Various - 07/07/06
We've seen a lot of stuff over the past few months, but nothing that moved me to expound on it at length.
Caught THE LAKE HOUSE last night at a local cinema. A nice, sweet time travel romance, albeit a little predictable. Sandra Bullock is always good, and there was even a halfway decent performance from Keanu Reaves, who usually plays a piece of wood. The house of the title looked nice from the outside, but I don't know that I'd want to live in it. I think the dog is caught in a time loop, however.
Before that, we went to SUPERMAN RETURNS. Yawn. He could have stayed away a few more years, if this was all we were going to get. There was a great plane rescue and some nice hammy Luthoring from Kevin Spacey. Five years away, and Supes didn't even check out the color of Lois Lane's underwear on his return. The boy is just too wholesome. The best part of the movie was the trailer for SPIDER-MAN 3, although I do wonder if Spidey isn't going to fail victim to the "eight villains are better than one" syndrome that destroyed the Batman franchise. I only need one bad guy per movie, thank you very much.
Actually, the most interesting viewing these days is on the small screen, not the big one. DEADWOOD is back, and that's cause for celebration, as any cocksucker who likes good writing and great acting must agree. I can't believe that HBO is letting this one go after the third season. Ian McShane should really win an Emmy. Just watched the episode where Bullock is trying to negotiate the sale of the livery stable between Steve the Drunk and Hosteteler, neither of whom will sign first. Matt Dillon never had problems like this.
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA - 12/03/05
The new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA on the Sci-Fi Channel has been a pleasant surprise. While I would not put it in a class with ROME or DEADWOOD, the episodes I've seen to date have pretty damn good... and certainly much better than godawful original series, the one with Lorne Greene that fans used to mock as BATTLESTAR PONDEROSA. It is easily the best thing on the Sci-Fi Channel (it puzzles me how the Sci-Fi Channel can start with a classic like EARTHSEA and turn it into drek, and then start with drek like BATTLESTAR PONDEROSA and turn it into something quite watchable, but there you are) and the best space show in many a year.
I am intrigued to note that the humans on the new GALACTICA call the Cylons "toasters" as a perjorative. As best I can recall, this was never used on the original show. My guess is that they picked up the usage from "Measure of a Man," one of the few good episodes of STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, written by Melinda M. Snodgrass. This was the episode where Data is on trial to detemine if he is man or a machine; during the trial, he is referred to as a toaster. Ron Moore, who created the new GALACTICA, worked on the NEXT GEN with Melinda, and was certainly familiar with her "toaster" usage.
Melinda in turn borrowed that riff from Walter Jon Williams, who had Dr. Travnicek call Modular Man a "toaster" in his WILD CARDS stories way back in 1985-86... though Modular Man appeared in our SuperWorld games long before WILD CARDS, and it may be that "toaster" (as applied to a mechanical man rather than a device for burning bread) made its first world appearance some late night in one of our games.
It bemuses me to think that a witticism first tossed out in a RPG has now entered the common parlance of SF, via WILD CARDS, STAR TREK, and the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Toasters of the galaxy, unite.
ROME - 10/07/05
ROME is just as good as I had hoped it would be, and a wonderful contrast to the summer's wrectched and embarassing EMPIRE. Same period, same story, many of the same characters, yet the ABC show was as dull as it was stupid, and the HBO show is rich, layered, authentic, sexy, and engrossing.
The moment one episode of ROME ends I am ready for the next one to begin. With EMPIRE, the episodes couldn't end too soon for me. ROME actually feels as if it is set in the Late Republic; the look, the feel, the attitudes, everything rings true. EMPIRE had modern American actors running around in togas. Contrast the relationship of ROME's Octavian and Titus Pullo with that of EMPIRE's Octavian and Tyrranus to understand that it is not the idea that makes a story so much as it is the handling of the idea. Both pairings include fictional characters, but the former convinces, and the latter was pure Hollywood and utterly bogus.
If you are not watching ROME, you're missing the best drama on TV since... well, since DEADWOOD went off the air.
(Oh, and ROME has a dwarf in a recurring role as well, though he hasn't had enough lines for me to tell whether he would make a good Tyrion or not). EMPIRE - 07/22/05
I've been watching EMPIRE on ABC these past few weeks. Only Jove knows why. Chalk it up to my morbid fascination with ancient Rome, especially the late Republic and early Empire. Nothing else could explain it. EMPIRE might be marginally entertaining for viewers who know little about the Romans, and would prefer to know less. For anyone who has ever glanced at a history book, however, it is alternately excruciating and hilarious. XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS was a History Channel documentary compared to this thing... but have no fear, EMPIRE ends this week. And come fall, HBO will be giving us ROME. I have high hopes for that one. If it is only half as good as DEADWOOD, it will still be the second best show on televison...
WAR OF THE WORLDS - 07/01/05
Parris and I went to see the big Spielberg/ Cruise version of WAR OF THE WORLDS last night. I liked it more than she did.
(SPOILERS FOLLOW, if you have not seen the film)
Parris was put off by all the heavy visual evocations of 9/11, which struck her as exploitative. Those didn't bother me so much. I kept thinking of the story as a metaphor for our invasion of Iraq... regular people trying to live their lives and survive as a technologically superior invader comes in and smashes their world all to hell. (That metaphor is very much implicit in the novel. H.G. was talking about the British imperialism of the Victorian Age, of course, not the American imperialism of the 21st century, but one of the strengths of science fiction is its ability to transcend the specifics of time and place and culture and assume new meanings for new audiences).
The Spielberg film owes more to the 1953 George Pal version than it does the H. G. Wells novel. Given the huge budget, it is no surprise to find that it is visually stunning, the action sequences spectacular.. The alien tripods are convincing and scary, and I loved the "foghorn" sound effect by which they speak to one another. The aliens themselves were also well done, but too robust for my taste. In the novel and the Pal movie, the Martians are physically frail, being a decadent race from a low gravity world, and that makes more sense to me. (Of course, Spielberg's aliens are not Martians, but generic aliens. We never learn where they come from).
Tom Cruise's performance is... okay. Not great, not awful. Tim Robbins blows him off the screen in the scenes they have together.
On the negative side, the happy ending feels as though it was tacked on to please the focus groups, and struck me as totally false Hollywood schtick. And about the scene where Tom Cruise and the convenient grenade belt get sucked up into the giant alien anus... well, the less said the better.
Also, the whole business about the invaders coming down on lightning bolts to activate fighting machines that they had buried on Earth millions of years ago is unspeakably ludicrous and totally unnecessary. What the hell was wrong with them crashing down in huge spaceships/ meteors, as in the novel and the Pal movie? That works much better.
I did enjoy seeing the aliens destroy my hometown. That's Bayonne, New Jersey in the opening sequences. Looks as though Cruise works on the same docks where my father worked, and lives under the approaches of the Bayonne Bridge (the world's second-longest steel arch bridge, don'tchaknow). I grew up a few blocks to the east of his house, and the bridge was a landmark of my childhood.
The film is worth seeing on the big screen, I think, if only for the visual spectacle. But all in all, I'd put it on the same level as INDEPENDENCE DAY, and rank the 1953 Pal version as superior, even after all these years. Pal could not do convincing tripods, given the relatively primitive SFX of the period, but his solution, the famous Martian "manta ray" fighters moving slowly and inexorably across the landscape, had their own sort of ominous beauty.
I might also mention that there are not one, not two, but three more versions of WAR OF THE WORLDS in the offing: one just out on DVD, one soon to be released on DVD, and one still in production for a 2007 release. The book is in the public domain. (Which probably means that the heirs of H.G. Wells will not see a Martian penny from all these new films of great granddaddy's classic).
We've seen a lot of stuff over the past few months, but nothing that moved me to expound on it at length.
Caught THE LAKE HOUSE last night at a local cinema. A nice, sweet time travel romance, albeit a little predictable. Sandra Bullock is always good, and there was even a halfway decent performance from Keanu Reaves, who usually plays a piece of wood. The house of the title looked nice from the outside, but I don't know that I'd want to live in it. I think the dog is caught in a time loop, however.
Before that, we went to SUPERMAN RETURNS. Yawn. He could have stayed away a few more years, if this was all we were going to get. There was a great plane rescue and some nice hammy Luthoring from Kevin Spacey. Five years away, and Supes didn't even check out the color of Lois Lane's underwear on his return. The boy is just too wholesome. The best part of the movie was the trailer for SPIDER-MAN 3, although I do wonder if Spidey isn't going to fail victim to the "eight villains are better than one" syndrome that destroyed the Batman franchise. I only need one bad guy per movie, thank you very much.
Actually, the most interesting viewing these days is on the small screen, not the big one. DEADWOOD is back, and that's cause for celebration, as any cocksucker who likes good writing and great acting must agree. I can't believe that HBO is letting this one go after the third season. Ian McShane should really win an Emmy. Just watched the episode where Bullock is trying to negotiate the sale of the livery stable between Steve the Drunk and Hosteteler, neither of whom will sign first. Matt Dillon never had problems like this.
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA - 12/03/05
The new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA on the Sci-Fi Channel has been a pleasant surprise. While I would not put it in a class with ROME or DEADWOOD, the episodes I've seen to date have pretty damn good... and certainly much better than godawful original series, the one with Lorne Greene that fans used to mock as BATTLESTAR PONDEROSA. It is easily the best thing on the Sci-Fi Channel (it puzzles me how the Sci-Fi Channel can start with a classic like EARTHSEA and turn it into drek, and then start with drek like BATTLESTAR PONDEROSA and turn it into something quite watchable, but there you are) and the best space show in many a year.
I am intrigued to note that the humans on the new GALACTICA call the Cylons "toasters" as a perjorative. As best I can recall, this was never used on the original show. My guess is that they picked up the usage from "Measure of a Man," one of the few good episodes of STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, written by Melinda M. Snodgrass. This was the episode where Data is on trial to detemine if he is man or a machine; during the trial, he is referred to as a toaster. Ron Moore, who created the new GALACTICA, worked on the NEXT GEN with Melinda, and was certainly familiar with her "toaster" usage.
Melinda in turn borrowed that riff from Walter Jon Williams, who had Dr. Travnicek call Modular Man a "toaster" in his WILD CARDS stories way back in 1985-86... though Modular Man appeared in our SuperWorld games long before WILD CARDS, and it may be that "toaster" (as applied to a mechanical man rather than a device for burning bread) made its first world appearance some late night in one of our games.
It bemuses me to think that a witticism first tossed out in a RPG has now entered the common parlance of SF, via WILD CARDS, STAR TREK, and the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Toasters of the galaxy, unite.
ROME - 10/07/05
ROME is just as good as I had hoped it would be, and a wonderful contrast to the summer's wrectched and embarassing EMPIRE. Same period, same story, many of the same characters, yet the ABC show was as dull as it was stupid, and the HBO show is rich, layered, authentic, sexy, and engrossing.
The moment one episode of ROME ends I am ready for the next one to begin. With EMPIRE, the episodes couldn't end too soon for me. ROME actually feels as if it is set in the Late Republic; the look, the feel, the attitudes, everything rings true. EMPIRE had modern American actors running around in togas. Contrast the relationship of ROME's Octavian and Titus Pullo with that of EMPIRE's Octavian and Tyrranus to understand that it is not the idea that makes a story so much as it is the handling of the idea. Both pairings include fictional characters, but the former convinces, and the latter was pure Hollywood and utterly bogus.
If you are not watching ROME, you're missing the best drama on TV since... well, since DEADWOOD went off the air.
(Oh, and ROME has a dwarf in a recurring role as well, though he hasn't had enough lines for me to tell whether he would make a good Tyrion or not). EMPIRE - 07/22/05
I've been watching EMPIRE on ABC these past few weeks. Only Jove knows why. Chalk it up to my morbid fascination with ancient Rome, especially the late Republic and early Empire. Nothing else could explain it. EMPIRE might be marginally entertaining for viewers who know little about the Romans, and would prefer to know less. For anyone who has ever glanced at a history book, however, it is alternately excruciating and hilarious. XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS was a History Channel documentary compared to this thing... but have no fear, EMPIRE ends this week. And come fall, HBO will be giving us ROME. I have high hopes for that one. If it is only half as good as DEADWOOD, it will still be the second best show on televison...
WAR OF THE WORLDS - 07/01/05
Parris and I went to see the big Spielberg/ Cruise version of WAR OF THE WORLDS last night. I liked it more than she did.
(SPOILERS FOLLOW, if you have not seen the film)
Parris was put off by all the heavy visual evocations of 9/11, which struck her as exploitative. Those didn't bother me so much. I kept thinking of the story as a metaphor for our invasion of Iraq... regular people trying to live their lives and survive as a technologically superior invader comes in and smashes their world all to hell. (That metaphor is very much implicit in the novel. H.G. was talking about the British imperialism of the Victorian Age, of course, not the American imperialism of the 21st century, but one of the strengths of science fiction is its ability to transcend the specifics of time and place and culture and assume new meanings for new audiences).
The Spielberg film owes more to the 1953 George Pal version than it does the H. G. Wells novel. Given the huge budget, it is no surprise to find that it is visually stunning, the action sequences spectacular.. The alien tripods are convincing and scary, and I loved the "foghorn" sound effect by which they speak to one another. The aliens themselves were also well done, but too robust for my taste. In the novel and the Pal movie, the Martians are physically frail, being a decadent race from a low gravity world, and that makes more sense to me. (Of course, Spielberg's aliens are not Martians, but generic aliens. We never learn where they come from).
Tom Cruise's performance is... okay. Not great, not awful. Tim Robbins blows him off the screen in the scenes they have together.
On the negative side, the happy ending feels as though it was tacked on to please the focus groups, and struck me as totally false Hollywood schtick. And about the scene where Tom Cruise and the convenient grenade belt get sucked up into the giant alien anus... well, the less said the better.
Also, the whole business about the invaders coming down on lightning bolts to activate fighting machines that they had buried on Earth millions of years ago is unspeakably ludicrous and totally unnecessary. What the hell was wrong with them crashing down in huge spaceships/ meteors, as in the novel and the Pal movie? That works much better.
I did enjoy seeing the aliens destroy my hometown. That's Bayonne, New Jersey in the opening sequences. Looks as though Cruise works on the same docks where my father worked, and lives under the approaches of the Bayonne Bridge (the world's second-longest steel arch bridge, don'tchaknow). I grew up a few blocks to the east of his house, and the bridge was a landmark of my childhood.
The film is worth seeing on the big screen, I think, if only for the visual spectacle. But all in all, I'd put it on the same level as INDEPENDENCE DAY, and rank the 1953 Pal version as superior, even after all these years. Pal could not do convincing tripods, given the relatively primitive SFX of the period, but his solution, the famous Martian "manta ray" fighters moving slowly and inexorably across the landscape, had their own sort of ominous beauty.
I might also mention that there are not one, not two, but three more versions of WAR OF THE WORLDS in the offing: one just out on DVD, one soon to be released on DVD, and one still in production for a 2007 release. The book is in the public domain. (Which probably means that the heirs of H.G. Wells will not see a Martian penny from all these new films of great granddaddy's classic).
