buy that our presumed allies in this whole farce -- the Red Chinese, of all countries -- would just sit back and not answer the annihilation of almost half a billion of their citizens via Russian nukes. (A Wolverine: "I thought there were a billion screamin' Chinamen." Powers Booth: "There were." [Tosses whiskey on fire causing dramatic flare-up] Remember?) I'm no nuclear war strategist, but it seems to me that if China had nearly half its population incinerated, they'd have little qualms about totally retaliating against the USSR in any way possible. It's unlikely the Soviets would zap all of China's then-estimated 360 nukes, so it stands to reason the Chi-Coms would off quite a few Soviet targets in response. Not to mention a land invasion of the sparsely populated western portion of the USSR.
Alas, Booth's statement that the war was "pretty much conventional now" stands to reason. If the Soviets had managed to off much of our land-based ICBMs thus leaving only our nuclear subs, their ultimatum of "If you launch those we will utterly FINISH you" could cause US leaders to refrain from an all-out nuclear counter-offensive.
And why not? The president knows he has THE WOLVERINES defending the western half of our beloved country for him!
Uh huh. Right. Guess the best Russian and Cuban troops were fighting elsewhere.
The Wall St. Journal pans the new Red Dawn flick as "manipulative," full of "horse-pill jingoism," and "plays readily into classical stereotypes."
Those that depict Asia as a Mordor-like alien netherland where every hand wields a weapon and every weapon points at the throat of the civilized West — and those that treat Asians as an interchangeable, all-same mass. Can’t offend these Asians? Well, let’s just say they’re those Asians instead. A little cosmetic adjustment to flags and uniforms, and we’re off to the races....
Writer Tao Jones' solution? Make Red Dawn about invading aliens. Uh, hello?? Independence Day?? War of the Worlds?? Yeesh.
Look, I'm as incredulous as the next guy when I think of North Korea invading the US (instead of China -- remember, the movie had to change the bad guys away from the Chi-Coms because 1) they were pissed off, and 2) you don't want to piss off a movie market audience of that size!); however, if the premise from what I've read is correct, the Norks use a "new type of weapon" preceding their actual invasion. It's probably something like an EMP device which would shut down any and all electronics over a vast area, depending on the size of the device.
Of course, the United States would retaliate completely, effectively turning North Korea into a smoldering glob of radioactive glass. But that would only be slightly worse than what the Norks live in today! Their regime is irrational and paranoid, and if you read One Second After -- about a hypothetical EMP attack on the US mainland -- you'd know that such an attack could result in over 100 million deaths. Think that'd be worth the Norks' existence -- especially if the honcho "intelligentsia" of that country jaunted off to another locale before they zapped us?
Who knows. But it's a freakin' movie, after all. One can only imagine what Jones would whine about had the movie been about radical Islamists using a similar device, invading a portion of America, and instituting strict Islamic law across the region. Not that the filmmakers would have done that, of course ... they wouldn't want a fatwa issued against them!
I cannot believe I neglected to catch the Fox series "Fringe" when it first came out. Thankfully, the Science Channel ran a two-day marathon Friday through Saturday of the series' entire first season ... and is beginning season two regularly on Tuesday evenings. The show is very much like the "X-Files, but concentrates its emphasis on alternate realities -- specifically a particular parallel reality that is causing our own some havoc.
I've always been a huge fan of the "multiverse theory." One of my favorite Marvel Comics titles was What If? which had several volumes beginning in the 1970s which explored, well, what if something happened at a pivotal moment in Marvel history? The inaugural issue detailed what would have happened had Spider-man joined the Fantastic Four (because in Amazing Spider-Man #1 he tried to do just that; see below).
Once an alternate reality has been established by Marvel, it is given a numerical designation. The "main" or "prime" Marvel reality is that of Earth 616 (see here as to why it's this number), whereas that created by Spider-Man joining the Fantastic Four is Earth-772. Some realities have obviously become incredibly popular, such as the Age of Apocalypse reality (Earth-295) via the X-Men, and the Days of Future Past reality (Earth-811) via same, but some of my faves are a bit more ... obscure. Let's take a look, shall we?
EARTH-712. This is the home reality of one of my favorite superhero teams, the Squadron Supreme. I first became enamored with this group because they fought the Avengers during the time I first began to take an interest in [Marvel] comics. The SS is basically Marvel's knock-off version of the Justice League, and they've had a very difficult time of it. I detailed why at my old comics blog over three years ago.
EARTH-1610. Better known as the "Ultimate Universe," this is the reality where classic Marvel characters were "updated" to contemporary times. The Avengers are The Ultimates on this Earth, and much of The Avengers film is based on this team's first volume of issues.
EARTH-9997. The frequently misunderstood "Earth X" universe designed by comics painter supreme Alex Ross, if you want to experience a funnybook cerebral explosion beyond measure, seek out all the "X" trade paperbacks and allot yourself about a week. Then, if you can figure it all out, report back to me.
EARTH-689. This is the reality from the classic Avengers Annual #2 from 1968. In this reality, the Avengers as we know them ended up being diverted here, where they encountered the earliest incarnation of the team. Unbeknownst to our team, the evil Scarlet Centurion had convinced this Earth's Avengers to trounce every other superhero on the globe so as to make the planet ripe for conquest. Check it: The Centurion is yet another manifestation of the classic Avengers villain Kang, and was the main protagonist of Earth-712's super-team, the aforementioned Squadron Supreme.
EARTH-??? The reality that recent commenter (and supposed comics fan) "Questionman" comes from since he obviously has some major difficulties in the realm of reading comprehension and making assumptions.
Via Entertainment Weekly:
Via Yahoo! UK we're treated to the rumor mill surrounding "Episode IV's" possible sequel ideas from the late 70s:
1) Han Solo battles Vader.
The most intriguing rumour nugget on the pile was that Harrison Ford's iconic scoundrel was to wield a lightsaber in the anticipated sequel. It wasn't that simple however; in a battle with Vader towards the end of the film, it was reported that both Solo and Vader's lightsaber's would fuse together, combining the life forces of both.
When Luke came to the rescue, he would be faced with a conundrum: If he kills Vader, would he not also kill his friend?
Hube says: Lame. Han is a rambunctious adventurer who was shown to be very skepitcal of the Force. Nevertheless, if Luke was a full-fledged Jedi in the sequel, I'm sure he could've figured out how to extricate Solo from his predicament, and then lay Vader low.
2) Vampires and Princess Leia falls for the Dark Side.
At one point Luke and C-3PO were apparently going to be captured by a "horrendous" alien and dropped off in a prison full of breathable liquid.
Weirder still, the only way to kill their alien captor was to drive a metal stake through its heart, like Dracula. With no option, Luke was going to melt down his friend Threepio and use him as the stake to kill their oppressor and escape.
In another dark twist, Princess Leia was said to be captured once more by Vader and seduced by the dark side of the force to betray her friends and the rebel cause.
Hube says: The first idea blows, but the second has merit. Imagine seeing how a Dark Side-seduced Leia would be dressed as opposed to the outfit Jabba made her wear in Return of the Jedi!
3) The cast uses time travel.
Black holes and time-warps were both rumoured to be space crevices the Millennium Falcon would tumble through in the 'Star Wars' sequel.
Luke, Han and Chewbacca were allegedly going to travel back to the time of the Clone Wars and fight alongside a younger Obi Wan Kenobi and his padawan Anakin Skywalker.
In another scenario Han and Chewie land on a desert planet to find 13th Century time-travellers fighting Stormtroopers off with crossbows and catapults. As ridiculous as it sounds, the kernel of the idea may have found its way onto the screen in 'Return of the Jedi' with the Ewoks and their Empire-confounding shenanigans.
Hube says: Count me in. I'm a big time travel fan and that first scenario sounds delightful. And, as the article states, it does sound better than what we got in "Episode II."
4) Who was Luke and Leia's pop really?
There was talk of both Obi Wan being Luke's father and the much more interesting idea that Obi Wan is revealed to have murdered Anakin Skywalker, with Anakin not eventually becoming Vader. Obi Wan is a character who barely develops over the course of the original films; remaining a mentor figure and a beacon of the light side. This would have lent a nice darker shade to the character.
Leia's adopted father, the ruler of Alderaan, was also once reported to have a bigger role in the overall story. He was rumoured to be in the pocket of the Emperor, and to have had a part in the destruction of his own planet before escaping to be Palpatine's right hand man.
Hube says: Color me interested. I like the idea of flshing out Obi Wan's character, and how many of you really wondered about 'ol Ben having offed Darth back in the day? Would'a been nice, and certainly would have added a cool maudlin aspect to the story.
5) Who to play the emperor (and more)?
Speaking of Vader's evil mentor, his involvement was correctly predicted early on in reports on the film, but who would play him was subject of some debate. Two names popped up: Christopher Lee and Orson Welles.
Christopher Lee of course got his chance to play a Sith in Episode's II and III, but Orson Welles would have undoubtedly been fantastic as the series' big bad, purely because he's Orson Welles!
There were many other rumours, such as our heroes meeting an evil space queen, Rebels enlisting winged aliens called Quarrels to their cause and Luke convincing Vader to join turn good earlier than he eventually does.
Hube says: Either actor would have made a great emperor; however, who really cares about the other stuff other than seeing Luke convincing Vader to join the good side? That could have been cool, especially a climax with a battle against him and the emperor.
If the rumors are true, ugh:
According to a new rumor, Disney has been asking the same question. While original stars Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford are expected to reprise their roles, what about the most iconic figure in the Star Wars universe? A new report claims the Mouse House is trying to figure out a way to resurrect Darth Vader and have him be a part of the sequels.
“He’s an integral part of the franchise. Replacing him is virtually impossible,” a “film mole” tells British tabloid Express. “The plan is for him to return and play a significant role in the new films.”
The source adds, “This is science fiction, remember. Darth Vader will rise from the ashes.”
Puh-lease. Like many commenters at the link above, I agree that a "ghostly" or "spectral" Darth (like that seen at the end of Return of the Jedi) and/or some flashbacks sequences would be appropriate. But it seems Disney is listening way too much to its other property, Marvel, for advice. Comics fans have had it up to here with gratuitous character deaths and resurrections; if this is the plan for Vader, you can count me out. I'll wait until the damn thing comes on Encore.
Because, y'know, no one demanded it.
First off, Skyfall does not -- NOT! -- top Daniel Craig's debut in Casino Royale. In fact, it really isn't even close. But it certainly is [much] better than Quantum of Solace if that's any consolation.
SPOILERS BELOW THE FOLD!
The title comes from the name of Bond's childhood home, which plays a pivotal role in the film towards the end. More on that in a bit. The film opens in Turkey where Bond and a female operative (who'll be revealed later) are after a stolen hard drive that contains the names of MI6 agents the world-over. As 007 is battling the remaining bad guy atop a train, M (Judi Dench) orders the female operative to "take the shot" -- despite the fact that Bond will likely get hit and perish as well. The operative nails Bond, but the bad guy escapes -- with the valuable hard drive. Oops.
Of course we know that Bond survives the shot and subsequent fall (into a river). However, the hard drive leads to the infiltration of MI6 by cyber-genius (and former MI6 agent) Raoul Silva. Javier Bardem is absolutely masterful as the villain -- deliciously devious and incredibly slyly insane. His machinations lead to a massive explosion at MI6 headquarters, resulting in half a dozen deaths and the agency moving to low-tech digs in old WWII era (and earlier) underground bunkers and tunnels.
007, who has been taking it easy, so to speak, somewhere, sees the news about the MI6 on the tube at a bar and decides he has to go back. This is where the film takes a wrong turn, in my view. Taking a page from the not-officially sanctioned Never Say Never Again, Bond hence has to prove himself ready, physically and mentally, to rejoin the British Secret Service. He actually fails to do so, but M green lights him anyway. If you're a big fan of Craig's first two outings as Bond (as I am), this whole "Bond is getting old" schtick doesn't seem to fit as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace demonstrated that this was a new era for Bond -- a tougher, grittier and more fit 007. Indeed, Ralph Fiennes plays Mallory, the chairman of the government's Intelligence and Security Committee, who continually hassles Bond about his age and fitness (physical and mental). C'man. But then again ... maybe ...
At any rate, the newly reactivated Bond journeys to Shanghai on a lead based on shrapnel taken from a wound from his initial scuffle with the bad guy in Turkey. After dispatching of said bad guy, he then encounters the beautiful Sévérine (played by Bérénice Lim Marlohe) who agrees to take him to Silva. It is here, at a secluded and deserted island, that Bardem really shines as Silva. This sort of role has been played before -- the vengeful secret operative out to get his former employers -- but Bardem takes it to whole other level. He attempts to convince 007 of his "righteousness," even trying to get Bond to join him. It is more than hinted at that Silva is a homosexual, and Bond even hints that he's had a gay tryst (or two) in the course of his many past missions! Whoa! Nevertheless, Bond has been carrying a radio transmitter given to him by the new Q (Ben Whishaw, at right), and the MI6 suddenly appears via several helicopters to take Silva into custody.
Back at the "new" MI6 HQ, as Silva wallows in detention, Q attempts to access Silva's computer. He unwittingly allows the computer to infiltrate MI6's systems (again) thus enabling the villain to escape. Bond pursues Silva through the London subway ("Tube") system, but he escapes (after an incredible Silva-induced subway crash scene). Silva and a few henchmen head for the hearing room where M is testifying before a panel who're miffed at her (and MI6's) intel failures (i.e. allowing that hard drive to be captured). Silva and his cohorts arrive and begin shooting up the place, but M is unharmed. Mallory (Fiennes) surprisingly(?) demonstrates bravery, preventing a few deaths and taking a bullet in the shoulder.
Shortly thereafter, Bond whisks M away from the mess and tells her that they've "been going about this all wrong." Silva has managed to stay one step ahead of the MI6 the whole time because they've "been playing his game." Bond suggests changing the rules, so to speak, and takes M out to the desolate countryside of Scotland ... to Bond's childhood home. To get "away" from technology and go "old school." There we meet the house's keeper, Kincaid, and along with Bond and M he gets the house ready for Silva's inevitable assault.
Silva and a gang eventually arrive and blow Bond's house to shreds in their attempt to kill M (and Bond), but Kincaid has escaped with M through a hidden tunnel while Bond remains in the [shredded] house to continue to do battle. After 007 sets off two huge propane tanks that destroys the rest of the house, the wreckage that goes flying destroys Silva's helicopter, preventing his departure. Only Silva and two bad guys remain now, and they give chase to M and Kincaid. Bond sets off in pursuit, but he's stopped by Silva and co. A last ditch effort by Bond kills the henchmen, but Silva corners M and Kincaid in a nearby chapel. Alas, 007 arrives in the proverbial nick, lancing a knife into Silva's back. But -- M was injured in the attack on the house, and soon after dies in Bond's arms! Thus ends the Judi Dench era as M, begun in 1995 in Pierce Brosnan's Bond debut in Goldeneye.
In the epilogue, it is revealed that the "female operative" (Naomie Harris, at left) who had assisted Bond in the prologue and again in Shanghai is none other than [the new] Eve Moneypenny. She's given up field work and will now work directly with M and the double-Os in the main office. Did I just mention M? Indeed, who takes Judi Dench's place? It's none other than Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), who now welcomes James Bond into his office with a new vigor, perspective, and ... respect. He informs 007 that "there's a lot of work to do" and asks "are you ready?" To which Bond enthusiastically responds, "Yes sir, M -- with pleasure."
Skyfall is a terrific entry to the James Bond mythos. However, as noted at the top, it still doesn't eclipse Casino Royale for sheer awesomeness despite all its critical acclaim and hype. In my view, this is due to Casino's better combination of action sequences to "down time," not to mention its much more diverse locales. In Casino we began in eastern Europe, then to Madagascar, to the Bahamas, Miami, and then to Montenegro. The vast majority of Skyfall occurs in dreary London and Scotland. Skyfall shines, though, with its [re]introduction of classic characters Moneypenny and Q, its homage to what has gone before (the classic Bond theme and music, and the Aston Martin from Goldfinger), and its consistency with keeping Craig's Bond realistic and gritty. I mean, who'da thought that with Q coming back all we'd see him provide 007 with was a palm gun and cheesy radio distress transmitter? Speaking of which, Whishaw's Q is delightfully arrogant and childlike, a perfect specimen for the current generation of cocky technophiles.
Skyfall can easily be placed in the top ten of all-time Bond films, and Bardem's Silva is a top five villain.
Hube's rating: Four out of five stars.
The first two epsiodes are online and available now; the full movie will be on SyFy early next year.
I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about the film if I didn't already know what the outcome was. Nevertheless, it's pretty cool seeing the flashbacks to the Cylon uprising and use of "classic" imagery like the original series Vipers and Cylon Raiders, the original Cylon base-stars, and original Cylon centurions.
Looks pretty good but nothing like the story I read. I don't think the book in it's original form was something that could be made into a film unless they wanted to do it documentary style.
(Via Geeks are Sexy)
Spinoff reports that Episode VII will be an original story -- no basis on anyone's novels or anything else.
“Forget the Star Wars novels. Forget the graphic novels. Forget everything you think you know about what happens to Luke Skywalker. According to my sources, Episode 7 will literally be nothing you’ve ever seen or read before from the Star Wars universe.”
Disney has just acquired the rights to Lucasfilm (George Lucas' film company, natch) and promises a brand new Star Wars flick in three years:
For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next… It’s now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers. I’ve always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime. I’m confident that with Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy, and having a new home within the Disney organization, Star Wars will certainly live on and flourish for many generations to come. Disney’s reach and experience give Lucasfilm the opportunity to blaze new trails in film, television, interactive media, theme parks, live entertainment, and consumer products.
Ms. Kennedy will serve as executive producer on new Star Wars feature films, with George Lucas serving as creative consultant. Star Wars Episode 7 is targeted for release in 2015, with more feature films expected to continue the Star Wars saga and grow the franchise well into the future.
I've never read any Star Wars-related novels, so I've no idea whatsoever what a sequel would entail. A continuing battle between Rebel forces and those of the Galactic Empire leading to a restoration of the Galactic Republic? An all-new force of Jedi Knights? The execution of Jar Jar Binks?
Whatever the case, I'll be there come 2015.
In case you're wondering:
Comicbook rendition of the Mandarin.
And ever wonder just what Mandarin's Ten Rings of Power can do? Wonder no more:
Spinoff says that the new X-Men: First Class film (due in July 2014) will be based on the classic early 80s "Days of Future Past" story by Chris Claremont and John Byrne. If true, this could be the blockbuster of all comics films, at least in terms of plot. The comics detailed a dystopian future where the Sentinels have killed just about every superhero in North America and basically rule the continent, dividing people into three distinct groups -- human, mutant potential, and mutant -- and are preparing to spread that rule elsewhere. Other countries have warned that if this happens, they'll unleash their nuclear arsenals against them. To prevent worldwide nuclear holocaust, a few mutant survivors -- Magneto, Kitty Pryde, Colossus, Storm, and Wolverine among others -- concoct a plan to have Kitty exchange minds with her younger self in the early 80s to warn the X-Men about the "catalyst moment" that led to the bleak future: The assassination of Senator Robert Kelly. (He was featured in the first X-Men film -- captured by Magneto and turned into an "artificial" mutant who then subsequently died.)
Spinoff reports that the sequel "might" feature the giant robot Sentinels; if it doesn't, it'll be lame, quite frankly. But Mark Millar in the article mentions "time travel" and "robots," so who else would these robots be? Not only that, fans got a tantalizing taste of the Sentinels in X-Men 3's Danger Room scene, and the mutant-hunting robots have been an X-Men staple villain since the mutants' earliest adventures. It just makes pure sense to feature them.
Woody Harrelson, Martin Sheen, and Ed Asner are among those signed on to the project.
No word yet on whether trust funder Jason "Reasonable People Can Disagree About Whether or not George Bush Had Prior Knowledge of the 9/11 Attacks" Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers will help bankroll the film.
My bud Carl over at Carl's Comics was the inspiration for this idea, especially since he recently wrote about one of the biggest sci-fi lemons of all-time. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, from the year 2000, Battlefield Earth.
Star John Travolta apparently wanted to make this film since he is a well-known Scientologist and B.E. was written by the cult's founder, L. Ron Hubbard. Based on Hubbard's book of the same name, it details an enslaved humanity (what few remain) ruled by the Psychlos -- approximately nine-foot tall aliens with six fingers, huge, hairly heads, and colorful eyes. The film doesn't even really try very hard to hide the ridiculous elevator shoes that stars Travolta and Forest Whitaker have to wear to "gain" such a height. These Psychlos apparently come from a different dimension, not just a different planet (according to the novel, that is; the film is cryptic about this), and they're basically like Star Trek's Ferengi species -- merciless capitalists who've ruined Earth for its supply of gold.
Which is stupid. Really. If you want gold then why not freakin' mine some asteroids, huh?
"No, instead we're gonna invade and destroy another intelligent species whose atmosphere is poisonous to us, and whose remaining population we need to mine our precious gold because radiation (radiation? That must be from the weapons we used against the humans) will ignite the gases we need to breath.
"Oh, and then we'll construct a glass dome over the city of Denver which will contain our natural atmosphere. Not something nigh-unbreakable like plexiglass or even, y'know, an advanced material since we're a dimension-hopping intelligent species ... but glass. That's not risky, right?
"Oh, and how did we become so developed when we can't even start a freakin' fire in our own atmosphere? One of those pesky human slaves, after all, managed to hop aboard one of our teleport machines with an atomic bomb ... and set it off on our home planet. One second later it was 'Goodbye, Psychlos.'"
Lest you think the silliness is solely the realm of the Psychlos, imagine a bunch of near-feral humans discovering a thousand-year old military depot -- with miraculously preserved equipment and devices -- and then operating what they find nearly flawlessly. Feral humans flying jet aircraft -- taking on and defeating Psychlos fighter craft. Y'know, the same sort of craft which Travolta brags about earlier in the film as destroying the world's greatest military in around twelve minutes. And those human aircraft were piloted by experts!!
So, if you're looking around for a delightfully dreadful scifi flick which will make you laugh quite often (and not on purpose, mind you), Battlefield Earth is for you.
Our own Wilmington News Journal has a write-up today about the new NBC drama "Revolution" -- about life in a society where all electrical power has vanished. It takes place fiften years after the "event."
My question is: Is it realistic? I'm not watching because I've become so turned off by the "unrealisticness" of such programs. Most recently, I gave TNT's "Falling Skies" a shot, but frankly, it's terrible. I dropped it after the first season, and that was pushing it to the limit. Even decent actors Noah Wylie and Will Patton can't save the show from basic silliness and the crappy acting of the other stars. Recall that the re-imagined "Battlestar Galactica" fell victim to not being realistic even right off the bat; however, great stories and a good measure of conflict between the realists and "unrealists" on the show made it great until the middle of the third season or so.
I'm curious as to the explanation of how all power worldwide could suddenly be extinguished. It seems way too far-fetched. Even an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack couldn't blanket the entire globe simultaneously. For a really realistic (and scary) look at what would happen after an EMP attack (on the United States), go read William Forstchen's One Second After.
If you're watching "Revolution," let me know what you think.
... about "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (it's its 25th anniversary, after all). McMillan writes
Here’s the terrible secret about The Next Generation: The first year is kind of terrible. At first I thought that, perhaps, I was being a little too harsh on it – I’m not the biggest fan of the series, and, I figured, perhaps there are some odd charms that I’m missing because I’m not one of the hardcore – and so I asked Twitter for some guidance, only to receive a quick affirmation of my original feeling: For those looking to make a start on the show today, you might do well to skip that first year.
(That’s not to say that there aren’t any good episodes that year, but they’re few and far between, and even the best don’t compare that well with the average episode from, say, season three or four.)
The second season, too, may be better left untouched, at least to start with, if the Twitteratti are to be believed. That’s a fair assessment; although the show had improved greatly on its first outing, too many things are still falling into place to be able to convince the uninitiated. The second season makes for a fine place to back up and revisit once you’ve decided that you actually like this whole Next Generation in the first place, but considering everyone is still wearing their onesie costumes and there’s a replacement doctor for the whole year, maybe it’s not a good place to throw yourself into without some immunization.
He goes on to note that TNG really begins to rock with season 3, and I totally agree. I didn't really get into TNG until then, and you can instantly tell that that's where the series finally caught its stride. As Graeme advises, I caught seasons one and two in reruns years later. I realized (easily) I didn't miss very much.
Here's the most worthy episodes (very subjectively speaking, of course) of TNG's otherwise dismal first two seasons:
This is interesting.
Fair warning: NSFW, violence, language etc.
Friends, Americans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears;
I come to bury this movie, not to praise it.
Seriously, we have some major disagreements in this country but I think we can all agree that this fiasco has to be destroyed:
Screen Rant has the details. But based on the (hilarious) video below, is Starfleet really ready for a starship-leading Captain Worf?
Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the hit show, CBR is asking the title of this post. I'm a huge fan of a the series, and 'tho some aspects of it are already dated (away teams don't take miniature cameras with them so the poor captain has to sit and imagine what's going on, like some 1930s radio listener?), aside from most of the first two seasons, the episodes are pretty well written.
I've been pretty consistent in ranking my top five entries of TNG over the years, although they may have switched places here and there:
1. "Yesterday's Enterprise." A rift in time propels the Enterprise-C twenty-two years into the future to encounter the Enterprise-D, drastically altering the timeline. The Federation and Klingon Empire are at war, and the former is losing. The older Enterprise must return to its own time at all costs -- but will it make it?