Under the sea. They're there too.

Ramblings Post #406
Long is the night, the sounds of traffic and the city outside my window, the last of the summer air hanging about my house. Quiet reigns, and in the stillness the weight of years presses down upon the soul and mind drifts back along the halls of memory, looking for something. It finds words. It's always the words there, waiting to dance, scurrying about, waiting to sing, waiting for me.   

There is so much to unpack here.

Just as my feed became dotted with collages of images of young black girls - and some older black girls - excited to the point of tears of seeing The Little Mermaid's Ariel as portrayed by Halle Bailey, as if on cue, triggered by the idea of some iota, some of a sliver of joy for someone other than themselves - those people arrived. You know who I'm talking about. And in my feed I found where someone had pointed out this comment. And honestly, it begs the question.  

Why would changing this character "fix" the whole movie?

I once theorized in long ago entry that one day something like this would come pass for the film industry. Where the tech would be so good you wouldn't really need actors, just the specs of the people you wanted in the film, and we'd be able to create films whole cloth for a few thousand dollars that looked like they cost a many millions to make. Of course that cheap price tag would be bootleg, as famous actors (or just beautiful people) would definitely charge big bucks to license their images just like now. And I imagined studios remaking films from the libraries with actors who previously could never have worked together, like a prime Marlon Brando co-starring with a young Humphrey Bogart and Brad Pitt in something together. I follow a guy on Instagram who makes posters and everything. It's pretty cool.

But in my naivete, I missed this concept as a possibility.

In retrospect I should have been able to put to the pieces together. There are already a few firms that specialize in sanitizing films for religious audiences, Ala edited for TV only in those cases edited for sin. And the ongoing shenanigans over the very existence of non-white folks in fantasy settings, where people are okay with dragons, magic that works and demons but draw the line at black people. I mean, that's just too unrealistic. And I know that new generation deep fakes which are going to be a real headache for politics in the future. So the idea that somewhere a guy wouldn't work overtime to remove what he might see as "undesirable elements" from his favorite piece of cinema shouldn't have been a stretch at all.   

Why would changing this character "fix" the whole movie?

It's the use of the word "fix" that gets me. As though the idea of a non-white version of an entirely fictional character being the center of the story somehow breaks that story. (Point of order - Disney's live action remakes of cartoon classics have been of dubious quality of late, so I hope they realize they're on thin ice here and take extra care.) It is a STORY, purely fiction and as such it can always be revised. The previous Disney version isn't even the original story. Let's be honest, when studios want to they don't even care if it was a true story,  they switch facts all the time to fit the tale that sells tickets..um, I mean, that they want to tell. So why the outrage? 

These are the stars of 2016's Gods Of Egypt. They gonna "fix" this too? 

Well, the other word he used, the term "woke." It's become the new slur that fills in for the N-word to certain crowd, much like "Brandon" fills in for another not polite term they can use in public. That's the tell here. And the quick realization of what they'd done, that they were no longer just talking to friends but possibly to the whole world - they offered up some sort of half-assed attempt an apology. I mean, not even the courage of conviction at the end. And I say the end because Twitter swiftly suspended this account not long after it hit critical exposure. Yes, the use of the word woke tells me why he was mad.

And I for one hope he stays mad.

Barkeep, let me get some whiskey and Sprite. Two cubes of ice. Long day.  

Five minutes watching....The Bob's Burgers Movie. No, Really.

I don't watch a lot of movies because, well, at this point I just don't. I don't watch a lot of TV either. As I've said before, a lot of movies and television as of late have become much more niche oriented. And I ain't in their niche. Plus I'm STILL trying to be productive. And do some writing. Well, a little bit, I need to get back to it. And there is the business I'm supposed to be trying to get going. Well, I need to get back to that. I also still have a ton of video games I bought on sale I still want to play. Wait, I don't watch TV, play games, hustle or write...what am I doing?  

In an attempt to cleanse my mental palate, considering the absolute mess we currently find ourselves in as a country, I decided to sit down and watch the Bob's Burgers movie. Note that I'm not really a fan of the show.

Honestly, Bob's Burgers is one of those shows where I'm always surprised to find out that their still making new episodes. To me, it's a low stakes, low-action family dramedy cartoon, for which the sole benefit of using animation is that the age of the actors becomes irrelevant. From the viewer's standpoint the idea of this being their ninth Christmas when they're nine gets a little screwy, but then I'd have to complain about the Simpsons. I don't watch the Simpsons either. Also, and maybe it's because as I've gotten older, the wise-ass little kid character has become more irritating and this show is rife with them. Or maybe it's because I don't relate to the characters, because infinite struggle is great for drama, it's exhausting to watch. So while I understand that it's fans love it, for me it's cartoon I occasionally ended up watching because the remote was way over there and didn't feel like getting up at the moment because my food was still hot.

But I digress. The movie. Well, it was a movie. I suppose.

Forgive my lack of enthusiasm, but it just felt like an episode of the show, but longer, and with slightly better animation. The family is on the brink of disaster (again) and the plan they have to fix...no, fix is the wrong word, to um,...kick the can down the road a bit, yeah, that plan is foiled because it really didn't make any sense (It was a burger. They were going to offer a really great burger.) And so they're in trouble again. Again. Only this time a sinkhole opens up in front of the restaurant and they can't do any business. Oh, and each of the kids has a personal thing they're trying to get past. Yeah, that is really imp...no, it's not really, because they really only focus on Louise's issue, because apparently she's the star of the show.

Again, I don't really watch that much, but a lot of the stories I've seen seem to center on her.

So then shenanigans ensue. There is a murder. Or at least a body. There is also singing, although not much, and not really that inspired kind of musical you'd get from some other animated shows, but it's okay. Then the usual running around to solve the murder because the police won't do it trope. And an um....well, okay I don't remember much past that part because it was boring. It was really like three episodes of the show pasted together with a few semi-subtle hints at the solution. None of the characters you know died, or really changed in a significant way. I would have thought it would be a perfect time to kill off the Jimmy Pesto character due to his voice actor no longer being with the show. I would have thought they could have introduced Jimmy's widow at the time (or maybe she's already dead, I don't know) who Bob would think would be easier to deal with but really wouldn't be. At least then the movie would have changed...something.

As it is, I understand the film was a dud, although it reviewed well. Maybe the critics were fans. I dunno, but then I don't think it was for me. Which is fine, because not all media needs to cater to me, so there is that. So, in my useless opinion, if you need some good background noise...  

Five minutes watching The Incredibles 2

I don't watch a lot of movies. I don't really have time. And I go to the movies even less. Something about Sporty, but that's a whole other issue. So the rarity of which I go, means on average I've spent about five minutes watching every movie made. It's an existential thing, don't concentrate on it.

I've noticed that this blog is becoming very pop culture oriented as of late, partly because I'm trying not run up my blood pressure spending an hour a day ranting about politics - and an hour would be cutting it short - and partly because my social calendar is currently on back alley life support. But in the meantime, I saw The Incredibles 2. And I'm feeling some kind of way about it.

Maybe it's that it took 14 years for less than 10 seconds to pass, or maybe I wanted the fight with the Underminer to last longer, or that the start of it causes one or two continuity questions that took me out of the flow for the first few minutes. Exactly how long was it in the first film between when they beat Syndrome and Dash's track meet? But as soon as that part fell away and the film got back to what made the original such a great story - superheroes as people not archetypes - it picked up immensely. The dialogue is crisp, funny and on point, the music was reminiscent of the first in it's coolness and the visuals are just well, incredible. I was a little leery at first when they trotted out the old role reversal trope - Incompetent Dad learns About his own kids - but it works here.   The kids are the kids - Violet is "having an adolescence" and Dash needs less sugar, but the best character in the whole film is baby Jack-Jack, who just keeps things bopping along. 

But the film makes me think about things not really film related. The first film fresh and new, but also in a way fairly typical. While the whole family was well thought out and had roles important to the story, it felt like Mr. Incredible was the focus. We met him first, followed his career from hero to insurance company drone, tagged along with he and Frozone freelance heroing, in his first foray to the island, working out, going to see Edna, meeting the villain. Bob is a prisoner in the secret hideout before the family dynamic even really starts to unfold. And we didn't really think about it because that's what we're used to seeing. But here, the story takes it's first turn when their benefactor chooses Elasti-girl as the new face of heroism. Just for insurance reasons he assures Bob, but he chooses her nonetheless.

And which point the film turns its focus to Elasti-girl and never really lets go. New bike, new costume (for which Edna is gonna kick her ass when she sees her) and new adventures centered on the female hero, not the male. It's as though they anticipated the mood of the country. Bob struggles with new math, Helen saves the day. Bob watches the baby. Helen devises a plan. Bob struggles with advising about teen age relationships, Helen goes on a mission. To his credit despite his deep need to be in action gnawing at his insides, Mr. Incredible rises to the occasion of being supportive and just being a plain ole dad. The film feels like it reverses the original, with long stretches of Helen and the occasional check in on Bob. It makes me wonder why I my initial thought was that's odd, when it really isn't and shouldn't be. Elasti-girl is the star - deal with it.

I mean, I enjoyed Wonder Woman, and the men played sidekicks if not just background fodder for Diana's actions. There have been the occasional drama I've sat through where the men were more scenery than characters that were pretty good. A woman focused film is not that unusual, at least not among the stuff I enjoy. I've parsed through my thoughts on this: I expected more Mr. Incredible because... he was the lead in the first film? I have a cultural bias? A film that's not explicitly about women should feature men more prominently? I'm a wee bit sexist? Maybe a little bit of all of the above. But at least I'm aware of it. I think.

So other than a few continuity issues at the beginning, I thought it was well paced, with slower periods that allowed the characters to act like people and not just a constant series of explosions or twist thrown at you ever ten minutes to keep things interesting. It's a film I thought was never going to happen, it was all interesting dammit. The returning characters were great - Edna is still one of my faves, and the new characters have possibility. I like them. I wonder if they realize now there HAS to be a third one? This one though, it's long but good, but if you don't like the characters or enjoy watching them grow, it's gonna seem like forever. But I think you'll like watching them grow. 

MCU, I still see you.

Ramblings Post #346
Sometimes a change of medium is good. I have only ever read ONE of the Harry Potter books. Okay, it was like the first 100-125 pages. Not doing that again. But translated into film, the story came alive for me. And now we live an age where a great deal of what I read years ago, what I used to imagine was alive has come alive - on screen. Marvel you have a fan in me. And having read the aforementioned source material I know this eternal truth : In the Marvel Universe - the only person who ever stays dead is Ben Parker.

So. Infinity War.

I understand that people were upset at the ending. I actually saw one photo of someone being carted out to an ambulance. Wooo. Big stuff. A lot of non-comic book people are confused, hurt and feeling some kind of way about it. Honestly, I figured they'd end it on the finger snap, but then I guess some of the dramatic effect would have whooshed over non-comic readers heads. And I know a lot of MCU fans are hurt because the director did say that what happens here is permanent.

I'm going to give those who didn't see it yet a couple of more days while I figure out what I'm going to say about it. There is a lot to unpack. Changes I mean, from the source material. A lot to unpack.

From the first Avengers - but it could be now...

You know, they probably shouldn't have left off the sub-title Part 1. Just sayin.

Barkeep, pour me up one for my "dead" homies. 
 

Going to the Movies...maybe.

Rambling Post #344
I like movies. As you may have read if you read anything about my past, like on this blog, yeesh, I've written a few scripts and have a few story ideas of my own. And one day, lord willing and the creek don't rise (and I can scrape together a few hundred bucks I don't owe anyone) I'm going to make something. Technically the few hundred bucks if for some good lunches and one of those director chairs, but a man has to have standards.

I caught the trailer for "Sorry to Bother You" this past weekend, and I'm interested. It's a film out this summer starring Lakeith Stanfield from the hot show Atlanta and Oscar nominee Get Out.

Yes this looks silly, but then that's on purpose.

I found the trailer both incredible and troubling. It was incredible in that it looks like a pastel infused explosion of just on the edge of reality semi-ideas, that's been dropped in a blender with generous dash of ridiculous, served through a sugar straw with a side of that sticky icky icky. It looks fresh, different, as if it touches on social issues and yet is still just plain funny. And troubling because once again, it looks like Hollywood has shown us the whole damned movie in two minutes. The trailer looks like it shows everything but the end! I think I know most of the story at this point - Down and out guy, love life and home life rocky. Gets job. Discovers secret to job. Advances up the ladder using the secret. More money, different problems. Guy has to make a decision about his life and...profit? (Sorry, underpants gnomes joke there.)

I can't be the only one this irks the crap out of.

The premise looks interesting. The hero Cassius, who lives in his uncle's garage is desperate to get something started. He lands a telemarketing job and learns very quickly from a co-worker that to be successful he needs to find his "white voice." If you're not a minority, you're probably not familiar with the concept of a particular voice for a particular situation, but this is a very real thing. the white voice he finds - which you hear in the trailer - is the whitest. And from there, things take off. Along the way to wherever this is supposed to go, the hero meets a broad and eclectic cast of characters on a trip through a only slightly weird version of the world of the average professional. Kinda.

Express yourself

Now, I've watched enough movies with insane premises - I used to watch a lot of late night TV and at one point USA had a show called Up All Night which made you wonder if you were hallucinating as a young teen. This film looks like something from someone who watched a lot of TV like that, but still has a social conciseness. And if they don't that's okay too.

Promotion Time.

Let's go to the movies. Well, maybe. Let's see how this all plays out. I am excited though.

Barkeep. I'll have whatever the man in bowler hat is drinking. Yes, I'm a bit scared, but you only live once.

Five minutes watching - Black Panther

I caught the Black Panther this past weekend, and if you didn't see it in IMAX or REAL 3D or whatever that I was I saw it in, go see it again. You know what, go see it again anyway. I mean it was like it literally leapt off the screen, like I was standing there. Also, pay for the good seats up front, the one I had was leather, with wide arm rests and the whole thing reclined. I could have slept on that thing. Oh, yeah, the movie. Duh...

John Romita Jr's art was the best

It's a good film. It's a much a better adaptation of the source material than I expected and not quite as many plot holes as their could have been. And while it's not the first big budget movie to star a black person (thank you to Will Smith for holding the line all those years) it is the first one to surround that black lead with a majority black cast. The lead was black, the supporting cast was black and I still bet that if it comes up for an award somehow one of the two white characters will somehow get nominated while the others are forgotten. But it made a whole bunch of money this weekend, so I'll be mad about that when it happens.

For those that don't know, the Black Panther was Marvel's first black superhero, created in the mid-60's and actually predates the activist group with the same name. In a huge step for 1960's civil rights,  the character T'Challa is depicted as not only equal to the Marvel Universe's most intelligent, including Mr. Fantastic Reed Richards and Iron Man Tony Stark, he's also many orders of magnitude more wealthy. This incarnation of him grants most of mental acumen to his sister, but it doesn't make him just a muscle guy. He's noble, thoughtful and a man built to lead a nation.

From here on mild SPOILERS...both for the movie part and in the quasi political part that come after.

The film is pretty well written despite some critics I've heard who thought it meandered a bit early on. A lot of the scenes at the beginning are setups or background for things that happen later, so they only make sense later. For instance, the opening sequence from 1992 which threw a lot of information at us really fast that we weren't paying attention to, but what's said there changes the whole movie later. It almost encourages multiple viewing, which pretty good for a film about a superhero.

I also really enjoyed the visual of Wakanda, with it's wide open savannas and rural feel, juxtaposed against the Afro-futuristic version of a metropolis. But the scenes at The Great Mound seemed gaudy and those where T'Challa wandered the streets felt unnecessarily cramped. For the budget I would have tried for something a bit more airy for the urban shots. For the mining, I just would have started over, something less candy-like. But mostly the city, the interiors, the technology all came together to feel both fantastic and still a little grounded. I really liked the mix of tradition and contemporary, though not always in the costuming.

A couple of the story turns were a little too quick for my tastes and as with most superhero films the timelines are hopelessly ridiculous. Seriously, Erick took a Cessna from South Korea and turned up in Wakanda the next day? With a body in tow? And then everybody just fell in line? But comic logic not withstanding, and although the ending seemed rushed, I mean like they really should put those pieces they had to edit out for time back in, it was still a damn good movie.       

Now, to the quasi-political part of my review (sigh)...

After watching the film on Sunday I decided to read a few spoilered up reviews. I tried to find a few by black people because after seeing the revelry I wanted to know what the thoughts were. First was the guy who equated T'Challa's victory with respectability politics. Then came the folks who thought Erick's Death before bondage line was poetic, a new age "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" sort of thing.

But it was the people echoing terms used by people who want them dead, various "Hotep" brothers, who  finished off my weekend by proclaiming Erick Killmonger was right. If I remember correctly the Killmonger's plan was to give Wakandan weapons to his personal definition of oppressed peoples around the world and start a series of revolutions. Sort of global civil war that would more than likely leave millions dead. Right..., no. That some people could reach this conclusion indicated to me some deep seated personal anger as well as a clear lack of scope outside their own purview, a through misunderstanding of what they'd just watched, and a failure to understand exactly how revolution works.

Let's go in reverse here so I can close with my main point. A revolution is NOT the purge. (I'm using one movie series to explain another movie series, yeesh) If you've never seen one of the Purge movies, the premise is one night a year all bets are off and you can do what you want to. The next morning, everyone shrugs off the night's "festivities," grabs an espresso and goes in to see if their boss survived. I hate to disappoint those who want immediate change via violence but that's not how it works in reality. In reality you get each little tranche of revolutionary with their own little version and frequently conflicting victory conditions blowing the bejeesus out each other for...sometimes years. 

Second, if you had payed attention in CAP AM: CIVIL WAR you'd realize that T'Challa's offer to save Erick at the end wasn't automatically just to later incarcerate him for his crimes. Erick with his clouded perception of the world and how it worked made the assumption that the Wakandans would treat him like, well, a black American. Thus he chose unwisely. T'Challa indicated in CIVIL WAR he was through with vengeance and stopped the man who killed his father from committing suicide. Why wouldn't he have been willing to take in a misguided cousin? This is a man who'd just cursed out his dead father for leaving that same cousin behind. The same man who took (or would take) in the Winter Soldier to rehabilitate him. Whose to say where Erick could have ended up. People who watched the film and saw revolution thwarted or respectability affirmed lack the vision and, the last item, scope. 

Side note - Why did T'Chaka leave his brother N'Jobu's body in Oakland? And why would leaving the son keep the up the lie that Wakanda was a third world state? And why didn't young Zuri clean house afterwards, opening all the panels and such? These are plot holes, hopefully answered in Blu-ray extra footage, and I'm on political now anyway. Sorry.

But the last part of my diatribe, the lack of mental scope is the most important part. Further, Erick was raised in America believed like most black Americans do that if we're both black it doesn't matter that I'm from Oakland and you're from DC, technically we're on the same side. But that's not how people from one of the 54 countries on the African continent think. There is a reason there are countries and tribes. I'm even going to completely discount N'Jobu being in the wrong from jump, as he instead of making his case to his brother for providing assistance instead actually sold out his entire country by assisting Klaue in stealing the vibranium to being with.

Further, Erick believed that Wakanda was being selfish by isolating itself instead of helping the oppressed people - particularly black Americans. But that's just it -  Wakandans have never been oppressed. It's part of their mythos - Never conquered, Never colonized. Where was this racial empathy supposed to have come from? Even worse, T'Challa had already indicated privately that he was starting to see Nakia's point of view about sharing a bit of their prosperity. And much like his father, Erick instead of making his case and subsequently finding this out, decided his way was the only way.

The people who think Erick was right need to step back, just like he couldn't.

In the end, T'Challa's actions will upset the world in ways Erick's "let's set all on fire" plan never could. It might even be dare I say it, a better plan. One without destruction. Without death. And sadly to some, without anger.   

In the end, good movie. Very good movie. Go see it. Again.

Wouldn't it have been easier to...

Geek Arguments #1
I am in no small part, a bit of a geek. I've argued about Star Wars and Star Trek minutiae as though knowing how a light saber worked or untangling time paradoxes earned me money. I can argue over comics, sci-fi movies, football strategy, and even dabble a bit in video game smugness (for no reason I can think of). This time, prompted by what should be an obvious answer about a movie nobody cares about, I just have to set the record straight for nobody in particular. That and I just can't talk politics anymore for a while.    

Ben Affleck likes to relate the story that during the production of Armageddon (a terrible film that I will watch over and over) that when he asked the question "Wouldn't it have been easier to train the astronauts to drill?" that director Micheal Bay told him to "shut the f**k up." This of course was the proper answer. Because Ben's question was stupid and he should have just shut the f**k up. 

Let me state definitively that NO, it wouldn't have been easier to train astronauts to drill. Everyone would have died. Are we clear? Oh, you want an explanation?

While it is true that astronauts are smart, most holding several degrees as well as being engineers, the idea that they would be able to immediately be able to grasp all the fine points of drilling in the week or so of training they would have received is the height of elitist thinking. Proficiency or even mastery of Discipline A does not automatically translate into easy of learning semi-related Discipline B. The intellectual arrogance here is staggering, starting with the assumption that "drilling" must be easy. But rather than get into a long line of theory of the nuances of mining and instead I'm going to use the film itself show why this is terrible assumption.

Wouldn't trust them with a potato gun.

First, when the hero, Harry Stamper, arrives at NASA it's originally because government stole his drill design to use on Mars but now want to use it on the asteroid, but can't make the damned thing work. Let me say that again : a group of NASA scientists, engineers and the man the NASA director called the 'smartest man on the planet' can't figure out how to make a particular drill work after presumably weeks of going at it. Presumably one or two of the engineers present even had some mining expertise, but it still didn't help them. On the other hand, Harry the not NASA engineer arrives and after looking at the equipment for less than a minute not only tells them the issues they're probably experiencing (and he's correct) but also diagnoses the problem. But mining must be simple, right? The equipment a breeze to operate?  

Secondly, when the spaceship actually arrives on the asteroid, Harry's team faces a number of unexpected challenges. First, they overshoot the landing and instead of the intended drilling site land on an 'iron plate.' Would the less experienced trained for a week Astronaut miners have even tried to drill there? Assuming they did, the first drill bit breaks after ten feet, something Max recognizes by feel. Would a less experienced trained for a week Astronaut miner have recognized it as quickly as Max? Then, the other experienced miner Chick defers to Harry who decides they need to break out a special bit, referred to in the film as 'the judge.' Would a less experienced trained for a week Astronaut miner been able to make the determination that they weren't just unlucky? Would they have been able to handle the gas pockets, the ones the experienced miners couldn't? 

And finally, would a less experienced trained for a week Astronaut miners have taken the Time to Drill Card as gospel, dropped off the nuke and evacuated? Especially when you consider that the Astronaut who was there was prepared and willing to shoot someone did just that! The weird part is that based upon the data at hand, the Astronaut made the right call - they should have dumped the nuke because by all rights they shouldn't reached the depth needed. 

Honestly, when Chick's son called him "that salesman"...

It was only the drillers expertise that saved the entire operation. Yes, because NASA chose the drillers over the astronauts (in this movie universe) the world was saved. I'm not even going to mention the other asteroid movie of the time went exactly the other way. Okay, I'll mention it. How did that work out for them then? Right, everyone on the spaceship had to make the ultimate sacrifice so the planet only got a little blowed up. Got it? And since I've brought Deep Impact up now, anyone know why there were carrying the extra nukes? 

So, this is why to question of wouldn't sending astronauts have been simpler in Armageddon, the answer is a resounding NO. Teaching roughnecks how not to die in space clearly was. I realize that astronauts are smart. Very smart. But smart doesn't translate to a universal expertise.  

Can we let this go now? And someone tell Affleck to shut the fuck up.

Movie Trailers. Seriously.

Ramblings #321
I am a creative. I write the stories that run through my head, with that neat program on my Ipad I pretend to make music riffs, and I have some canvas and as soon as I remember to buy that paint...and those brushes...and maybe a smock, I'm gonna paint something. Oh, and the movie. But I'm also fairly well versed in business, so I realize it's not JUST the talent, but also packaging and marketing. Which brings me to this....

Seriously, who is responsible for trailers in Hollywood? Which editor? Because I watched the whole of the new Eddie Murphy movie in 2 minutes, and while it looks very good, a little over saturated with emotional  treacle and using what looks like the old Magical Black Person trope, but still good. The trailer however under cut the entire reason for seeing it, because you can practically see the whole thing. A lot of the dramatic tension just gone.

You don't believe me? Here is what I gathered from the TWO minute trailer - A mother is dying, and her ex (or possibly just the daughter's father) arranges for Mr. Church (Murphy) to come and cook for the family. The little girl initially hates him but comes to love him. Mother slowly deteriorates. Daughter gets accepted to college and daughter hates mother for dying too soon. Mother dies. Daughter thinks her life is over as well, but Church gives her the money to go to college. She goes to college, at some point she gets pregnant and comes back to Mr. Church. Something happens, perhaps a complication or an accident, but an older Church comes to the hospital and gets her, giving her a place to stay. She defends her relationship with the older black man, one that is entirely paternalistic, by explaining to some unknown potential antagonist figure that she now knows that after the money her mother had ran out Church for some reason (possibly love) somehow supported them. Mr. Church then helps the daughter raise her own child, for which he is grateful. Mr. Church has some secret he wants no one to know about.

This is two minutes of trailer. Two minutes. See for yourself.

Explain to me why I now still have to go see this movie? I like Eddie Murphy. I've thought of him as a grand untapped dramatic talent after his terrific Oscar nominated turn in Dreamgirls, so I'm happy to see him in something that gives him a chance to stretch. But after the trailer, my entire impetus for maybe seeing this film is over. I know most of the story now, with the only mystery is what the character Church is hiding. I know the mother dies, the girl gets to go to college, she gets pregnant and has a baby, and Church doesn't die .... unless the whole thing is a flashback at Church's funeral. 

Can we please stop this? This give us all the high points deal? Unless the trailers are going have SPOILER ALERT pop up after the first thirty seconds, the idea of giving away the entire film in the trailer just seems silly. Sure, I can watch the same movie over and over, but a film that I'm seeing the first time should still have a little leeway to surprise me, some dramatic tension. I don't know this one will still be able to do that.

I will reiterate an idea I proposed some time ago: A person creating a trailer should only be allowed to use footage from the first thirty minutes of a film, with the exception of a film involving a huge battle finale needed to show scale and scope - BUT the battle footage used cannot contain any named character. If the first half of the film isn't engaging, or can't be cut so that the trailer is engaging, then perhaps the film ought not have been shot in the first place. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not really anybody.

Barkeep. Wine. I feel erudite and critical of minute details and other silly crap like that. Something Scandinavian. Yes, a Scandinavian wine. Or Boone's farm.

A Non-Review: Ghostbuster's 2016

Ramblings Post #317
I had a bad feeling about this. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong but I'll never know, but this will explain why I was all weirded about this. Those special memories I was talking about. Now, I'm fairly certain those who only read the title and the first few lines will be outraged by this. But then those with short attention spans really don't read me anyway. I could post Beyonce's private phone number and nobody would notice. Not that I have it. But I'm just saying, I'm an acquired taste. 

I don't intend to go see Ghostbusters 2016. No interest at all. I'll explain a little later.

First, I don't think this film will be initially rated on it's merits or it's faults. Not for years. The detractors view it as an abomination, a reboot of something that should have been left alone. To them it's like remaking Citizen Kane or Star Wars. To the film's champions it is a glass ceiling breaking and paradigm shifting call of truth to power. It's funny dammit, and you better like it. Maybe ten years from now we'll all be able to watch it after all the attached dross has been shorn away and look at it for what it is...a comedy about people chasing ghosts. It might even be good.

What I have found curious, and more than slightly disturbing, is the glee in which those who champion the film have taken in bashing those who oppose the very idea of the film. Those who disagree with the idea are often categorized as not wanting to give women a chance or clinging to the past (the term man-baby is just weird) and alternatively must just be wildly misogynist. Not a little, a lot. I'm certain their are some small penis jokes floating about too. And maybe some are misogynistic, but I bet most aren't, but the righteousness embodied in some of the insults feels downright Freudian. Damn, tell us how you really feel. I realize that we are in an age where wholly demonizing your opponent is the norm, but this feels more personal, angrier, what should be rational discussions get clouded with belittling terms and ceaseless name calling. From the women. I mean jeez, men have feelings too. 

Now, let me tell you why I'm not going to see Ghostbusters 2016:

When I was growing up, the neighborhood I lived in didn't have many kids in it. Really not any kids. My parents were busy providing us with a living, and this was in the days before play-dates and the internet, so you just sucked it up an watched a lot of television. On the other hand the people I went to school with, in the age of cluster education, all lived together. Like right around the corner, use the backdoor close. So I daily would hear about their after-school adventures, of which I was not a part of for reasons beyond my control. I know, such FUN. I did however, get to go to summer camps. Sleepaway summer camps. At camp I was just one of the guys, I felt like I belonged and wasn't the guy who didn't know what happened that time that so was funny. And it was during one of those summers, where I was just one of the guys, we saw Ghostbusters. That bus ride back to camp where we shouted movie lines at each and laughed....

So, this particular piece of intellectual property holds a special meaning for me. I'd like to keep that great childhood feeling, that memory. I am allowed that, aren't I?

I understand that Hollywood doesn't give a damn about my feelings. To them intellectual property is property, and goodwill is infinitely transferable. With the advent of the internet and alternate access points for entertainment, the slow development of property is a thing of the past - it's a blockbuster or it's garbage. Filmmakers can't afford to experimental, and are reduced to trying to graft the goodwill from the old to the new and double up. Economics, well, the desired economics, cause Hollywood to alternate between being the creators of dreams, tellers of great stories, builders of soul-moving myths, and greedy self-serving assholes.

I want to see women succeed. We need more female heroes. But this particular piece of intellectual property is special, okay? I mean jeez, I can name three or four female oriented pieces of fiction ripe for revival or raising to the next level of public awareness without trying hard. Where is the Honor Harrington movie? Or the re-reboot of Modesty Blaise? Or Dakota North? Someone can go back and try to get Tank Girl to make sense. Or a try a Nightwing Restorations series? There is is the story I read that I thought would have been perfect for a (when they were all alive) Bea Arthur, Rue McClanahan, Betty White reunion that involved a island community in the 40's, a scavenger hunt, motorcycles with sidecars and a bank robbery. If I find that, can we do that now? Where is that Lumberjanes adaptation? Reboot Laura Croft? This list took like 30 seconds.

I know why Hollywood doesn't care, they've imagined themselves as desperate. I didn't expect the same from society. Maybe we need to sit down and talk more than we know. As one of my coworkers put after some conversation about this: There is so much out there that female characters need not usurp the identities of male characters to be validated. They can be their own people. I thought she had a point.

I hope the film does well, and that we can put this all behind us.

Barkeep. A drink for the ladies! What? Buying a woman a drink is sexist? Well, I guess this one worked out for me then....

I got a bad feeling about this...

Ramblings Post #311
I miss my youth. When I used to watch movies and just enjoy the story, or in some cases, the special effects because the story sucked, or yelling at the screen because yes, I was one those people. Now, when I watch a movie I'm concerned with representation, stereotypes, cultural slights, and how I would have done it. All that and the popcorn is like $12. Which may explain why I don't go to the movies like I used anymore. Well, there are other reasons too, but all that right there.

Ghostbusters Classic

I watched the Ghostbusters trailer, and... it wasn't funny.

Or, maybe I'm just not getting the jokes.

As I've written before, I was skeptical about this whole project from the start, but since I think Melissa McCartney and Kristen Wiig are funny, I was willing to give it shot. Said offer of said shot has since been rescinded. Maybe it hurt that the film trailer makes it sound like a sequel, while the actions on the screen make it feel like a remake. Or that right this moment it looks like the people behind it didn't understand the original movie. Or that I heard that the original actors making cameos had them shot as both the original characters AND as random strangers. Which means they don't know what film they were making or marketing. That does not bode well.

And I said explicitly that really hoped the Black woman character wouldn't be for all intents and purposes a "Wanda Zedmore." By that I meant the fourth wheel addition of the non-scientist character. In the original, the black character is just a guy who from his first line of dialogue clearly indicates he's in it for the pay, but he isn't portrayed with any of the stereotypical attributes one might expect. He's just a guy.  He contributes, he has a few good lines... it's almost an every-man character.  Well, the black female isn't Wanda Zedmore, as then she would have had more dignity. This character is a blatant Hollywood stereotype, the classic loud black female "with a dip of sass" comedy character that I really thought we were past since shows like Black-ish exist now. In the trailer alone she hits the Stereotype Trifecta- "from the streets," Cadillac, and Jesus. To say that character just looks bad is an understatement. Shouldn't the idea of good roles for women extend to women of all races? Why couldn't she be a scientist and one of the other characters have been the NY native?

Or maybe, maybe it's just that I'm missing the jokes. That "hat or wig" snippet was just...odd, and the few other attempts at comedy I saw seemed forced. But it is truly possible the jokes weren't meant for me. I've watched comics who were women do routines that had half the audience rolling on the floor - the female half.  There are jokes that men find funny, and jokes that women find funny. It happens. Or New Yorkers find funny but no one else. Or Jewish people find funny and no one else. So the idea that I'm not getting the jokes as a very real possibility.  But, and this is a very large but, if you're making a film, based upon the idea of appealing to the nostalgia of its original, mostly male audience, to ensure its financial viability, while also trying to bring in a new female demographic to assure its profits, shouldn't the humor be more universal? At least in the trailer?

Or is the idea that this New Ghostbusters, which apparently has made a point of showing women on both sides of the camera, just not intended for men? Do women turn out for sci-fi comedy? Bad sci-fi comdey? Considering the the standing ethos of the Modern School of Thought on Trailer Editing, the idea that the film has better jokes so you really have to go see it is a bit far fetched. Women deserve their own good film roles and lead opportunities, but um, what happens if the comedy isn't funny? And in today's political environment, how sexist will I be for having that opinion?

Barkeep. I need a MAN drink. So make it pretty, and fruity, and with one of them little umbrellas. And put some powdered sugar on the rim. 

Disney : A lesson in marketing

Ramblings Post #307
Why is J.J. Abrams considered an genius? Watching the second Star Trek movie, a film that borders on the ridiculous, I have to wonder what's really going on. My old go to reasoning to was that "somebody got some naked pictures ain't nobody supposed to see." But after seeing how Abrams has lain waste to the sci-fi genre practically unchallenged, I'm starting to believe he might have proof of a felony or three. I'm talking fed time. I'm scared to go see The Force Awakens now. 

Remember three years ago when I was happy that Disney bought Lucasfilm? Yeah, I'm over that. Because while was convinced that what Lucasfilm had produced was basically a series of ads for merchandise masquerading as a film, I apparently hadn't seen anything. My god, Disney can you dial it back....

This is a real thing.

Disney didn't just metaphorically tear down the old burger stand and put up a golf course, milking my childhood for every drop of profit, now they're charging you license fees to get access to be allowed to pay the greens fees for that new golf course, and they've got a reservation charge for the new themed restaurant they just threw up. What haven't they slapped a Star Wars logo on? Now I'm hotly anticipating the film's release just so this can all be over.

Barkeep, can I get...no, I don't want the Kenobi vodka. Or the Ackbar gin. For the love of Jedi, please stop. 

I see you MCU...

Ramblings Post #305
Ever realize you forgot to do something. Like eat. Or wash your clothes. Or take your ass to the comic book store. And then, out of nowhere something reminds you, like suddenly discovering you have no clean underwear. I watched the trailer for the next Captain America movie, realized I still haven seen the second Avengers movie - my cheap ass - and wondered just when I would catch up with popular America. Um, what is the Nae-Nae?

I might be the only person in the country not impressed by the MCU's Civil War trailer, other than those shots of the Black Panther which were wicked cool.

T'Challa v. The Winter Soldier

Maybe it's because I can already see from the trailer that in this film, as in the Winter Solider, the titular character comes off like a self righteous ass who believes in tearing something down rather than fixing it and loyalty over the law. I realize that a film is a limited medium for this type of epic storytelling, so a lot gets glossed over and simplified, but I'm of the opinion the writers went a little too far with this one. Sure SHIELD had been corrupted, but it still served a purpose, and history has repeatedly taught us that single mindedness is not a good thing. Maybe there is no Middle East in the MCU? Further, this Captain America is the living embodiment of "friends help you move, real friends help you move bodies." Him trying to help his buddy as opposed to bringing him in? It's that scene from The Town, only with costumes and superpowers.

But then I've never really been a great fan of the films. The simplification I mentioned is one big reason, but also important is that after 20 minutes of screen time between action scenes the the heroes are just way too quick to snatch their masks right back off, as though they get paid by how many minutes their actual faces appear on screen. My opinion has been, is now, and will be that if they don't want to wear the mask of the hero they portray, then maybe we get someone else to play the character. They are actors and wearing the damn mask is what the damn role calls for. You don't want to do it, then don't take the role. Yeesh.

I think the MCU films all need less characters and more story. Too many characters mean no real chance to explore the core group. I well aware that the Avengers films are big set pieces, but "single" character films should have been designed to explore that individual character, what drives them, the small nuances of who they are. But instead of giving the actors a real chance to flesh out the characters, some of whom have hundreds of issues of backstory they could work with, they feel just as crowded as the group picture, all explosions and quick cuts. Civil War seems to double as Avengers 2.5 or something. Which again, in my humble opinion, weakens the whole MCU.

Since I'm commenting, I also think that after the stylish period piece adventures of Agent Carter that its weird that the MCU's next female hero (Netflix's Jessica Jones) focuses on a heroine who is in part recovering from sexual assault. I know it's a direct take from the original source, but still it's not like they haven't played fast and loose with the rules before. Wasn't Nick Fury white? Is there no iteration of her story where she couldn't maybe just save the world? While nicely unconventionally gritty, Jessica Jones seems less like a superhero story where the hero just happens to be a woman and more like a lifetime mini-series where the victim just happens to have super powers. I would have chosen something more along the lines of Nightwing Restorations, which would have provided a black female and an Asian female lead. To me something like that would lend itself better to the serialized nature of television, and provide a broader creative base to work from while still covering the same ground. Of course it maybe that I'm a little miffed that in JJ they have future Avenger Luke Cage as just a bartender, although I hear he's next in line for series.

Hey, since I'm here, Luke, hit me with some of the flavored vodka. No, I'm kidding. Who drinks that? 

Crossing the Uncanny Valley

Ramblings Post #301
Technology is both a wonderful and cruel thing. It can ruin industries by making them obsolete, and turn others in almost comedic gold rushes. And what we'll come to realize in time is that constantly moving forward isn't always the best plan, if only because we're human and we need a bit of structure to hang our lives on. Until then I'm going to suggest that society strap itself in real tight, because it's gonna start going real fast for a minute. Don't forget your goggles.  

We will reach a point when we finally cross the Uncanny Valley. Then Hollywood will need to be very, very afraid.

When I was kid I used to read a comic called American Flagg. Well, to be honest comic was the wrong word, because it was the first book I read where the villains had motivations other than your comic basics, i.e., world domination, petty revenge or the next big score. It was the book that introduced me to political heroes that weren't so much heroes, more like people just trying to make sure they can get a decent breakfast the next morning. But why this is relevant is that the main character was a guy called Reuben Flagg, a former television star who had been replaced because they could computer generate his image so convincingly that nobody noticed. That day is fast approaching. There is a shot at the end of Iron Man 3 where RDJ wasn't available, so they digitally created a Tony Stark and added him in. Not Iron Man, Tony Stark, the human person. And we didn't even notice.

Fifteen years from now, the we'll be able to regularly digitally create actors and put them in anything we want. Actors will have their images leased for whole films or a television series, not just how you see past stars sometimes in commercials now, artistically re-cut to fit the limited available motion. Desperate actors may even sell their avatars outright. The enterprising estates of some 50's and 60's actors means we may even get to see Cary Grant and Scarlett Johansson in a new romantic comedy. And then someone, probably in a garage somewhere in Oklahoma will figure out how to do it for cheap with stolen profile information.

And, then we'll get these... bootleg remakes of films not intended to be remade. And I'm willing to bet that some them, with fan perceived plot holes fixed and filled with fantasy casts will be traded around baseball card style on private networks and at the various Cons. One or two might even be converted into actual films, the rough edges smoothed out and the sound fixed because Hollywood has a way of taking good ideas that start other places and capitalizing on them.

This future is so golden, I almost can't wait.

(Note: I didn't make any of these images, but they inspired this post. The idea of a couple of these, just like wow!) 

Straight Outta....well, maybe next time.

Ramblings Post #295
I've had a lot of free time on my hands lately. Too much really. Because when I have too much free time I try to do too many things. I'm still working on my book. (Yes, same book, surprise!) But I'm also starting to think up a new series of characters for a new series of books that would act as a prequel to the book I stopped writing to write this book....which I haven't forgotten, but also working on some songs since I got this app, and also reading a whole lot, and game strategy, and....as I said, too much. 

Straight of Compton

I'm probably not going to see Straight Out of Compton. At least not out. Not out of protest, not because people who didn't make it are mad it didn't include the parts they wanted (see Dee Barnes), not because it somehow "glorifies misogyny", but because the last movie I remember seeing in at the movies was Skyfall, and the next one will probably be Spectre. That AND,  since I was there the first time, actually purchased the albums and listened to the gossip, seeing it all chromed out and cleaned up really has no thrill for me. It's like watching Will Smith play Ali when I could actually watch the documentary and see Ali be himself.

No thrill.

Further, I'm not happy with how the premiere was framed by the media. The implication that there would be violence because of the film was just plain crazy. The audience for this film, NWA fans, are at this point are in their forties and fifties, with careers, mortgages and kids in college. They're not riding up on twenty eights with the choppa in trunk and bum rushing the Regal. They've bought their tickets online at the place with surround sound and stadium seating that serves dinner and dessert, because this is their one night out a week and they need to get home before they piss off the babysitter.  This is folks reliving an admiration of their anti-heros from a hazily remembered youth that wasn't even real the first time around. Think college homecoming in the alumni section more than club full of gangbangers. And yet the media is stunned their was no violence.

I understand the film did well, and hopefully it will open the doors for more films telling the black stories that have black people in them. Hollywood finds every excuse to not tell the black tale unless it's filtered through some other's lens, but here the outlaws were in charge. Well corporate outlaws living off a twenty five year old legend, but outlaws just the same. They did it their way. So maybe a another door opens somewhere. Maybe, just maybe. But I'll be waiting for HBO.

Barkeep, I need me a little gin with some juice. Yeah, I know it's a throw back. But make Tanqueray and the juice a mix of Mango and Pineapple. Fresh juice, now. We're not savages here.
 

Something just feels off

Ramblings Post #293
I like movies. I like them so much I actually read the scripts when given a chance. I like them funny, dramatic, action and artsy and all in between. I am not a big fan however, of  re-envisioning something for the big screen. Or to a lesser extent, the remake. Which is odd, because there are two or three films that given enough cash and time I would love to shoot over and tell the story properly. Don't get me started on that last Star Trek thing, oooh, boy, so many changes. Oh, but I digress.

I wasn't crazy about the idea of a Ghostbusters remake to start with. Wait, I'm sorry, reboot. It's a movie from my childhood that holds special memories, and as it's sequel showed, it was really kind of a once in a lifetime lighting in a bottle sort of thing. Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis. But you know Hollywood. Built in audience, nostalgia factor, creative bankruptcy, all that sort of thing.

Then they announced they wanted the remake to have all female ghostbusters. I get the whole women being locked out of certain types of lead roles for the a large part of the history of cinema, so there is a concerted effort to attempt to balance the scales. It makes sense. I mean, and I know it's coming at some point, why not remake the classic Casablanca as a lesbian love story, the Hangover with just the women or maybe re-envision Beverly Hills Cop with a black female lead? I even liked the talent they chose, as Kristen Wiig is funny and Melissa McCarthy can be hysterical. So give it a chance I said, despite it being a stabbing your childhood in the heart with a stake, give it a chance. It might be good.

Then I saw this picture.

I got a bad feeling about this.

Remember when the last Star Trek movie where to add gravitas they tried to recreate Spock's death scene from Wrath of Khan, the movie they swear they weren't trying to imitate, only got cute and tried to switch it around to Kirk and forgetting that we had no history with this version of Kirk and he and Spock had no background so it was empty gesture and that even a dullard would realize that killing the lead actor in the second picture of an obvious trilogy didn't make any sense so you knew he was coming back? That feeling.

Because this picture - with Ecto1 the old-style ambulance instead of newer one, similar uniforms, the Egon glasses and a person who I am hoping isn't called Wanda Zedmore, looks like they're trying too hard. All the same elements will be there, apparently, sadly, but will they realize they have different actors? I know that the effects will be better, but having just watched a remake last week, will the story be the same? Feel the same? Will they force their lines to mirror those of the originals at crucial spots? In endeavors like this, balancing on that fine line between hewing too close to the original as to be a waste of film and veering so far that you should have just changed the name for clarity's sake is an extremely hard thing to do. And this picture doesn't put my mind at ease that my childhood is in good hands.

I'm not saying all remakes are bad. I enjoyed the remake of um, wait, give me a minute, I know there is at least one. Um, tip of my tongue, just a second...

Barkeep, some gin, I need so thinking alcohol.    

The Black Panther....finally.

Ramblings Post #274
As a black nerd, yes they exist, I have learned a lot about how people view other people through fiction. Although derided as fantasy, the truth is when you put your imagination on display in a comic book or novel, you reveal a lot about yourself...and the society that you're holding a mirror up to. 

After years of speculation, er, hoping by black nerds everywhere, Marvel finally went ahead and made it official: The Black Panther is getting his own movie. It's a few years away, the end of 2017 - but I can go ahead and put it on my calender now. I also like how they're going to work him into the next Captain America movie...and provided I see the last one before then (come on, HBO!) and evaluate it properly I might have to increase my movie collection. But they'll need to show me something before I can add it alongside my James Bond, Pirates of the Caribbean or Cosby/Potiter collections.

The only other troubling part I had was the favorite for the role - Idris Elba - already exists in another role in the Marvel Movie Universe. Seriously, we fans have considered everyone for the role, including Will Smith, Morris Chestnut, Donald Glover and even Vin Diesel for some reason. And although I would have gone with Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 years a slave), Dijmon Hounsou or maybe even Colin Salmon (though he might be a bit old now), the selection of Chadwick Boseman isn't horrible. I would have preferred an English accent, but Boseman seems to be a flexible enough performer, but I think he'll need to put on some muscle and add some gravitas to play T'Challa. Here's to hoping they write the character as a multidimensional person with his own concerns and not just a caricature or an African version of Tony Stark. 

T'Challa:   And who do you think you are to give me ultimatums?
Tony Stark:   Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.
T'Challa:   *smirks* Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, legendary warrior and king of the most powerful and technologically advanced nation on earth.
Tony Stark:   . . .

It's become clearly evident that the Marvel Movie Universe is going to be drastically different than the Marvel Comic Universe, but then that's okay. Over at DC you have to remind yourself which Earth you on, so this is no biggie. Hopefully they'll also use Wakanda as the backdrop, and show it not as mud huts but just as it is in the comics.

Now, Marvel, when is Luke Cage getting his movie? Oh, he's an Avenger now, and Avengers get movies. And yes, ya'll done started something.

Barkeep. Champagne all around. The good stuff too, not that soda water.

A Fast Movie Pitch

Ramblings Post #257
Thank you for seeing me, I know I only have five minutes but I think you're gonna see that this idea is a blockbuster. Or an Oscar winner. Or will at least let you complete a look see agreement to get you out of a contract! It's got everything, love, action, salamanders, cowboys, space pirates, and a forty piece jazz band playing the Star Spangled Banner underwater! What? Leave it on the table and you'll get to it? Sure, my card is attached! We'll do lunch! Call me. 

Every now and then I get a movie idea. Something mildly topical, sometimes just stupid, but it's always something I have to commit to a medium (i.e., write down) just to get it out of my head. Otherwise it will rattle around in there, as I nit-pick at it trying to improve on it but never doing anything about it. Not remake ideas, which I'm still going to post, or ideas about how to improve something, but original ideas that just coalesce full blown in my head. So, the ones I don't think I'll ever make (because once I get some money, I will be shooting some movies, believe that) I'm going to start putting up. Ideas, treatments,  outlines, or whatever if you will. Not that anyone will ever see them. Maybe.

Note: I wrote this like last summer, so some of it might not be as ground breaking as first envisioned. 

Story: It's the biggest college football game of the year, with the two biggest rivals facing each other to close out their season, both ranked #1 and #2. It's the lead up week and we see the media frenzy.

The Punch: The head coaches are childhood friends, long time rivals, are gay and in love with each other. One's wife has died, the other wife knows but loves him anyway (older generation thing). The two coaches are tired of living a lie, first plan to test the waters, get a middling approval of sorts privately and then retire quietly, together. 

Tension: One of them has cold feet, and while their coaching staffs and others are accepting a couple of boosters get wind of it and are sure that not only will there will be backlash, they don't want to lose their coach, a great new recruit draw. A player admits to one of the coaches that he's gay and the coach is conflicted with counseling him to stay in the closet so as to not affect his NFL stock while he is himself contemplating coming out. The two coaches decide to come out together after the game...on the field during the press rush.

Resolution: The coaches get separated on the field, but come out together as a couple during the press conference. There is some backlash, one coach loses his job, the other the school stands behind. They move in together and it ends with the fired coach being offered an analyst position on a major network...

At this point maybe lose the gay NFL player angle as tension, as it's happening in real life. Not really a football movie, there is very little action, more a drama played out with football as the backdrop. I thought it could be a touching story, kind of Oscar bait if you get the right actors for the leads. I mean they made 2012. They made it.   

Barkeep. Let me a get a tall Stoli with a dash of soda and lime. Then get me a phone.

So they're making Big Explosions in Space...er, Star Trek 2

Ramblings Post #209
There is an idea, a notion if you will, that Hollywood is out of ideas. It's why you see more and more other media being transformed for the big screen. It becomes maddening, seeing perfectly good characters mangled by Hollywood screenwriters trying to stuff a story into two hours, and make them match the demographic specs. And apparently it's even worse if the owner (not author) scraps the entire original concept, counting on the impetus of goodwill for the old version to help sell the new shiny version.

This is the official synopsis of the upcoming Star Trek movie for next year....

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes "Star Trek Into Darkness."

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

Three things.

First, why is the term "explosive action thriller" being used to describe a Star Trek film? The underlying theme of Star Trek, what made it great, was that it was actually about something. Sure there was some action, but the vast majority of the stories were about larger themes like man's place in the universe, sacrifice, honor, etc. Reducing it to a series of big budget explosions makes me wonder if Abrams even understands what he's been handed. Jean Luc Picard ring a bell? Data's question of humanity? The ecology questions, relationships, the prime directive? Where are the wonderful stories? This reboot of Star Trek has the Federation looking more and more like a failure than the triumphant advancement of society Rodenberry originally came up with. I realize you can't stuff all the nuances of the various series into a two hour film, but at some point this stops being Star Trek and becomes The Expendables in Space.

Second there's the "detonated the fleet" line. What does that even mean? Didn't you just blow up the damn fleet last time Mr. Abrams? I realize this is the future, and Starfleet officers have never really seemed to worry about money, but still methinks them puppies ain't cheap. How much gold pressed latitinum does Starfleet have budgeted for ship construction? Because somewhere in that chain, somebody is going to need to get paid. How about we shrink the story and instead of threatening all of existence everytime some one charges up a warp coil, you bring it down to a micro level. Oh, wait, that might require storytelling skills. My bad. 

Third...and probably the worst...this line right here "from within their own organization." Really? I mean really? You have got be kidding. Wasn't this the premise behind the first three Mission Impossible movies? Or all three Jason Bourne movies? Or really every spy or espionage movie made in the past two decades? Even the James Bond films have fallen into this trap. I going to go ahead and suggest that the rogue agent trope be tossed on the scrap heap of screenwriting until 2025. Maybe Abrams thinks it will all be fresh and new if you do it in space this time. Wait, wasn't this the plot of Star Trek: the Undiscovered Country? This isn't even new in space! But you know what they could try? How about a having an enemy who doesn't know who the hero is, and doesn't have a personal vendetta, or isn't a rogue agent who knows all the tricks of the trade. Sounds crazy right? Seriously, this whole thing sounds like a mess. The synopsis reads like a bad 80's action b-movie starring (fill in sweaty action star here). Maybe I'm wrong..., no, I saw the first one.

I bet the lens flare budget is the biggest expense on the books.

Even the heroic sacrifice alluded to in this still from the Japanese trailer loses weight at this point, as the we'd be mourning the old characters, from the old series, not these slick new versions. We don't know them yet. There is so little here that is still Star Trek.

Barkeep, I thought Abrams was supposed to be good or something. Something light, I need my wits about me. No Romulan Ale.