Okay, slacked off for a bit, but here's my next to last set. This was the end of October, beginning of November, so you can see there's a very "rusty" look going on, which, givena full look, can be rather imposing and handsome. Watch out for the one with ducks!

( more under the cut )

The Wire's Idris Elba is joining the cast of Thor. Right now there is are arguments because Elba is black, and not only the is the character in the comics white, but he's also a Norse deity, with all kinds of cries about accuracy, whether something mythological can technically be accurate, how Marvel's version of Norse Mythology is pretty tampered to begin with. I myself would probably keep the cast pretty Nordic-looking, but after the Last Airbender debacle, I think at the very least we're going to have to file this under "good for the gander". And I can at least believe he was the very best actor for the role (In fact, he's kinda overcast)

However, on the subject of multiracialism in fantasy, I have come to realize something; In shows like Merlin and Legend of the Seeker, or the movie version of Eragon we see them travel to a village, with a couple of black people here and there, existing alongside the white population. What actually strikes me as improbable, is that we don't see anyone in between. In a non-Industrial society, especially in smaller villages, wouldn't it be impossible for such color lines to remain stark? If there's such a variety in the gene pool, shouldn't there be some kind of steady gradient? Yes, yes I know "it's just a TV Show" and "A Wizard did it", but I think to a certain degree, that deprives the world-building of what could be a very interesting culture.

How the hell did Naomi Watts end up on an ABC Family Christmas movie? Are we that far removed from her getting Oscar nominations and doing Peter Jackson's follow-up to Lord of the Rings? I mean yes, she's historically the poor man's Nicole Kidman, but by that logic Nicole Kidman would be doing Lifetime. Does she have gambling debts? Friends at the channel? Is she just too tired from babies to do on-location stuff? I'm sure someone will say "Work is work", but in gneral, ABC Family Original movies usually boast the likes of your Jenny McCarthys, your Mario Lopez. (Maybe if you're really lucky, a Krisin Davis) It's like a stop before Dancing With the Stars. And after the Direct TV ad, I'm a little worried.

By the way, Neil Patrick Harris is in it too, but while a coup, that's not out of left field, as Harris is right now kind of like William Shatner except he can sing.

There's a new Solomon Kane movie out right now, and I';m reminded of something. I sometimes throw around the idea with making a fantasy series with a Christian bent. Like, Harry Potter without the threat of a book burning. I'm not a religious person, but that's kind of why I want to do it. There's just this inherent challenge in approaching something that doesn't have a fetishistic appeal to you. The mark of a good writer is one that can see from a different point of view, and maybe find some common ground and make it compelling.

I also think that if the bible-belt crowd is going to have a fantasy series, they should have a real one. Not in the same way C.S. Lewis did with the Narnia series. C.S. Lewis took a very, very pagan setting, infused it with some vague moralizing that could honestly be a few religions, and said "Oh, by the way, the lion was Jesus", and possibly only got away with it because other books he wrote did back up his wolrd views." But I just find it very humorous he pulled if off. I mean, Satyrs! Satyrs look like the devil and to be honest they weren't even that benevolent in classical mythology either. Yet some how he was able to take a world of fertility Gods, and put in on Church reading lists. Or say, the way Stephanie Meyer basically took a Mormon ode to abstinence and put the vampire label.I'm not equating the authors in talent by the way, and at least Lewis's mythical creatures acted like they're supposed to. (When Meyer's vampires acted like vampires, fans took it like some Battlestar Galactica bait and switch) Really, when you think about it, Twilight is actually less about vampires than it is about Celtic-style fair folk. Like, I bet you could replace "vampire" with "fairy" or "elf", and not only not miss a beat, but even have it make more sense. They're beautiful, they sparkle, and they live in the Pacific Northwest, which is as close to a real life Lorien as you're going to get)

I guess I almost want to do the reverse, to a certain extent. Not stealthily say "Oh btw, it's about God. Gotcha!", but say upfront "This is the stuff you see in Sunday school. Let's see if I can actually make it kick ass". There's no real attempts at allegory or anything like that. No, what I want to do is an actual series with actual Biblical trappings. Not a wizard who says it's all part of God's plan. I don't want to do any sort of bait and switch. I want to do have my protagonists be actual Paladins or Clerics or Holy Warriors (In the vein of Dungeons and Dragons, ironically enough) The bad guys will totally be demons and maybe even deities from Babylonian or Egyptian mythology (Because they appeared in the bible. Intercontinuity crossover!) And the best part is, in the bible, angels are actually kind of really, really bizarre looking with entire bodies made up of their wings and bulls' heads for chests. Really, really badass stuff. Instead of say, wizards, I could have mentor figures be Saints, which by the way, were actually kind of the superheroes of the Middle Ages. Usually they would file off the serial numbers of a local deity or hero, and attribute the feats to a local pastor. (Which is actually kind of similar to what I talked about above, I guess) So like, our protagonist would commit "Miracles" instead of spells to vanquish some lich with. The swords will be holy artifacts, and maybe someone will carry a hammer like old school warrior-bishops did.

But I don't want to make it heavy-handed prothelyzing in either direction. There would be not attempts to say back up any religious view (or more exactly, any religious view as it pertains to real world politics) It would the usual good-and-evil stuff. It's more an experiment on how entertaining a world using strictly Christian mysticism to construct its rules. I'm not going to have them say, burn witches at the stake and commit fantasy hate crimes because God shall not suffer a witch to live. I'm not going to say, make adversaries stand-ins for Wicca. They'll fight typical skull-headed, black-robed necromancers. I don't want it to be in the born-again ghetto. I actually want it to be enjoyed by people who aren't steady churchgoers as well. (If for no other reason, that if they're made into movies, Kirk Cameron doesn't get first dibs on a role) I don't want this to do this to win any converts, nor piss off religious readers at the last second. I want to make a mainstream sword and sorcery series totally palatable to Christian fundamentalists just to see if I can.

Another batch. Here, some of the leaves are turning a widespread gold and orange, which is why I post many of them after the season is over, to mix it up.


( More after the cut )

My next batch of pictures! Now we're starting to see trees get a little more full and rich. (Except along roads, where they're kind of thin and reedy) I unfortunately just do not have as many lake pictures as last year, for whatever reason i found myself with street ones half the time.

( Nine more after the cut )

Alright, it's November, and the trees are now mostly bare. I think I got what I'm going to get, and this was a harder year than usual to get pictures due to the crazy weather. At one point it even snowed this year. But every time I thought it was all over, I'd get a nice surprise. But ultimately, I think I got what I'm going to get, and right now it's about sorting them out. I'm saving my best ones for last, but 'm throwing in a few I hope you guys will enjoy.

( Nine more under the cut )

Why are the TV channels being so lame tonight. Nobody wants to actually make Halloween themed programming. ABC Family thinks they are with Batman Forever, but, while I can kind of see how Batman is a good Halloween figure, Forever is the least scary of the Batman movies. (Batman and Robin is scarier on a more existential level) Though to be fair, there is like, five minutes of trick or treating.

Really, the only ones that wanted to play ball are FX (With Ghost Rider), MTV (With Scream 3) and Bravo! (With Hannibal). Sure, they're not the greatest movies ever, but in a way, that's fitting enough. This is a night of latex masks and processed chocolate. In a way, a work that was too artfully crafted would almost not be in the spirit of it.

I'm settling on some history channel special on werewolves, though. History Channel's cheap-ass production values make me feel like I really am at a Halloween party.

Hey guys. It's time again to show my annual fal foliage pictures. The unfortunate thing is, so far the season has been a bit dissapointing. We've been getting a massive amount of wind that slowly whittles the leaves off, and a schedule that hasn't really been quite agreeable. So my first round of pictures might be a bit of a dissapointment. There's actually either greener than they should be, or stringier. It's perhaps also the result that I've already taken hudnreds of pictures, and maybe I've just kind of run out of things. On the plus side, this has only been the first two weeks, where I mostly cncentrate on lakes and stuff. The peak period should kick in at the end of the weak, and with any luck that will look spectacular and make up for the lack of lake pictures. Now that I have a driver's lisence, I hope to be exploring the rest of the state, and maybe even Conneticut and Eastern Mass.



( Nine more after the cut )

So it's October. I'm getting ready to go out and take snapshots,a nd like every fall, I get concerned about it everything turning early. (I think it may in fact turn early, simply because of some very cold weather we've been having. But only by a couple of days or so) The reason I worry myself over this is because 1) I look out for it more and 2) There's always going to be some trees that turn before others. They're not on an exact schedule. But I've been looking at foliage reports,a nd RI itself isn't ahead of schedule or anything. (But further south is) However, all that really matters is if the leaf drop-off is low, which it is so far. Up North they're saying it's the most beautiful foliage they've seen in many years, so I hope that's a good sign.

I've also been working a lot on my medieval America project. One of the ideas I kick around is the mythology and folklore that will exist. One thing to keep in mind is that maybe new characters will pop up over the centuries, but I generally fixate myself on stuff we're familiar with. What I try and do is consolidate archetypes, and I'm slightly shocked at how easy that all is. I mean, there is always going to be the young hero with destiny, the wizened mentor, etc. But when Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and Peter Parker all have red-headed spouses? Or how lne female adventurers tend to be more ruthless than their counterparts? This is obviously something you could get looking at TV Tropes log enough, but it's just funny to realize how modern some of these insitutions are. For instance, research has shown the "Dark Overlord" is actually pretty rare in much fiction until the 20th century. Most evil overlords tended to be female, and male adversaries seemed to be more cosmic shit-stirrers than anything. In any case, it's a lot of fun coming up with an "American Mythology".

It looks like the Robert Pattinson thread has offically passed the Gerard Butler one in posts.

Tags: snarkfest

When Disney bought Marvel, one of the big questions was how this was going to have an effect on the animation division. The cartoon game was one Marvel was always interested in, buying their own cartoon studio at the tail-end of the seventies, (though very few of their animation productions employed their own characters,) however the eventually jumped ship to focus on movies. (As the animation game is a very sketchy one right now. I decided to do a bit of look at their animated history, which eventually turned into a look at all animated takes on their characters. Of course, this itself proved very, very exhaustive. So I decided to limit it to three animated appearances. This gives you a good idea on who are considered their more important characters, and who may be prioritized. However, it's also important to keep in mind some cartoons are more cartoon friendly than others. So for instance, The Punisher and Deadpool aren't going to make as many forays into animation. Also, Marvel animation is very, very fond of cameos, but I don't count them. Basically, you either have to lines or be referred to as existing.

I haven't done extensive biogrpahies of the charactersm because I figure, if you don't know who they are, you're probably not that curious to see how many times they may have appeared.

A word you're going to see pop up constantly is "embargo". This basically refers to when the show times itself (I can't bring myself to say "coincides") with a major motion picture. What happens is, certain villains who are part of (or look to be part of) this movie are not included. This could be for rights issues, or the makers of the cartoon don't want to contradict the movie continuity too much, or just want to avoid toe-stepping in general.

( Show Index )

It is pretty big and surprising news. The world's largest entertainment conglomerate, Disney, has bought the shorthand for superhero comics, Marvel. A surprising amount of teeth-gnashing has existed over this, with the rather reactionary fear of them fitting Wolverine with a tiara or something. This is Buena Vista, the overall corporation that simply has the rights to the company. It has not affected ESPN. It has not affected movies like Scream, Kill Bill and No COuntry For Old Men. Harvey Weisntein will probably moan endlessly about interference from the Mouse House, but I can't imagine anything that would drastically curtail a stable of characters that exist to sell lunchboxes. Perhaps the most visible (and most immediate) form of synergy will probably be with ABC. After a decade relatively absent from the box, Marvel will probably now have a relationship with ABC like they did with Fox is the nineties, NBC in the eighties, and CBS in the 70's. In fact, I don't think a Marvel program has aired on a big three network in twenty years)

There's not going to be much of a difference in the short term. Most of the movies are on track, and Disney doesn't seem to have any intention of meddling with Marvel's "Island of Adventure". I don't see the two overlapping that much for time being. A lot of Disney's mascots are funny animals and princesses. In short, it's very much fairy tale type fantasy, while Marvel has the big buff futuristic superhero properties--with very little intention on pushing anything else. I don't think there will be a lot of redundancy, Disney is interested in Marvel's stable because it has something they're missing, and they want to make something off that market.

What Disney has acquired, is essentially an action universe. Disney has done fairly well with "adventure", but not quite "action". What they now have is a source of revenue the plugs their one major demographic hole. The stable of characters is great, and in my opinion, eminently marketable. Spider-Man is a perfect mascot--he's perhaps one of the most unique-looking characters in popular culture. To give you an idea, how many Spider-Man pastiches do you see? I think what's great about the Marvel line-up is characters like Spidey, Iron Man, Hulk, Human Torch, the Thing, Iceman...is how visually distinct they are. They don't always have to run to the "masks and tights" thing, which from a licensing perspective gives you a lot of options. We might see Disney try to exploit its international/multicultural characters more, but I don't really see that as a bad thing. I also think the big thing, what Disney really gets out of it, is settings like the Savage Land, The Microverse, Atlantis...you can make fantastic live or animated movies with those settings. Should the superhero bubble burst, I think Disney should keep their eyes on that.

But for the most part, I do think this will be business as usual. I'm not the biggest fan of so many corporations consolidating under one roof, but it's the way of the world.

Whew. Okay, laurelin_kit's connection on this computer has finally been working, and I've been doing some catching up. The past week has been both the most fun and exhausting I've had in a while. The outings have been fun and the company's been great (laur's a great hostess, and nc_bookworm is totally fun), though as a New Englander, a Florida August took some getting used to. But in general, I've just been really, really happy. The lakes are beautiful, there are lizards everywhere, and the city is full of options. I'll probably talk a lot more to everyone once I get back.

Last week I found a zoo that is, no word of a lie, twenty minutes from where I am. (Granted, everything is twenty minutes away in northern Rhode Island, but still) it's pretty amazing. They have an impressive selection of animals, and seem to specialize in primates, and a lot of white or albino animals. (However, if you're a fan of reptiles and amphibians, you might be a little dissapointed) You can browse through them here. By the way, you'll see a lot of deer, because one of the features is a trail where you can walk with, feed, and if the disposition is good enough, pet deer. As you can see, it starts off with kangeroos, which actually seems to be the case with a lot with a lot of zoos around here. And it kind of makes sense. Kangeroos are an ideal opening act. You have your star animals, like lions, tigers and elephants. And you have your midly interesting and obscure animals like capbara. Kangeroos are a good way to say you're a first-string operation without blowing your load. They're not quite megafauna, but they're not rodents either. Like the Sean William Scott to the Rock's big carnivorous cat.

I was thinking about how you have your big huge headliner animals, like lions, tigers, gorillas, elephants, polar bears, etc. Africa is clearly the dominant continenet with the "charismatic" animals, to the point some people mistake what animals live there (For example tigers). What's interesting is, South America arguably doesn't have one, unless you count their giant snakes. Like, it's not Europe. It isn't devoid from a zoological standpoint, but it doesn' really have a one true mascot, except maybe the chameleon. It's almost like the stocking stuffer store. If you want monkeys or reptiles or birds, they've got plenty, and they've got the prettiest. You can easily set up an exibit dedicated to the Amazon. But I've never seen sign to a zoo with a South American animal on it. Does anyone know if there are zoos that put a tapir or a sloth or something on the marquee? Are jaguars more fascinating to continents without leopards?

Tags: animal kingdom, picture posts

There's a free online browser game called "civony", which is essentially a Travian rip-off. You build up cities, gather resoruces, build up armies. it's pretty standard, and it seems not that bad a game. However, they use the tried-and-true-if-oft-complained-about "sex sells motif. They would have these banner ads showing a scantily clad woman that looks like one of those "sexy tavern wench" or Boris Vallejo get-ups. The words "save your queen" or "I'm waiting for you my lord" would show up. I'm pretty sure no queen is actually seen in the game. But hey, sleazy as it is, they've been doing that sort of thing on book covers and movie posters. But now,t he banner ads are featuring this.




I...don't think she resembles a fantasy babe at all. She just looks like somebody who might hang out at an actual, modern bar. This seems like more of the imagery. you see for dating sites or late-night hotlines. They're just not even trying.

So Carrie Prejean is trying to drum up more interest in her sad story of how she was cruelly robbed of an increasingly irrelevant title. I think people really need to understand what "freedom of speech" means. It means that what you say isn't illegal, not that it earns you a lifetime pass in the conciousness. Private companies (Who's rights conservatives value like gold) can, however, do whatever they like. Especially if your job is being a public face. This isn't even say, a competent accountant or electrician who happens to have unfomortable political views. This is someone who' job it is to show at glittery events and smile and not be polarizing at all. If she can't do that, then yes, she is not qualified to be Miss USA, even for the given values of that. Is it fair to have lost due to how you answered your question? If it isn't, why is there a question round at all? Why don't contestants ever use it to say "The South losing the Civil War was a tragedy" or "Whales aren't that important, who cares if they go extinct?". I agree that the question was perhaps a shit-stirrer and it was probably statistically unlucky to be the contestant to have to answer that but--well, I particularly doubt she would have been bravely honest if asked "What is you one wish in the world". Because if she was, that answer would be "Attention, attention and more attention."

NBC has been airing episodes of the BBC show Merlin, a very, very loose adaptation of Arthurian mythos. It kind of doesn't resemble it at all. But upon watching it, I realize it's actually not a bad adaptation of Spider-Man. Actually,a few people have drawn Smallville references, but at the end of the day, I think Superman is more a typical knightly, or at least Herculean figure, than a sorcerous protagonist.



Young Merlin is pretty much Peter Parker. A gawky nobody youth with secret powers and episodic lessons on how not to be a moron with them. Or say, a moron in general. I don't know if Merlin has his own personal "Uncle Ben" moment, but I'm told he might in the future. Also, the amber eyes thing kind of reminds me a little of the spider-sense thing. Both splash colors around to tell you it's on. And I think it's pretty evident that Spider-Man's powers often reflect that of a spellcaster more than your typical brawling hero. I think it might be interesting to note that pre-Spidey, and pre-superhero genre in general, wizards were not protagonists. I mean, I don't know if it's being part of a society where brains are increasing value over brawn, or the Harry Potters of the world owe a lot to the superhero genre. Say that next time your teacher argues the literacy of your comic book collection!




On some level, people might draw connections of Arthur to Harry Osborn, with the "I just wanna please my father", but after that the similarities kind of end. Harry's usually not an alpha male who bullies Harry in most media, and even in the movies he's a screw-up. Flash Thompson kind of fits TV Arthur a little more, especially with the two common the blows a lot, before eventually becoming buddies. But it's still not as satisfactory because Arthur is actually kind of the main character in most of these stories, and Spider-Man has always been the unquestioned protagonist in his. He also has a bit of a rivalry with the Human Torch. As one of the most popular superheroes in the world, it's kind of hard to forget in the narrative itself, a lot of people find Spider-Man kind of creepy; Johnny Storm is more the muscleheaded idol of millions. And yes, I realized I had to composite three characters together. So what? Both Spider-Man and Arthurian adaptations do it all the damn time. (Just look up Excalibur. The sword.)



Another composite is Uther. Besides being a really stern single dad to the main character's best friend, he's also a dick authority figure. It's kind of a toss-up so far, since while Uther isn't evil, and doesn't have a haircut that looks like corduroys, Norman technically hasn't committed genocide. And while Uther probably can't be expected to run around dressed like a goblin, the two have one thing in common; In both the show and various Spider-Man stories, we see our hero save the asshole from the regular villain of the week. He has to do this a lot because Uther/Osborn chronically screws people over, so they accumulate enemies with a rather valid axe to grind. However, I'm also gonna throw in a bit of J Jonah Jameson, with both being the abusive boss to our hero, and the general mistrust of superheroes (Like Uther being racist against magic). (The Green Goblin has never been good at having an actual motivation)




Gaius/Uncle Ben is surprisingly easy. Now the main difference is various Spider-Man stories don't have a mentor figure teaching Peter Parker along the way. Usually Uncle Ben will dole advice in flashbacks or hallucinations Spider-Man seems to get all too often. There is a What If? story though, where it was Aunt May that got the fatal bullet instead, with Ben being in on Peter's secret, had him being less doting and more stern. It might be worth mentioning though, that movie Aunt May is a little sharper than other incarnations, she tends to give out more and increasingly boring advice as the series goes on. And it ultimately makes sense, as Gaius does look like somebody merged Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson had a baby and it was all weird and already elderly and had a British accent.



It's kind of hard to say which girl in general Guinevere resembles, but I'll go with Betty Brant for now. Of all of Peter's love interests, she was the the most working class. Also, she' usually the least permanent. As most know, Guin going to end up with Arthur, and then Lancelot. And hey, I think Betty is the only confirmed adulteress in Spider-Man canon. I actually always found it kind of weird the Spider-Man supporting cast only dated within their circle of friends. Think about it. When somebody throws a party, every guest there has at least second-hand knowledge of everyone else's genitals. No wonder some of them go crazy.



Speaking of which, we have Lancelot, who in some ways is parallel to Ned Leeds, who always seemed to be a gentleman, until his wife's infidelity drove him nuts. But just as the TV Lancelot is only a guest star, Ned Leeds kind of comes and goes in Spider-canon. I gotta be honest with you, I like, have three comics with him and even then I don't think I could tell you something important about him other than people thought he was the Hobgoblin for a while. I guess you can also draw parallels to Daredevil. Just as Merlin was ready to gay-cheat on Arthur with Lance, Spidey has a one true "friendship" with Hornhead. DD also resembles Lancelot on the show in a few ways. Coming from modest origins, on one hand Daredevil is an upholder of the legal system as a lawyer, while at the same time beating thugs in the street as a vigilante. Meanwhile, Lancelot wants nothing more than to uphold truth and justice as a knight of the realm, but covered up the fact his family is probably made up of prostitutes and shit-farmers. Also, with Daredevil being a Lawyer, and Lancelot being French, the two are members of the most maligned groups in all the English-speaking world.



Finally, there's the resident femme fatale. In the comics, Black cat is a master criminal with a flirtatious/antagonistic rivalry with Spider-Man, eventually becomes his partner, and learns how to be a hero. In Arthurian mythology, Nimue has an antagonistic/flirtatious rivalry with Merlin, becomes his apprentice, and learns how to turn him into a tree.

As for Morgana...I don't know. I think she honestly needs a personality and contribution to the plot before I can decide. Until then...Liz Allen I guess?

Tags: superheroes. fantasy, television

Okay, so a few months back I stumbled on this site. The idea is, what would the continent of North America look like as a medieval society? It was a pretty interesting idea, however he seemed to drop it pretty early on. The thing is though, something about it burned in my brain, and I started obsessing. Not because of what the site author did, but what he didn't do. There wre so many breadcrumbs lying around, I just had to fill in the blanks.

So I went and started this blog, where I speculate on what other regions and cultures may exist. So check it out. Or not. I would like to know what other history buffs, or people from elsewhere around the country might have to say.

I've gotten laurelin_kit into Deadwood. She's enjoying it, not the least for what she calls the limited but "concentrated source of pretty", Seth Bullock.

laurelin_kit: Who in the what now
laurelin_kit: Did he just say wife?
skyblade Yes
laurelin_kit: Am I hearing impaired or was that not mentioned before?
skyblade: I think he may have mentiond it before
skyblade: But it's supposed to feel surprising
skyblade: That issue is very, very complicated
laurelin_kit: I bet, considering he's eyefucking Alma CONSTANTLY
laurelin_kit: And the camera
laurelin_kit: And the trees
laurelin_kit: And Sol
laurelin_kit: And the horses
laurelin_kit: And me

Tags: im conversations

Hmm, it seems Christian Bale has been left out of the adds for Public Enemies lately, even though he was a part of them before. The studio says they want to mainline the 'focus" on the antiheroic protagonist as a solitary figure. (I guess they would find Bale "fucking distracting". I'm sorry.) Now granted, his part is small, but it's quite a turnaround. It makes me wonder if people think people avoided Terminator: Salvation because of his publicized rants, which i find preposterous. I think people skipped out on it because the Terminator franchise obviously didn't have as much mileage as studios preposterous to it. Only one movie in the trilogy was even that huge by the standards of the day. Plus, this didn't even have the usual Terminator formula. I don't think audiences bailed out because he has a temper, though.

ANyhow, this weekend will actually show how much pull Depp has. As Jack Sparrow, it's a hell of a lot. (And apparently inflates his rep, if people think he's the biggest star in the world) With Tim Burton, a great deal. But this will be his outing with a period, but somewhat mainstream setting. (Road to Perdition made 100 million, so that may be the neighborhood of what a Chicago gangster movie released in summer could make.) Michael Mann is a more prestigious than commercial director, but he still has mainstream sensibilities. Though part of me thinks this would be more of a movie they should have released at the end of July, not the beginning. I think over July 4th, people might want more "fun" movies, but late summer is good for marginially more serious fare.

Transformers has grossed an obscene amount of money in the last couple of days. It's also being critically drubbed, and now articles are wondering what this means about the audience/critic divide. (Though I guess if critics have no sway on the Oscars anymore, they probably shouldn't have on voters.) The thing is, it's not about a disconnect between critics and audiences per se. (though there are cases where one could say that) It's that a large amount of money being predertimned in the first place. If critics are irrelevant, it's not because of a divide in taste, it's because loyalty to the concept is pre-bought. Marketing, brand extension, and greenlighting things with pre-existing fanvases is paying off. A lot of people simply don't want to tell themselves that so much anticipation and ten bucks is all a waste.

Of the decade's top movies of the year, this was generally how it worked. I was left with a bit of an uncomfortable feeling when Shrek 2 was the highest grossing movie of the year. Something about "sequel" and "breaking out" together in the same sentence, especially for a movie I found to be such a crass non-entity, to be a bit discomforting. I also felt that way about Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead man's Ches, and was a little nonplussed when I saw that people were actively rooting for it to topple Titanic. (Who were also making similar "What do critics care" remarks when it flopped. This may have been a big turning moment in the critic's divide people talk about now. Because what makes Pirates fans unique is a lot of the die hards are otherwise kind of snobby). And when, last year, The Dark Knight made an insane amount--while I don't think it's a abomination, I just never felt congratulatory about it. "Okay, another Batman movie tops the year, again". I recognized, in a way a lot of people didn't, that it wasn't as simple as "good movie makes a lot of money." But while quality and box-office have never been tied at the hip, we're now in a world where success begets more success. Inertia is the biggest part of making a blockbuster these days. So the news doesn't upset me. Or even surprise me. I don't think it's an omen of things to come. There were omens before. This is the payoff. We're just going to have to live with it.

Tags: box-office

So the Academy has changed the rules big time, making the list of best picture nominees ten movies instead of five. The thing is, I can't quite see this as good. Remember, last year was a year in which they were seen as scraping the barrel, but they still went with barrel scrapings first. Do they think The Dark Knight or Wall-E would have made it in if there were ten slots? Because I don't. It might be an attempt to be more inclusive, but I think that the current favoring system that ranks best picture choices is going to thoow havooc with that. I don't think we'll see more blockbusters, big and dumb or otherwise. I don't think we'll see more fireign films. I think we'll probably see more movies that are the pet projects of movers and shakers. The middlebrow psueod-art house fare.

There's been a bounty of old school Land of the Lost marathons I've been watching with Laur and exiledprincess. One of the signatures of the show have been the race of lizard men known as Sleestaks, who menaced the Marshall family. There was one Sleestak-looking guy however, who wasn't into the hissing and shitty crossbow--Enik. He was the kind of character who had all that snarkiness and moral ambigouity and general dourness that would get all the viewers moist if he wasn't a big reptile ina disco collar. Enik was generally in a snit because of all the dumbassery going on between the Sleestaks and the Marshalls, and he certainly had a point.

But I'm starting to suspect he was a dick the rest of the time as well. I mean, whenever you see those Strangers in a Strange Land type stories--they weren't that happy to get home to begin with. It's like their alienation from their homes were lessons in not being a misanthrope. You know, Gulliver, Charlton Heston from Planet of the Apes. I thinK Enik stumbled into the Land of the Lost, thinking about he's free from the rest of those nitwits, and arrives to a "Damn it, you blew it all up" scenario, and his only company is a family that's damn stupid, and is probably going to inbreed even stupider. And when Enik gets back, all the other Altrusians are going to think "Oh great! It's the party pooper!" and Enik will be back to calling them 'tards for having myspace accounts and quoting No Doubt songs.

Someone asked what they thought Eddie Murphy's newest movie, Imagine That would make. And I realized something. I don't have a clue. I honestly couldn't tell you. Past evidence and opinions provide no support.

The thing is, I try to respect other people's opinions. (I don't know if I come off that way, but I kind of try.) But a pet peeve of mine is when people make distinctions that make no sense. Like, people not being into superheroes, but loving Heroes. People saying they don't like westerns, but thinking 3:10 To Yuma was keen. I think partly is because casting wide net dispersions on things is not a contructive way to view art, so if you're gonna do that, your exception shouldn't be a better example of the rule. Also, I try very hard to see where other people are coming from, that if I can't see where they're coming from, I black out. I can respect anything if it's consistent, but I get pissy about what I see as a lack of consitency.

It was then I realized what a crapshoot an Eddie Murphy is as a pull. Like, I can understand why Ghost Rider was a hit and Wicker Man wasn't. I know why Date Movie was moderately more successful than Disaster Movie. But I can't for the life of me, even in hindsight, explain what some of his movie have that others don't. I don't know why Norbit was a hit and Meet Dave was a bomb. I can't fathom how audiences found it funnier, more warmhearted, less grotesque. My best guess is some Eddie Murphy movies have, in their sound editing, a high pitched frequency that agitates the sort of people that would find Eddie Murphy movies funny.

Tags: box-office