- Published on
Good afternoon, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for April 11, 2024!
Let the merriment begin!
I know, I know, I know: "where were you yesterday?!" Well, I was busy, folks, so apologies that I didn't get a post up. I should've -- I had time -- but I got sidetracked with a few things here and there, time got away from me, and there you have it. I really have no excuse other than I just didn't get around to it. Refunds will be issued ... assuming you ever paid.
Hahahahahaha.
But I'm here now, and I'm ready and raring to go. Sometimes, a day away from the blog can accomplish some incredible things. I did a slew of lesser research on some obscure titles, and I spent a bit of time fashioning the review for 1957's The Tin Star that I posted on the MainPage only moments ago. Check it out, if you're so inclined. Also, I had a thing in the evening that required a bit of attention, so we are where we are. As they say: "suck it."
As for today's history?
Let the merriment begin!
I know, I know, I know: "where were you yesterday?!" Well, I was busy, folks, so apologies that I didn't get a post up. I should've -- I had time -- but I got sidetracked with a few things here and there, time got away from me, and there you have it. I really have no excuse other than I just didn't get around to it. Refunds will be issued ... assuming you ever paid.
Hahahahahaha.
But I'm here now, and I'm ready and raring to go. Sometimes, a day away from the blog can accomplish some incredible things. I did a slew of lesser research on some obscure titles, and I spent a bit of time fashioning the review for 1957's The Tin Star that I posted on the MainPage only moments ago. Check it out, if you're so inclined. Also, I had a thing in the evening that required a bit of attention, so we are where we are. As they say: "suck it."
As for today's history?
You know, one of the reasons I ultimately began SciFiHistory.Net is that I grew tired of hearing from young(ish) folks that they didn't know what I was talking about.
Culturally, we tend to lose our history. We tend to forget things that we're either not encouraged to know or we make a serious attempt to acknowledge existed in some way, shape, or form. In my years of blathering incessantly about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror on the World Wide Web or message boards or the like, I came across scads and scads and scads of people who "claimed" to be "hardcore" fans for "years and years" and yet they'd never heard of Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, or John Carter. So, yeah, I started to seriously question what being a "hardcore" fan truly meant, and I figured this was the best way I could (cough cough) help them be better at it.
So, yeah, if that offends you, so be it. But ... maybe don't call yourself a hardcore fan if you don't know the history?
That's what's really shameful about us as a people, that somehow we let properties like Buck Rogers go dormant for so many years, never quite calling attention to it or giving it the attention it might be owed for paving the way for so, so, so many other franchises. While the original comic strip began in January, 1929, it wasn't until a decade later that Hollywood got around to bringing it to life on the silver screen ... and, lo and behold, they cast the guy who has basically popularized Flash Gordon in serial format to inhabit the seminal hero.
Happy birthday to that incarnation ... one which pretty much lay in sleep mode for four decades before it came back on television as Buck Rogers In The 25th Century. Looking at the calendar, I think it's well past time for another update!
Culturally, we tend to lose our history. We tend to forget things that we're either not encouraged to know or we make a serious attempt to acknowledge existed in some way, shape, or form. In my years of blathering incessantly about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror on the World Wide Web or message boards or the like, I came across scads and scads and scads of people who "claimed" to be "hardcore" fans for "years and years" and yet they'd never heard of Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, or John Carter. So, yeah, I started to seriously question what being a "hardcore" fan truly meant, and I figured this was the best way I could (cough cough) help them be better at it.
So, yeah, if that offends you, so be it. But ... maybe don't call yourself a hardcore fan if you don't know the history?
That's what's really shameful about us as a people, that somehow we let properties like Buck Rogers go dormant for so many years, never quite calling attention to it or giving it the attention it might be owed for paving the way for so, so, so many other franchises. While the original comic strip began in January, 1929, it wasn't until a decade later that Hollywood got around to bringing it to life on the silver screen ... and, lo and behold, they cast the guy who has basically popularized Flash Gordon in serial format to inhabit the seminal hero.
Happy birthday to that incarnation ... one which pretty much lay in sleep mode for four decades before it came back on television as Buck Rogers In The 25th Century. Looking at the calendar, I think it's well past time for another update!
Riddle me this: when is an Alien movie not an Alien movie?
Well, that would be when it looks a little something-something like Prometheus, a production that first premiered on this day back in 2012.
Now, I'm not interested in courting controversy here, but let me make my point about the above as simply as I can. Director Ridley Scott along with the entire production team -- at one point -- didn't act as if they knew what they were making. During this installment's assembly, I can recall reading stories about how it was another chapter in the Alien saga or how it wasn't or how it was intended to be a side-journey in the wider Alien franchise ... and, dare I say, I think they were as confused as perhaps audiences were with whether or not they should embrace the final cut. Yes, it winded up clearly incorporating many elements of that seminal space saga, but it never quite felt like another chapter in the expanding universe. In fact, I've agreed with many who suggest that Prometheus is a very, very, very good Science Fiction flick, but it's a downright awful Alien film, never quite emerging with enough of that intellectual DNA to make it a worthwhile addition.
As always, you all are entitled to think what you will of it. I'm just giving you my two cents.
In either case, enjoy it if you do. I enjoyed parts of it, less so when they tried to make it all Alien.
Well, that would be when it looks a little something-something like Prometheus, a production that first premiered on this day back in 2012.
Now, I'm not interested in courting controversy here, but let me make my point about the above as simply as I can. Director Ridley Scott along with the entire production team -- at one point -- didn't act as if they knew what they were making. During this installment's assembly, I can recall reading stories about how it was another chapter in the Alien saga or how it wasn't or how it was intended to be a side-journey in the wider Alien franchise ... and, dare I say, I think they were as confused as perhaps audiences were with whether or not they should embrace the final cut. Yes, it winded up clearly incorporating many elements of that seminal space saga, but it never quite felt like another chapter in the expanding universe. In fact, I've agreed with many who suggest that Prometheus is a very, very, very good Science Fiction flick, but it's a downright awful Alien film, never quite emerging with enough of that intellectual DNA to make it a worthwhile addition.
As always, you all are entitled to think what you will of it. I'm just giving you my two cents.
In either case, enjoy it if you do. I enjoyed parts of it, less so when they tried to make it all Alien.
Well, well, well ...
Once again, we've reached that point in the Daily Blog that I remind you that your journey needn't end here. There's more -- a great deal more -- and at 77 different genre trivia citations I think each of you can find a cause for celebrating something within the realms of the Fantasic. Here's the link to get you started on that journey:
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Yes, yes, and yes: for the uninformed, I do occasionally cover Westerns on SciFiHistory.Net.
And – yes, yes, and yes – I’m often asked why. (Heck, even the wifey was surprised to hear about it.)
The answer isn’t all that simple, but I’ll try to be as clear as I can.
First, Westerns are revered by many to be a uniquely American film genre; and I, as an American tend to think very highly of them. For the most part, they are structured very similar to episodes of Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek: we’re introduced to the characters, and then these people are put through the paces via the classic morality play. The good and the evil are downright unmistakable, so this focus allows for storytellers to, essentially, stick to the story; and such concentrated aim allows for them to really develop the players. Granted, many of the men, women, and children might wind up being little more than stock archetypes, but every now and then they’re given a bit of room to play and something special happens.
Second, there’s a vast number of Science Fiction and Fantasy films out there for consumption that are nothing more than Westerns disguised with spaceships, ray guns, and speeders. Have you ever heard that George Lucas’ Star Wars is the quintessential Western that’s merely set in outer space? Did it escape your attention that even Gene Roddenberry and a whole plethora of television executives described Star Trek as the ‘wagon train to the stars?’ In fact, I’d argue that these two styles deserve to be looked at as opposite sides of the same coin given how much they share structurally with one another beyond just the fine print. They feel like one in the same at times, and that’s reassuring for audiences.
Lastly, there’s this little nugget of pure honesty: Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror titles are in such a limited supply – so far as the distribution outlets that I work with – that I’d not have as much to do if I didn’t relax my parameters a bit. Widening the spectrum of pictures I can ‘wax on wax off’ about allows me to draw upon like-minded features and, thus, share my insights with you – the faithful readership – in ways that delineate just how much SciFi and Fantasy and Horror both influences and is influenced by more conventional stories. It’s a small world, after all … so why not underscore how closely worker droids resemble a gunslinger’s pack mule in days from long ago? I think it’s a thing of beauty, and I can only hope you agree.
Today’s evidence: 1957’s The Tin Star, a pure oater directed by Anthony Mann and springing from the fertile imagination of Dudley Nichols, Barney Slater, and Joel Kane. Its star-studded line-up includes such luminaries as Henry Fonda, Anthony Perkins, Betsy Palmer, Neville Brand, and Lee Van Cleef. While – as a flick – it might not share an awful lot in common as I outlined above, the feature is still about as serviceable a Western as one might expect from the late 1950’s: there’s a good guy and a bad one who are destined to collide, but I’d argue that the picture plays it a bit too safe – a bit too domestic – in its middle third, so much so that I experienced a hard time staying focused on the trials of the old West’s hard knock life.
And – yes, yes, and yes – I’m often asked why. (Heck, even the wifey was surprised to hear about it.)
The answer isn’t all that simple, but I’ll try to be as clear as I can.
First, Westerns are revered by many to be a uniquely American film genre; and I, as an American tend to think very highly of them. For the most part, they are structured very similar to episodes of Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek: we’re introduced to the characters, and then these people are put through the paces via the classic morality play. The good and the evil are downright unmistakable, so this focus allows for storytellers to, essentially, stick to the story; and such concentrated aim allows for them to really develop the players. Granted, many of the men, women, and children might wind up being little more than stock archetypes, but every now and then they’re given a bit of room to play and something special happens.
Second, there’s a vast number of Science Fiction and Fantasy films out there for consumption that are nothing more than Westerns disguised with spaceships, ray guns, and speeders. Have you ever heard that George Lucas’ Star Wars is the quintessential Western that’s merely set in outer space? Did it escape your attention that even Gene Roddenberry and a whole plethora of television executives described Star Trek as the ‘wagon train to the stars?’ In fact, I’d argue that these two styles deserve to be looked at as opposite sides of the same coin given how much they share structurally with one another beyond just the fine print. They feel like one in the same at times, and that’s reassuring for audiences.
Lastly, there’s this little nugget of pure honesty: Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror titles are in such a limited supply – so far as the distribution outlets that I work with – that I’d not have as much to do if I didn’t relax my parameters a bit. Widening the spectrum of pictures I can ‘wax on wax off’ about allows me to draw upon like-minded features and, thus, share my insights with you – the faithful readership – in ways that delineate just how much SciFi and Fantasy and Horror both influences and is influenced by more conventional stories. It’s a small world, after all … so why not underscore how closely worker droids resemble a gunslinger’s pack mule in days from long ago? I think it’s a thing of beauty, and I can only hope you agree.
Today’s evidence: 1957’s The Tin Star, a pure oater directed by Anthony Mann and springing from the fertile imagination of Dudley Nichols, Barney Slater, and Joel Kane. Its star-studded line-up includes such luminaries as Henry Fonda, Anthony Perkins, Betsy Palmer, Neville Brand, and Lee Van Cleef. While – as a flick – it might not share an awful lot in common as I outlined above, the feature is still about as serviceable a Western as one might expect from the late 1950’s: there’s a good guy and a bad one who are destined to collide, but I’d argue that the picture plays it a bit too safe – a bit too domestic – in its middle third, so much so that I experienced a hard time staying focused on the trials of the old West’s hard knock life.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A cynical former sheriff turned bounty hunter helps a young, recently appointed acting sheriff with his advice, his experience, and his gun.”
Structurally, The Tin Star plays out very much like a three-act play.
In the first act, the players and situations are fully introduced. Audiences are treated to a fairly clear definition of characters, along with strong suggestions as to how they may or may not be intersecting with one another in this small, one-horse town. Traditionally, the second half is where a lot of the action and/or intrigue is supposed to happen, meaning that the writers begin truly fleshing out how these people are coming to grips with their circumstances and one another. All of those conflicts, then, are meant to build a head of steam leading to the big resolution – the final showdown – of the third act. At this point, all of the business is meant to be fully concluded, and viewers might even get a little ‘light’ coda – a casual wrap-up, often with a bit of humor or elation – as a sort-of ‘thanks for taking the ride’ with us.
Where Star really fails to resonate – at least, so far as I’m concerned – is with its second act. Instead of truly layering on the kind of substance that raises the stakes, this trio of screenwriters spend time allowing sheriff-turned-bounty-hunter Morgan Hickman (played by Henry Fonda) to establish his domestic bona fides as a man. He kinda/sorta spiritually adopts young Kip Mayfield (Michel Ray) as the son he lost years ago in a tragedy. He even kinda/sorta explores the prospect of an all-new relationship with Kip’s mother Nona (Betsy Palmer, who would go on to play the mother of Jason Voorhees in the Friday The 13th movie franchise) when she offers him a chance to stay after the town hotel brushes the man off with a cold shoulder. And he sets his sights on loosely tutoring new sheriff Ben Owens (Anthony Perkins) into the job, one he left decades ago in pursuit of a small fortune needed to save his marriage. (Hint: it didn’t, and that’s why he’s become a bit of a loner.)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A cynical former sheriff turned bounty hunter helps a young, recently appointed acting sheriff with his advice, his experience, and his gun.”
Structurally, The Tin Star plays out very much like a three-act play.
In the first act, the players and situations are fully introduced. Audiences are treated to a fairly clear definition of characters, along with strong suggestions as to how they may or may not be intersecting with one another in this small, one-horse town. Traditionally, the second half is where a lot of the action and/or intrigue is supposed to happen, meaning that the writers begin truly fleshing out how these people are coming to grips with their circumstances and one another. All of those conflicts, then, are meant to build a head of steam leading to the big resolution – the final showdown – of the third act. At this point, all of the business is meant to be fully concluded, and viewers might even get a little ‘light’ coda – a casual wrap-up, often with a bit of humor or elation – as a sort-of ‘thanks for taking the ride’ with us.
Where Star really fails to resonate – at least, so far as I’m concerned – is with its second act. Instead of truly layering on the kind of substance that raises the stakes, this trio of screenwriters spend time allowing sheriff-turned-bounty-hunter Morgan Hickman (played by Henry Fonda) to establish his domestic bona fides as a man. He kinda/sorta spiritually adopts young Kip Mayfield (Michel Ray) as the son he lost years ago in a tragedy. He even kinda/sorta explores the prospect of an all-new relationship with Kip’s mother Nona (Betsy Palmer, who would go on to play the mother of Jason Voorhees in the Friday The 13th movie franchise) when she offers him a chance to stay after the town hotel brushes the man off with a cold shoulder. And he sets his sights on loosely tutoring new sheriff Ben Owens (Anthony Perkins) into the job, one he left decades ago in pursuit of a small fortune needed to save his marriage. (Hint: it didn’t, and that’s why he’s become a bit of a loner.)
Because so much time and effort get expended on this stuff, Star began feeling at one point like it wasn’t even a Western: it was a conventional human drama merely packaging in the time, place, and setting of the traditional oater, leaving it a bit of a disappointment. This isn’t to say that there were no nice moments amongst the cast: Fonda was a pretty big star by this point, and Perkins was really only starting to build his resume as a screen presence. Given the amount of time these two share in the pursuit of a story (or our wait for one to begin), they and we are rewarded with some good exchanges. (The same could be said for Fonda’s time with his surrogate family.) But far too much of this second act plays out much too safely: with no real conflict, nothing moves forward, and the mood stagnates to the point wherein I wondered what catalyst could possibly set the stage for the last third.
Now …
Westerns live and die on their respective last acts (i.e. the big showdown). Yes, it’s true that – to a large degree – such predictability might negatively impact the evolving shock and spectacle; but good storytellers know a thing or two about threading character motivations into the tapestry that makes for a compelling finale. Typically, guns will be blazing. Lives will be lost. Boys will be made into men, and some men will be reduced to – well – compost. That, my friends, is the ‘Circle of Life’ to the great American West; and The Tin Star, thankfully, fulfills that requirement with nothing short of a spectacular third act … one that might be among the very best the genre ever assembled.
I’m not going to bother readers with the particulars. As I think I’ve been clear, Star functions as a kinda/sorta ‘passing the torch’ style story, much in the same way that the aged Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi trained young Luke Skywalker in the ways of the Force so that he, too, could become a Jedi like his father had been long before. Substitute Fonda in for Alec Guinness and Perkins in for Mark Hamill, and you essentially have the basic foundation around which so very much of what the script presents. (The good news here is that Fonda doesn’t die, and I’m sorry if I spoiled it for you.) I do believe viewers going into this experience with full knowledge that ‘this is what you get’ might avoid some of the dissatisfaction I had with the middle passage.
What I was particularly thrilled about was how Mann’s film symbolically bookends itself with little more than a dead body.
In the somewhat somber opening moments, the bounty hunter rides into the nameless small town with a lifeless corpse thrown over the back of his spare horse. As he makes his way down the dusty streets, the residents slowly come out of their houses, the stores, the saloon, etc. all to watch as this mysterious man rides slowly past. Eventually, Hickman arrives at the sheriff’s office; and he politely explains to Owens that he’s only here to claim the fee for the escaped convict he brought in ‘dead or alive.’ It doesn’t take long before the town elders descend upon the newly appointed officer of the law, each and every one of them pontificating about what he should do about this or that, how they won’t allow for Owens to provide any aid and comfort to Hickman, and how they don’t even want ‘his type’ in their little municipality. Clearly, they see this young professional as someone they can boss around or manipulate with their respective power and stature; and Perkins plays the lawman with an appreciable degree of nebbishness.
Now …
Westerns live and die on their respective last acts (i.e. the big showdown). Yes, it’s true that – to a large degree – such predictability might negatively impact the evolving shock and spectacle; but good storytellers know a thing or two about threading character motivations into the tapestry that makes for a compelling finale. Typically, guns will be blazing. Lives will be lost. Boys will be made into men, and some men will be reduced to – well – compost. That, my friends, is the ‘Circle of Life’ to the great American West; and The Tin Star, thankfully, fulfills that requirement with nothing short of a spectacular third act … one that might be among the very best the genre ever assembled.
I’m not going to bother readers with the particulars. As I think I’ve been clear, Star functions as a kinda/sorta ‘passing the torch’ style story, much in the same way that the aged Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi trained young Luke Skywalker in the ways of the Force so that he, too, could become a Jedi like his father had been long before. Substitute Fonda in for Alec Guinness and Perkins in for Mark Hamill, and you essentially have the basic foundation around which so very much of what the script presents. (The good news here is that Fonda doesn’t die, and I’m sorry if I spoiled it for you.) I do believe viewers going into this experience with full knowledge that ‘this is what you get’ might avoid some of the dissatisfaction I had with the middle passage.
What I was particularly thrilled about was how Mann’s film symbolically bookends itself with little more than a dead body.
In the somewhat somber opening moments, the bounty hunter rides into the nameless small town with a lifeless corpse thrown over the back of his spare horse. As he makes his way down the dusty streets, the residents slowly come out of their houses, the stores, the saloon, etc. all to watch as this mysterious man rides slowly past. Eventually, Hickman arrives at the sheriff’s office; and he politely explains to Owens that he’s only here to claim the fee for the escaped convict he brought in ‘dead or alive.’ It doesn’t take long before the town elders descend upon the newly appointed officer of the law, each and every one of them pontificating about what he should do about this or that, how they won’t allow for Owens to provide any aid and comfort to Hickman, and how they don’t even want ‘his type’ in their little municipality. Clearly, they see this young professional as someone they can boss around or manipulate with their respective power and stature; and Perkins plays the lawman with an appreciable degree of nebbishness.
Well, the third act finally finds its necessary pacing when the resident town bully Bart Bogardus – the very man ‘gunning’ for Owens’ job after his temporary appointment to sheriff expires – finds himself in a literal stand-off with the young officer. After Owens and Hickman manage to bring two guilty parties in alive so that they can be given their right to a trial, Bogardus responds by working the populace up into a frenzy, with the mob showing up as a posse prepared to lynch the murderers. Owens – now wiser from the lessons provided by his kindly benefactor – meets the bully in the center square, refusing to stand down and showing all involved that he’s ‘manned up’ for what’s about to come. Let’s just say the town elders are about to see another dead body – rather brilliantly paralleling the film’s opening segments – and now they’ve got their own lessons to learn.
The Tin Star (1957) was produced by Perlberg-Seaton Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … wow! The sights and sounds to this high-definition presentation are spectacular. Extremely good. If you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a commentary by film historian Toby Roan, and – at best – I think it’s safe to say it’s probably average in my book: the man spends a great deal of time with facts and figures of all involved, never quite dissecting the film and the story in the manner I prefer. There are also an assortment of behind-the-scenes and featurettes which make for a good education if you’re looking for such fare. I can’t speak to the efficacy of printed materials, essays, or other inserts as I was only provided a working copy of the disc … so “buyer beware” on those items.
Recommended.
The Tin Star (1957) plays it far too safe in its middle section to rank the flick anywhere near my favorite Westerns; but it opens and closes with arguably some of the very best stuff that makes oaters a genre worth some consideration. Fonda and Perkins are paired up fabulously here; and their time together alone makes this one a treasure for audiences of a certain era. Pacing in the second act – along with some average plot development – really slows down the effectiveness, but director Mann pulls out the narrative stops in the showdown that pits justice against mob rule … with justice prevailing as it should. It’s a fabulous morality play, and it should be appreciated on that level alone.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary copy of The Tin Star (1957) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The Tin Star (1957) was produced by Perlberg-Seaton Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … wow! The sights and sounds to this high-definition presentation are spectacular. Extremely good. If you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a commentary by film historian Toby Roan, and – at best – I think it’s safe to say it’s probably average in my book: the man spends a great deal of time with facts and figures of all involved, never quite dissecting the film and the story in the manner I prefer. There are also an assortment of behind-the-scenes and featurettes which make for a good education if you’re looking for such fare. I can’t speak to the efficacy of printed materials, essays, or other inserts as I was only provided a working copy of the disc … so “buyer beware” on those items.
Recommended.
The Tin Star (1957) plays it far too safe in its middle section to rank the flick anywhere near my favorite Westerns; but it opens and closes with arguably some of the very best stuff that makes oaters a genre worth some consideration. Fonda and Perkins are paired up fabulously here; and their time together alone makes this one a treasure for audiences of a certain era. Pacing in the second act – along with some average plot development – really slows down the effectiveness, but director Mann pulls out the narrative stops in the showdown that pits justice against mob rule … with justice prevailing as it should. It’s a fabulous morality play, and it should be appreciated on that level alone.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary copy of The Tin Star (1957) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Longtime readers of SciFiHistory.Net should know by now that I’m no huge fan of silent movies.
Now – for the record – this isn’t to say that I don’t have a few I strongly support. Frankly, I haven’t seen all that many; and – to complicate matters – there really aren’t all that many genre-specific titles made in that era. While I understand that, culturally, silent flicks do have their time and place in the vast pantheon of cinema, I just haven’t invested as much time in their study and impact as others have, so I tend to ‘take a back seat’ to many of these releases unless I’ve either heard of them, have had them recommended to me, or I’ve done some reading prior to their appearance in the marketplace and am willing to give it a go. Again, I give the highest preference to genre releases – Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror – so I’ve come to accept that not many of those features hit the shelves as often as do Dramas and Comedies.
Still, I was excited when I was offered the chance to watch and review 1927’s The Cat And The Canary. For the uninformed, it’s a Horror/Comedy that has been regarded as one of the biggest and earliest examples of German Expressionism kinda/sorta melding with the aesthetics of what was being attempted here in the United States. I’d also read that such use of light, shadows, set construction, and exaggerated performances were a heavy, heavy influence on the more popular installments of the Universal Pictures Monsters Universe that wouldn’t see screens for a few years yet; and these facts strongly suggested that this would be time well spent for this genre critic.
Having just finished it and sat down to pen my thoughts, I can say that it’s a surprisingly light affair, more comedic in tone than I had perhaps expected. Definitely, it’s easy to see how its general look and pacing might have helped paved the way for what was to come (especially at Universal Pictures); and still I could make the argument that – at 108 minutes – it could use a trim here and there without losing any impact of its overall tone and its performances. What works best in all of it is the chosen locale – a big, dark, spooky castle-of-a-home with some heavily outfitted living spaces, ghostly features, and secret passages that escape detection until they’re needed most.
What works least?
Well, that would be its notable bit of camp …
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Relatives of an eccentric millionaire gather in his spooky mansion on the 20th anniversary of his death for the reading of his will.”
Now – for the record – this isn’t to say that I don’t have a few I strongly support. Frankly, I haven’t seen all that many; and – to complicate matters – there really aren’t all that many genre-specific titles made in that era. While I understand that, culturally, silent flicks do have their time and place in the vast pantheon of cinema, I just haven’t invested as much time in their study and impact as others have, so I tend to ‘take a back seat’ to many of these releases unless I’ve either heard of them, have had them recommended to me, or I’ve done some reading prior to their appearance in the marketplace and am willing to give it a go. Again, I give the highest preference to genre releases – Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror – so I’ve come to accept that not many of those features hit the shelves as often as do Dramas and Comedies.
Still, I was excited when I was offered the chance to watch and review 1927’s The Cat And The Canary. For the uninformed, it’s a Horror/Comedy that has been regarded as one of the biggest and earliest examples of German Expressionism kinda/sorta melding with the aesthetics of what was being attempted here in the United States. I’d also read that such use of light, shadows, set construction, and exaggerated performances were a heavy, heavy influence on the more popular installments of the Universal Pictures Monsters Universe that wouldn’t see screens for a few years yet; and these facts strongly suggested that this would be time well spent for this genre critic.
Having just finished it and sat down to pen my thoughts, I can say that it’s a surprisingly light affair, more comedic in tone than I had perhaps expected. Definitely, it’s easy to see how its general look and pacing might have helped paved the way for what was to come (especially at Universal Pictures); and still I could make the argument that – at 108 minutes – it could use a trim here and there without losing any impact of its overall tone and its performances. What works best in all of it is the chosen locale – a big, dark, spooky castle-of-a-home with some heavily outfitted living spaces, ghostly features, and secret passages that escape detection until they’re needed most.
What works least?
Well, that would be its notable bit of camp …
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Relatives of an eccentric millionaire gather in his spooky mansion on the 20th anniversary of his death for the reading of his will.”
Where I tend to disagree most with those who do what I do – i.e. watch and review productions – usually involves comedy.
The shortest, simplest explanation I can offer is that what each of us finds truly funny differs so widely that I tend to get lost in the shuffle to find something worth laughing about. Those comedies that I embrace tend to lie more in farce and/or parody, though I have been known to ‘bust a gut’ in theaters if there’s some smart, unexpected bit so well written or well-conceived that I didn’t see it coming. Having seen so many, many, many films, I usually do see jokes coming – it’ll always be my Achilles’ Heel as a critic – and, as a consequence, the effect is mildly lost on me.
And – as long as I’m confessing here – I’ve never (ever) been a fan of the obvious camp sensibilities that drove so much of the humor of the Silent Era of filmmaking. Goofy grimaces and over-emphasized pratfalls just never tickled my funny bone – no, not even as a little guy – and I find myself rolling my eyes more often than anything else when such merriment gets underway. Thankfully, comedy evolved from that – such schtick does rear its head from time-to-time even today – and I’m not forced to undergo much of it at this stage of my life.
The Cat And The Canary does have soft touches of such foolishness here and there, and this is mostly owed to the fact that its men and women find themselves spending the night in what appears to be a traditional haunted house setting: after twenty long years, the surviving relations of deceased millionaire Cyrus West are finally being made privy to the contents of his will. (Yes, twenty years is a long wait, but because they’d hung on him like a cat stalking a canary for so much of his last days he demanded in writing that they’d have to wait equally as long as he endured their torture.) As Fate would have it, rumors now persist that it’s the late West himself haunting these halls, only for them to learn that matters have been made worse with an escaped mental patient loose in the area also privately stalking the grounds on this dark night.
So, yes, there’s a big of obvious overacting – so very common to the era – when the men and women believe they’re being spooked about; but director Paul Leni keeps a great deal of it under control. What matters most in this tale of jilted relations is the atmosphere of the expansive estate, its dark corners, and its secret passageways. The plot – an adaptation of a popular stage play – moves along fairly well; when Annabelle West (played by Laura La Plante) inherits her late uncle’s fortune and has to be found ‘fully sane’ by a medical professional before she can assume the riches, it’s only natural that these hanging-on uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. will stay the night in hopes that they might be named as the secret successor should Annabelle fail to meet the required standards.
With this being released in 1927 – possibly shot late the previous year or early that one – it’s patently obvious to see the influence such production detail likely had on Horror movies in their evolution within the United States. The West mansion has its share of twists and turns, all with some high ceilings and a general baroque feel about the furnishings here and there. Because the home houses the level of secrets it does, Leni put his crew through their marks; and – as a result – this one manages to both look and sound as though it could be in that same universe which Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man would set up shot in the near future. Some of its scares – and shenanigans – do stretch on a bit longer than necessary; and it’s easy to play the Monday morning quarterback a century later and suggest you keep your hand on the FF button for posterity’s sake.
Also, it’s surprisingly trim on dialogue placards, and that’s something I hadn’t expected. A great deal of lesser information gets conveyed with just a look or a visual suggestion here and there, so much so that (again) I’m inclined to wonder why Leni or the postproduction specialists didn’t excise some unnecessary footage here and there. At just under two hours, it’s one of the longer silent pictures that I’ve seen, and it just didn’t need to be.
The shortest, simplest explanation I can offer is that what each of us finds truly funny differs so widely that I tend to get lost in the shuffle to find something worth laughing about. Those comedies that I embrace tend to lie more in farce and/or parody, though I have been known to ‘bust a gut’ in theaters if there’s some smart, unexpected bit so well written or well-conceived that I didn’t see it coming. Having seen so many, many, many films, I usually do see jokes coming – it’ll always be my Achilles’ Heel as a critic – and, as a consequence, the effect is mildly lost on me.
And – as long as I’m confessing here – I’ve never (ever) been a fan of the obvious camp sensibilities that drove so much of the humor of the Silent Era of filmmaking. Goofy grimaces and over-emphasized pratfalls just never tickled my funny bone – no, not even as a little guy – and I find myself rolling my eyes more often than anything else when such merriment gets underway. Thankfully, comedy evolved from that – such schtick does rear its head from time-to-time even today – and I’m not forced to undergo much of it at this stage of my life.
The Cat And The Canary does have soft touches of such foolishness here and there, and this is mostly owed to the fact that its men and women find themselves spending the night in what appears to be a traditional haunted house setting: after twenty long years, the surviving relations of deceased millionaire Cyrus West are finally being made privy to the contents of his will. (Yes, twenty years is a long wait, but because they’d hung on him like a cat stalking a canary for so much of his last days he demanded in writing that they’d have to wait equally as long as he endured their torture.) As Fate would have it, rumors now persist that it’s the late West himself haunting these halls, only for them to learn that matters have been made worse with an escaped mental patient loose in the area also privately stalking the grounds on this dark night.
So, yes, there’s a big of obvious overacting – so very common to the era – when the men and women believe they’re being spooked about; but director Paul Leni keeps a great deal of it under control. What matters most in this tale of jilted relations is the atmosphere of the expansive estate, its dark corners, and its secret passageways. The plot – an adaptation of a popular stage play – moves along fairly well; when Annabelle West (played by Laura La Plante) inherits her late uncle’s fortune and has to be found ‘fully sane’ by a medical professional before she can assume the riches, it’s only natural that these hanging-on uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. will stay the night in hopes that they might be named as the secret successor should Annabelle fail to meet the required standards.
With this being released in 1927 – possibly shot late the previous year or early that one – it’s patently obvious to see the influence such production detail likely had on Horror movies in their evolution within the United States. The West mansion has its share of twists and turns, all with some high ceilings and a general baroque feel about the furnishings here and there. Because the home houses the level of secrets it does, Leni put his crew through their marks; and – as a result – this one manages to both look and sound as though it could be in that same universe which Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man would set up shot in the near future. Some of its scares – and shenanigans – do stretch on a bit longer than necessary; and it’s easy to play the Monday morning quarterback a century later and suggest you keep your hand on the FF button for posterity’s sake.
Also, it’s surprisingly trim on dialogue placards, and that’s something I hadn’t expected. A great deal of lesser information gets conveyed with just a look or a visual suggestion here and there, so much so that (again) I’m inclined to wonder why Leni or the postproduction specialists didn’t excise some unnecessary footage here and there. At just under two hours, it’s one of the longer silent pictures that I’ve seen, and it just didn’t need to be.
The Cat And The Canary (1927) was produced by Universal Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Eureka Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s been reported as an all-new 4K restoration to be quite good from start-to-finish: yes, it’s clearly taken from some extremely old material, but the restoration looks exceptional, though I’m not a fan of the color-coded sections of the print. (You’ll understand when you watch it.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, it’s a solid assortment; and – in order to do it justice – I’m doing the copy-and-paste from the studio’s original press materials published over at Blu-ray.com below:
Again, I’ll remind readers that as I’m only provided a working Blu-ray copy of the film itself, I can’t speak to the efficacy of additional materials, such as booklets, artwork, slipcases, etc. Those things aren’t always shared with online reviewers, so those items are considered ‘buyer beware.’ (I will say I gave both new commentaries about 30 minutes each; and – gasp! – they were both a bit dry for my tastes.)
Recommended.
Realizing that a very old Silent Era Horror/Classic is likely not going to be on everyone’s Bucket List, my task here becomes highlighting why this one is worth your time. If you’re a fan of the Universal Pictures Monster Universe, then The Cat And The Canary might just be for you as it has long been recognized as being one of that studio’s grounding influences for that age. Watching it, I found it very easy to recognize the linkage between it and those. While, true, it might be a tad overlong and a bit light on actual written dialogue, it remains an interesting predecessor for where American cinema was heading in the lead-up to the 1930’s.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Eureka Entertainment and Masters Of Cinema provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of The Cat And The Canary (1927) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- NEW4K RESTORATION OF THE FILM BY MOMA
- DTS-HD MA 5.1 score by Robert Israel; compiled, synchronised and edited by Gillian B. Anderson, based on music cue sheets compiled and issued for the original 1927 release
- NEW audio commentary by author Stephen Jones and author / critic Kim Newman
- NEW audio commentary by Kevin Lyons and Jonathan Rigby
- Mysteries Mean Dark Corners – brand new video essay by David Cairns & Fiona Watson
- Pamela Hutchinson on The Cat and the Canary – brand new interview with writer and film critic Pamela Hutchinson
- Phuong Le on The Cat and the Canary – brand new interview with film critic Phuong Le
- A Very Eccentric Man & Yeah, a Cat! – extracts from John Willard's original play
- Lucky Strike – Paul Leni gives a full-throated endorsement to the product that got him through filming The Cat and the Canary
- A collector's booklet featuring new writing on the film by Richard Combs, Craig Ian Mann, and Imogen Sara Smith
- Limited edition O-Card slipcase featuring new artwork by Graham Humphreys [2000 copies]
Again, I’ll remind readers that as I’m only provided a working Blu-ray copy of the film itself, I can’t speak to the efficacy of additional materials, such as booklets, artwork, slipcases, etc. Those things aren’t always shared with online reviewers, so those items are considered ‘buyer beware.’ (I will say I gave both new commentaries about 30 minutes each; and – gasp! – they were both a bit dry for my tastes.)
Recommended.
Realizing that a very old Silent Era Horror/Classic is likely not going to be on everyone’s Bucket List, my task here becomes highlighting why this one is worth your time. If you’re a fan of the Universal Pictures Monster Universe, then The Cat And The Canary might just be for you as it has long been recognized as being one of that studio’s grounding influences for that age. Watching it, I found it very easy to recognize the linkage between it and those. While, true, it might be a tad overlong and a bit light on actual written dialogue, it remains an interesting predecessor for where American cinema was heading in the lead-up to the 1930’s.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Eureka Entertainment and Masters Of Cinema provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of The Cat And The Canary (1927) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for Tuesday, April 9, 2024!
How's your Tuesday shaping up, eh?
Well, mine is good, thank you very much for asking. Got a decent night's sleep. Hit the club this morning for a little workout. Now, I'm puttering here around the house, posted a review from my screening time yesterday, and just starting to do my own glance into what makes this day tick in genre history. I'm seeing some very, very, very interesting highlights, and I'll be giving a few of them some extra time in the limelight below.
You good and ready?
Then, let's blast-off, shall we?
How's your Tuesday shaping up, eh?
Well, mine is good, thank you very much for asking. Got a decent night's sleep. Hit the club this morning for a little workout. Now, I'm puttering here around the house, posted a review from my screening time yesterday, and just starting to do my own glance into what makes this day tick in genre history. I'm seeing some very, very, very interesting highlights, and I'll be giving a few of them some extra time in the limelight below.
You good and ready?
Then, let's blast-off, shall we?
Why, it's a shame that a little 'something-something' like Science Fiction Theatre -- which premiered on this day all the way back in 1955 -- is pretty much one of those forgotten shows of yesteryear so far as today's audiences are concerned. From what I've read about it, SFT pretty much paved the way for all of the great anthology series that would follow in its wake -- like Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, or even Alfred Hitchcock's foray into television -- but this one just kinda/sorta never gets any love. Weird.
Frankly, I've only seen an episode or two of it -- I believe it's up on YouTube.com or, at least, I'm pretty certain it was -- and it's fairly solid. Granted, it clearly didn't have any big budget -- not even for its day -- and the writing left a bit to the imagination here and there; but it's still the kind of thing that Science Fiction and Fantasy fans gravitate toward. Who knows? Maybe I'll make my own commitment to watching and reviewing a few of its episodes in the months ahead just to give it some time to shine for readers of this space. It certainly couldn't hurt, and I'm always willing to invest my time in older stuff as opposed to some of the newer schlock coming my way.
I've scanned some of the episode summaries as well as the list of guest stars, directors, etc.; and -- as I've said -- I'm at a loss to understand why this one still escapes so many. Of course, it likely has to do with being old and trafficking in some relatively outdated ideas, but stranger things have attracted folks for less. Lasting a few seasons should account for more 'round here, and I'll still encourage folks to seek out and explore it at their leisure.
Frankly, I've only seen an episode or two of it -- I believe it's up on YouTube.com or, at least, I'm pretty certain it was -- and it's fairly solid. Granted, it clearly didn't have any big budget -- not even for its day -- and the writing left a bit to the imagination here and there; but it's still the kind of thing that Science Fiction and Fantasy fans gravitate toward. Who knows? Maybe I'll make my own commitment to watching and reviewing a few of its episodes in the months ahead just to give it some time to shine for readers of this space. It certainly couldn't hurt, and I'm always willing to invest my time in older stuff as opposed to some of the newer schlock coming my way.
I've scanned some of the episode summaries as well as the list of guest stars, directors, etc.; and -- as I've said -- I'm at a loss to understand why this one still escapes so many. Of course, it likely has to do with being old and trafficking in some relatively outdated ideas, but stranger things have attracted folks for less. Lasting a few seasons should account for more 'round here, and I'll still encourage folks to seek out and explore it at their leisure.
Now ... don't take this the wrong way, readers, but the Saturday morning television landscape was a lot different when I was an urchin than it is today. And I do mean ... A LOT DIFFERENT.
In the Realms of the Fantastic -- for example -- me and those I grew up with had an assortment of shows -- animated and live action -- that sprang from the imaginations of Sid and Marty Krofft, imagineers of a (cough cough) very unique sort. Though I've never established this as perfectly true, I have read that the two got their professional start as puppeteers (not hard to imagine); and then their approach to storytelling dramatically evolved to the point wherein the embraced all kinds of oddball characters ... and it's damned hard to forget some of these bigger-than-life critters who brought some of the more bizarre stories to life in the bygone era.
In fairness, these shows aren't exactly revered these days. Though they aesthetically might have a lot in common with some of what serves as children's programming today, I'd still argue that they were still a bit ... erm ... macabre? Oh, don't get me wrong: the hearts of these characters were always in the right place, but that doesn't excuse how freakish a few of them looked on any number of shows. Names like H.R. Pufnstuf, Sigmund And The Sea Monsters, and Land Of The Lost were still legendary on my school playground; and I'm forever thankful I found them on the TV dial when I did.
Though he's no longer with us, Marty Krofft was born on this day in 1937.
In the Realms of the Fantastic -- for example -- me and those I grew up with had an assortment of shows -- animated and live action -- that sprang from the imaginations of Sid and Marty Krofft, imagineers of a (cough cough) very unique sort. Though I've never established this as perfectly true, I have read that the two got their professional start as puppeteers (not hard to imagine); and then their approach to storytelling dramatically evolved to the point wherein the embraced all kinds of oddball characters ... and it's damned hard to forget some of these bigger-than-life critters who brought some of the more bizarre stories to life in the bygone era.
In fairness, these shows aren't exactly revered these days. Though they aesthetically might have a lot in common with some of what serves as children's programming today, I'd still argue that they were still a bit ... erm ... macabre? Oh, don't get me wrong: the hearts of these characters were always in the right place, but that doesn't excuse how freakish a few of them looked on any number of shows. Names like H.R. Pufnstuf, Sigmund And The Sea Monsters, and Land Of The Lost were still legendary on my school playground; and I'm forever thankful I found them on the TV dial when I did.
Though he's no longer with us, Marty Krofft was born on this day in 1937.
1953's Invaders From Mars is one of those flicks that is honestly revered by directors of a certain generation of filmmaking. I've seen it -- reviewed it just last year as part of the flick's 70th anniversary, in fact -- and all I can say is that I don't agree with them.
Now, hang on a minute, haters: yes, everyone is allowed to love what they love -- that's one of my basic tenets here at SciFiHistory.Net. But to me, Invaders is the kind of film that really only speaks to those who grew up in that time and place; its narrative just doesn't translate as strongly to those of us who discovered it later in life. As a consequence, I'd argue that many who search it out for a screening now might, at best, find it a bit quaint but can literally see the seams (even on the costumes above, for Pete's sake!) of what's a bit of only mildly subversive schlock. Yes, it's worth a viewing ... but probably only one at that.
While I've seen it paired up with several other films from the 1950's that I hold in vastly higher esteem, it's still a solid effort. My issues with it is that -- unlike so many other genre classics from the era -- it's just so middling is so many ways. Never mind what it tried to do and maybe missed the mark a bit; accept it as an average experience made better solely by being a serviceable Fantasy and then move along once you're finished.
I know, I know ... "you're in the minority!" I always am, my friends. I always am.
Now, hang on a minute, haters: yes, everyone is allowed to love what they love -- that's one of my basic tenets here at SciFiHistory.Net. But to me, Invaders is the kind of film that really only speaks to those who grew up in that time and place; its narrative just doesn't translate as strongly to those of us who discovered it later in life. As a consequence, I'd argue that many who search it out for a screening now might, at best, find it a bit quaint but can literally see the seams (even on the costumes above, for Pete's sake!) of what's a bit of only mildly subversive schlock. Yes, it's worth a viewing ... but probably only one at that.
While I've seen it paired up with several other films from the 1950's that I hold in vastly higher esteem, it's still a solid effort. My issues with it is that -- unlike so many other genre classics from the era -- it's just so middling is so many ways. Never mind what it tried to do and maybe missed the mark a bit; accept it as an average experience made better solely by being a serviceable Fantasy and then move along once you're finished.
I know, I know ... "you're in the minority!" I always am, my friends. I always am.
Naturally, my friends, there's more to love ... and at an astonishing 72 different genre trivia citations spread across the magical realms of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror your deep dive is assured to bear a ridiculous amount of fruit. So don't delay. Head on over to today's citation page and boldly go ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for April 8, 2024!
And ... yes, yes, yes ... it's Monday ... yet again, people. Sorry. I can't do anything about the clock or the general progression of time itself. Yes, I wish I could, but I've no more power than any of you. Buckle down and you'll get through it, folks. I promise.
But, yes, it is Monday, and here's hoping your weekend was good. Mine was pretty solid. I caught a screening of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (reviewed here) , and I was modestly entertained. It wasn't great -- certainly not on par with Godzilla Minus One, but the American flicks are a completely different animal anyway -- but it kept me focused to a certain degree. It's the usual American carnival thrill ride of a movie, and that's about it. But please ... do check out my review as I think I explain why I felt the way I did with greater specificity.
Otherwise, that's about it on the genre front. I did watch some Netflix -- a comedy program -- but nothing I'd cover in this space. As I've always mentioned, I, too, need my time away from Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror in order to refresh the brain and just be a better writer. Watching a variety of programs keeps the brain flowing naturally, and I strongly encourage all of you to seek out and explore strange new worlds whenever you can.
In the meantime? Well, let's look at a few citations from today!
And ... yes, yes, yes ... it's Monday ... yet again, people. Sorry. I can't do anything about the clock or the general progression of time itself. Yes, I wish I could, but I've no more power than any of you. Buckle down and you'll get through it, folks. I promise.
But, yes, it is Monday, and here's hoping your weekend was good. Mine was pretty solid. I caught a screening of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (reviewed here) , and I was modestly entertained. It wasn't great -- certainly not on par with Godzilla Minus One, but the American flicks are a completely different animal anyway -- but it kept me focused to a certain degree. It's the usual American carnival thrill ride of a movie, and that's about it. But please ... do check out my review as I think I explain why I felt the way I did with greater specificity.
Otherwise, that's about it on the genre front. I did watch some Netflix -- a comedy program -- but nothing I'd cover in this space. As I've always mentioned, I, too, need my time away from Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror in order to refresh the brain and just be a better writer. Watching a variety of programs keeps the brain flowing naturally, and I strongly encourage all of you to seek out and explore strange new worlds whenever you can.
In the meantime? Well, let's look at a few citations from today!
Twin Peaks is one of those shows that -- damn skippy -- just defies being categorized.
When the show's first episode aired on this day all the way back in 1990, I was there, and I can assure you that audiences probably thought they were going to get something resembling the traditional murder mystery, albeit infused with some of the cinematic leanings of the great storyteller David Lynch. Granted, there were hints that there was definitely something vastly more complex going on in this quirky drama; and -- before long -- the program kinda/sorta became one of those seminal water cooler shows ... the kind of thing everyone was talking about, trying to piece it together with their coworkers and friends. What did this mean? What did that mean? Why did nothing have a reasonable explanation? Why did nothing function rationally? Oh, that's because David Lynch and Mark Frost had much, much, much more in mind than just some run-of-the-mill procedural. There were making history, folks -- whether they liked it or not -- and the landscape of television expanded exponentially in the wake of this program which lasted (initially) only two seasons.
(Yes, I know it had a theatrical follow-up as well as a serial one, but we didn't know that way back then, so pipe down, haters.)
And ... it wasn't the kind of show that you just liked or didn't like, though I've no doubt that there were divisions within the society at large. It was the kind of experience you saw and then found yourself questioning what it was you saw. With its expanded cast of characters, there was always something brewing in the town of Twin Peaks -- a place that had damn fine coffee -- and a great many careers were launched on the back of its narrative. Even its cliffhanger ending had a kind of closure that defied an ordinary explanation, and I'll be forever thankful for this little show that kinda/sorta refused to be anything other than extraordinary at every juncture.
When the show's first episode aired on this day all the way back in 1990, I was there, and I can assure you that audiences probably thought they were going to get something resembling the traditional murder mystery, albeit infused with some of the cinematic leanings of the great storyteller David Lynch. Granted, there were hints that there was definitely something vastly more complex going on in this quirky drama; and -- before long -- the program kinda/sorta became one of those seminal water cooler shows ... the kind of thing everyone was talking about, trying to piece it together with their coworkers and friends. What did this mean? What did that mean? Why did nothing have a reasonable explanation? Why did nothing function rationally? Oh, that's because David Lynch and Mark Frost had much, much, much more in mind than just some run-of-the-mill procedural. There were making history, folks -- whether they liked it or not -- and the landscape of television expanded exponentially in the wake of this program which lasted (initially) only two seasons.
(Yes, I know it had a theatrical follow-up as well as a serial one, but we didn't know that way back then, so pipe down, haters.)
And ... it wasn't the kind of show that you just liked or didn't like, though I've no doubt that there were divisions within the society at large. It was the kind of experience you saw and then found yourself questioning what it was you saw. With its expanded cast of characters, there was always something brewing in the town of Twin Peaks -- a place that had damn fine coffee -- and a great many careers were launched on the back of its narrative. Even its cliffhanger ending had a kind of closure that defied an ordinary explanation, and I'll be forever thankful for this little show that kinda/sorta refused to be anything other than extraordinary at every juncture.
The effects wizard of Douglas Trumbull was the kind of thing that truly pushed boundaries at least as much as did the stuff coming out of Industrial Light and Magic back in the 1970's.
A quick glance at the man's incredible resume stands as evidence that there was incredible work being down in the 1970's and 1980's that was pushing the industry into some incredible directions, many of which no one saw coming as closely as did Trumbull himself.
You want me to name a few?
Where oh where would Science Fiction have been without Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey? Trumbull largely got his start bringing that production to life visually, and his track record from there gets even more magical.
In 1971, he crafted the visions of The Andromeda Strain.
In 1972, Silent Running truly upped his game a bit more, introducing a 60's 'save the Earth' mentality into a somewhat twisted look at a dark tomorrow.
In 1977, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind showed the man delivering a look at alien technology that had never before been seen on film and -- some might argue -- has rarely been seen since.
Think what you will about 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture as a story ... but how about those effects? Trumbull catapulted audiences into a future that showed humanity both could and would venture boldly where no one had gone before. Some of those sequences from decades ago still outshine modern effects work -- so far as I'm concerned -- and are seminal moments in all of Trekdom.
In 1982, the effects master delivered a dark vision of what our future could be with Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.
Along the way, the pioneer won countless accolades and praise alike. The world of film looks different today because of what he did back then, and dare I say? It'll likely never look better than what it did under the man's watchful eyes.
A quick glance at the man's incredible resume stands as evidence that there was incredible work being down in the 1970's and 1980's that was pushing the industry into some incredible directions, many of which no one saw coming as closely as did Trumbull himself.
You want me to name a few?
Where oh where would Science Fiction have been without Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey? Trumbull largely got his start bringing that production to life visually, and his track record from there gets even more magical.
In 1971, he crafted the visions of The Andromeda Strain.
In 1972, Silent Running truly upped his game a bit more, introducing a 60's 'save the Earth' mentality into a somewhat twisted look at a dark tomorrow.
In 1977, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind showed the man delivering a look at alien technology that had never before been seen on film and -- some might argue -- has rarely been seen since.
Think what you will about 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture as a story ... but how about those effects? Trumbull catapulted audiences into a future that showed humanity both could and would venture boldly where no one had gone before. Some of those sequences from decades ago still outshine modern effects work -- so far as I'm concerned -- and are seminal moments in all of Trekdom.
In 1982, the effects master delivered a dark vision of what our future could be with Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.
Along the way, the pioneer won countless accolades and praise alike. The world of film looks different today because of what he did back then, and dare I say? It'll likely never look better than what it did under the man's watchful eyes.
Once again, you've reached that place in the daily blog wherein I challenge you to never stop ... to never surrender ... and to keep searching for things that you love in genre trivia. There's a vast array awaiting your discovery, and -- if you're up to the task -- this mission is meant for you.
Here's the link ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest attempts at ‘things to come,’ then read on …”)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Two ancient titans, Godzilla and Kong, clash in an epic battle as humans unravel their intertwined origins and connection to Skull Island’s mysteries.”
Being a critic means that there will be times when you’re assured that your voice – your particular take – is going to be in the minority. I long ago grew comfortable with that, as I grew up often times arguing about whether a flick was good or bad with a whole slew of friends and enemies. It doesn’t mean I like throwing cold water on any fan’s experience with a summer tentpole release; rather, I’m glad you like something that perhaps I found a bit uninspired because – at the very least – it shows that we’re both still willing to risk the price of a movie ticket in return for a bit of entertainment.
And, frankly, about all I got out of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire was “a bit of entertainment.”
A small bit, at that.
Occasionally exciting and occasionally funny, the production stands as a testament to what the big studios like to shuck as blockbuster wares in the spring and summer movie seasons. As I’ve often said, these pictures tend to be big, loud, and dumb … and there’s nothing wrong with that. You pay your money, you take your chances, and you reap whatever big or small rewards come your way … so it’s easy to see why the project has done respectable business as it rather safely adheres to the classic Hollywood formula of appealing to the widest audience possible.
But … I emerged from the theater thinking about how far the Monsterverse franchise has fallen since the days of the rather smart Godzilla (2014), an event that brought the seminal big, lumbering lizard back into the consciousness of the American moviegoing audience in a pretty big way. (Pun intended.) Since then, each successive entry into the expanding property has dipped further and deeper into popcorn lunacy: whereas that first flick could’ve been tied to the dangers of nuclear proliferation (much like the 1954 Japanese original) and maybe even how urban centers are functionally unprepared to deal with authentic disasters, Godzilla x Kong seems to be about nothing more socially than allowing monsters to run amuck, devastate commercial real estate, and trust your friendly neighborhood podcasters more than you trust your government.
Essentially, our world is the stuff of monsters in Godzilla x Kong as they’re only two of the behemoths featured in the film.
In fact, our planet is basically overrun with them in this addition to the Monsterverse, making the destruction they leave in their everyday existence about as commonplace as a high pollen count. Despite our lacking the technology to enforce authentic boundaries, we’ve somehow magically been able to conscript Kong to Hollow Earth – true, Godzilla’s involvement in their last throwdown likely had a little something to do with the exile – and never the two should meet again. But all of a sudden things down under as well as up here are thrown out of whack when what appears to be some cosmic, psychic connection starts encouraging these titans to come together. It would seem that Kong has a new roommate down there (that’s a vast oversimplification, but it works nonetheless), and the Eighth Wonder of the World would rather live the life of a gorilla bachelor. Cleaning house against some superior foes is going to require a partner, and that’s largely why these two enemies agree to a truce just in the knick of time.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Two ancient titans, Godzilla and Kong, clash in an epic battle as humans unravel their intertwined origins and connection to Skull Island’s mysteries.”
Being a critic means that there will be times when you’re assured that your voice – your particular take – is going to be in the minority. I long ago grew comfortable with that, as I grew up often times arguing about whether a flick was good or bad with a whole slew of friends and enemies. It doesn’t mean I like throwing cold water on any fan’s experience with a summer tentpole release; rather, I’m glad you like something that perhaps I found a bit uninspired because – at the very least – it shows that we’re both still willing to risk the price of a movie ticket in return for a bit of entertainment.
And, frankly, about all I got out of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire was “a bit of entertainment.”
A small bit, at that.
Occasionally exciting and occasionally funny, the production stands as a testament to what the big studios like to shuck as blockbuster wares in the spring and summer movie seasons. As I’ve often said, these pictures tend to be big, loud, and dumb … and there’s nothing wrong with that. You pay your money, you take your chances, and you reap whatever big or small rewards come your way … so it’s easy to see why the project has done respectable business as it rather safely adheres to the classic Hollywood formula of appealing to the widest audience possible.
But … I emerged from the theater thinking about how far the Monsterverse franchise has fallen since the days of the rather smart Godzilla (2014), an event that brought the seminal big, lumbering lizard back into the consciousness of the American moviegoing audience in a pretty big way. (Pun intended.) Since then, each successive entry into the expanding property has dipped further and deeper into popcorn lunacy: whereas that first flick could’ve been tied to the dangers of nuclear proliferation (much like the 1954 Japanese original) and maybe even how urban centers are functionally unprepared to deal with authentic disasters, Godzilla x Kong seems to be about nothing more socially than allowing monsters to run amuck, devastate commercial real estate, and trust your friendly neighborhood podcasters more than you trust your government.
Essentially, our world is the stuff of monsters in Godzilla x Kong as they’re only two of the behemoths featured in the film.
In fact, our planet is basically overrun with them in this addition to the Monsterverse, making the destruction they leave in their everyday existence about as commonplace as a high pollen count. Despite our lacking the technology to enforce authentic boundaries, we’ve somehow magically been able to conscript Kong to Hollow Earth – true, Godzilla’s involvement in their last throwdown likely had a little something to do with the exile – and never the two should meet again. But all of a sudden things down under as well as up here are thrown out of whack when what appears to be some cosmic, psychic connection starts encouraging these titans to come together. It would seem that Kong has a new roommate down there (that’s a vast oversimplification, but it works nonetheless), and the Eighth Wonder of the World would rather live the life of a gorilla bachelor. Cleaning house against some superior foes is going to require a partner, and that’s largely why these two enemies agree to a truce just in the knick of time.
Still, audiences need both greater connection to the events of these stories as well as someone to provide them with the necessary exposition (neither Kong nor Godzilla have yet mastered speech); and Terry Rossio, Simon Barrett, and Jeremy Slater’s script throw together just enough human faces to get that job done. Ilene Andrews (played by Rebecca Hall) returns from 2021’s Godzilla Vs. Kong, and she brings with the also familiar faces of Jia (Kaylee Hottle) and Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry). Together, the three make the most of their increasingly saccharin scenes together, none of their professed emotions seeming anything other than subtext inserted by screenwriters in the hopes of creating ‘a moment’ for them. When the central problem is no one shows up to a Monsterverse picture to spend time with the regular folks, it’s kinda/sorta clear that humans really serve less and less purpose in this franchise. Their sequences are plastic, at best, though I’ve no doubt they’ll sell no action figures in the months surrounding the film’s release.
True to current Hollywood form, Godzilla x Kong also seriously lacks the inclusion of any confident male hero. Henry’s ‘Bernie Hayes’ is an entirely emasculated bit of comic relief that audiences have embraced since the days of Abbott and Costello; and he performs affably without ruffling any feathers whatsoever and delivering his lines with an affectionate conspiratorial lunacy that goes down easily. As ‘Trapper,’ actor Dan Stevens gets about as close to resembling a male lead as the creative powers that be will allow: he’s essentially a 60’s era flowerchild brought into the age of monsters, serving as little more than a veterinarian/dentist for Kong when the creature has something that ails him. Sadly, he acts more on mysticism than science, showing audiences that ‘how you feel’ is vastly more relevant in these times than is your book smarts.
But as for any genuine testosterone?
Well, the only guy who travels to Hollow Earth as a soldier with a weapon winds up being eaten by a carnivorous tree in the first half … so how’s that for ‘messaging?’
What has been and always will be a draw to both the Godzilla and the Kong pictures is their screen time; and – in that respect – it’s safe to say that Godzilla x Kong works wonders on its epic scale. Though I thought some of their sequences played out a bit too much like a silver screen video game, it’s still a level of destruction that tickles the fancies of so, so, so many; and this likely won’t be the only trip made to The New Empire if producers have their way. Granted, an old movie dog like me misses the human interaction and compelling personal drama that was so much a part of the vastly superior Godzilla Minus One (2023); but as I’ve tried to be clear summer blockbusters just aren’t wired that way. Thankfully, the universe is big enough for both kinds of projects; and let’s hope both studios keep the monsters alive and kicking well into the next century. This remains the stuff that makes going to the movies the events they were made to be.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024) was produced by Legendary Entertainment, Screen Queensland, and Warner Bros. The film is presently screening theatrically around the world.
Recommended.
I’ve often criticized spring and summer releases as being big, loud, and dumb; and yet there are still projects fitting that formula that make for suitable entertainment. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire lacks the intellectual and emotional core that have made for better monster releases; but that isn’t to diminish its big screen spectacle, its never-ending parade of special effects wizardry, and its desire to deliver a simpler story to audiences who appreciate turning off their brains and going on a carnival ride. It’s all splash and no sizzle. However, as the Monsterverse continues to grow, it’s looking less and less like people have a place in it; and I’m wondering how well that bodes for future adventures. At some point, moviegoers may not connect with any of this … so where do you go next?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire as I went to the theater all of my own accord for a paid screening.
-- EZ
True to current Hollywood form, Godzilla x Kong also seriously lacks the inclusion of any confident male hero. Henry’s ‘Bernie Hayes’ is an entirely emasculated bit of comic relief that audiences have embraced since the days of Abbott and Costello; and he performs affably without ruffling any feathers whatsoever and delivering his lines with an affectionate conspiratorial lunacy that goes down easily. As ‘Trapper,’ actor Dan Stevens gets about as close to resembling a male lead as the creative powers that be will allow: he’s essentially a 60’s era flowerchild brought into the age of monsters, serving as little more than a veterinarian/dentist for Kong when the creature has something that ails him. Sadly, he acts more on mysticism than science, showing audiences that ‘how you feel’ is vastly more relevant in these times than is your book smarts.
But as for any genuine testosterone?
Well, the only guy who travels to Hollow Earth as a soldier with a weapon winds up being eaten by a carnivorous tree in the first half … so how’s that for ‘messaging?’
What has been and always will be a draw to both the Godzilla and the Kong pictures is their screen time; and – in that respect – it’s safe to say that Godzilla x Kong works wonders on its epic scale. Though I thought some of their sequences played out a bit too much like a silver screen video game, it’s still a level of destruction that tickles the fancies of so, so, so many; and this likely won’t be the only trip made to The New Empire if producers have their way. Granted, an old movie dog like me misses the human interaction and compelling personal drama that was so much a part of the vastly superior Godzilla Minus One (2023); but as I’ve tried to be clear summer blockbusters just aren’t wired that way. Thankfully, the universe is big enough for both kinds of projects; and let’s hope both studios keep the monsters alive and kicking well into the next century. This remains the stuff that makes going to the movies the events they were made to be.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024) was produced by Legendary Entertainment, Screen Queensland, and Warner Bros. The film is presently screening theatrically around the world.
Recommended.
I’ve often criticized spring and summer releases as being big, loud, and dumb; and yet there are still projects fitting that formula that make for suitable entertainment. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire lacks the intellectual and emotional core that have made for better monster releases; but that isn’t to diminish its big screen spectacle, its never-ending parade of special effects wizardry, and its desire to deliver a simpler story to audiences who appreciate turning off their brains and going on a carnival ride. It’s all splash and no sizzle. However, as the Monsterverse continues to grow, it’s looking less and less like people have a place in it; and I’m wondering how well that bodes for future adventures. At some point, moviegoers may not connect with any of this … so where do you go next?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire as I went to the theater all of my own accord for a paid screening.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good afternoon, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for Friday, April 5, 2024!
You read that right ... it's F-R-I-D-A-Y!!! (cue the music and merriment)
Oh, yeah, it's great to know that we're kinda/sorta through another week. While those of us who are a bit older might not exactly relish that fact, we can certainly understand and appreciate the mindset of so, so, so many who really work for the weekend. There's nothing wrong with it, either. It's just that ... well ... when you young skulls are a bit older, then you'll understand full well what I mean.
Have I mentioned how much I hate the word 'diverse?'
No, no, and no: don't call the PC police on me. (That's happened, you know, and I fought the law, for the record, and the law didn't win.) My point is that the stewards of what is perceived to be 'politically correct' have truly ruined that word for me, what with diversity initiatives, diversity quotas, and diversity superheroes. Regular readers here know that I'm all in favor of 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks,' but what I irrepressibly loath are the presumed cultural betters showing that garbage all up in our faces, down our throats, and anywhere else they can. (I'll tell them where they can stick it.) But when it gets to the point wherein we turn our dissatisfaction to the language -- hating individual words for what they've become -- I do think we've taken it a bridge too far.
Again: feel free to disagree. SciFiHistory.Net isn't always about "our" opinions. As the sole proprietor to this donut shop, I'm (largely) free to do what I wish, and many letter writers have sounded off to me in private. That's fine. I don't do this entirely for the sake of mankind -- certainly, not the stuff on this MainPage -- but I do hope all of mankind can see the value in celebrating that which came before us in the realms of the Fantastic. That's my chief goal, but -- as I said -- any and all are free to disagree with me on any cultural issue that they will. That's your right. And you can always ask for your money back. (snicker snicker snicker)
But ... let's set that aside, shall we? Let's get down to bid'ness, and let's see what the Gods of Entertainment have delivered to the world-at-large on this day.
You read that right ... it's F-R-I-D-A-Y!!! (cue the music and merriment)
Oh, yeah, it's great to know that we're kinda/sorta through another week. While those of us who are a bit older might not exactly relish that fact, we can certainly understand and appreciate the mindset of so, so, so many who really work for the weekend. There's nothing wrong with it, either. It's just that ... well ... when you young skulls are a bit older, then you'll understand full well what I mean.
Have I mentioned how much I hate the word 'diverse?'
No, no, and no: don't call the PC police on me. (That's happened, you know, and I fought the law, for the record, and the law didn't win.) My point is that the stewards of what is perceived to be 'politically correct' have truly ruined that word for me, what with diversity initiatives, diversity quotas, and diversity superheroes. Regular readers here know that I'm all in favor of 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks,' but what I irrepressibly loath are the presumed cultural betters showing that garbage all up in our faces, down our throats, and anywhere else they can. (I'll tell them where they can stick it.) But when it gets to the point wherein we turn our dissatisfaction to the language -- hating individual words for what they've become -- I do think we've taken it a bridge too far.
Again: feel free to disagree. SciFiHistory.Net isn't always about "our" opinions. As the sole proprietor to this donut shop, I'm (largely) free to do what I wish, and many letter writers have sounded off to me in private. That's fine. I don't do this entirely for the sake of mankind -- certainly, not the stuff on this MainPage -- but I do hope all of mankind can see the value in celebrating that which came before us in the realms of the Fantastic. That's my chief goal, but -- as I said -- any and all are free to disagree with me on any cultural issue that they will. That's your right. And you can always ask for your money back. (snicker snicker snicker)
But ... let's set that aside, shall we? Let's get down to bid'ness, and let's see what the Gods of Entertainment have delivered to the world-at-large on this day.
Well, well, well ...
Why, it was just the other day that I sounded off on the wider works of 'the Horror Master' himself -- John Carpenter -- when I reminded my audience that his incarnation of The Thing (1982) fell short (in my opinion) of being the storyteller's greatest work of fiction. (For the record, that will always be 1981's Escape From New York.) And what have we here just a few days later? Why, that would be the original The Thing From Another World, the 1951 original directed (in part) by Howard Hawks that ultimately served as inspiration to Carpenter to go in a marginally different and vastly more bloody direction.
Wow: you read that right, that The Thing From Another World is an astonishing 73 years young today!
Because I'm not opposed to the controversy, can I just say that, yes, I prefer the original over Carpenter's version? Now, I don't dislike what the Horror Master did with it; in fact, his production remains revolutionary in its own right. Still, the original had that old movie charm wherein great actors stood around and talked a bit more, giving me -- as an audience member -- a bit more to chew on. I'm renowned for liking great dialogue, and -- to my surprise when I first saw it -- The Thing From Another World is downright chatty in the first half. It's a great back-and-forth between the whole ensemble; and I strongly encourage those of you who haven't seen it to take it in at some point. Maybe put it on your bucket list. Yes, I think it's that good.
A year or two back, I convinced the local theater chain mogul to showcase 1956's Forbidden Planet as part of its weekly Classic film line-up. (For those unaware, Harkins has this Tuesday Night Classics series that's good and bad.) While I can say that Planet didn't exactly play to standing room only crowds, there was a respectable turnout. And why not? Which of us in fandom wouldn't want to see it on the big screen. Well, I bring that up because now I think I'll make it my life's mission to see The Thing From Another World given the same big screen screening. I'd truly love to see it there.
Why, it was just the other day that I sounded off on the wider works of 'the Horror Master' himself -- John Carpenter -- when I reminded my audience that his incarnation of The Thing (1982) fell short (in my opinion) of being the storyteller's greatest work of fiction. (For the record, that will always be 1981's Escape From New York.) And what have we here just a few days later? Why, that would be the original The Thing From Another World, the 1951 original directed (in part) by Howard Hawks that ultimately served as inspiration to Carpenter to go in a marginally different and vastly more bloody direction.
Wow: you read that right, that The Thing From Another World is an astonishing 73 years young today!
Because I'm not opposed to the controversy, can I just say that, yes, I prefer the original over Carpenter's version? Now, I don't dislike what the Horror Master did with it; in fact, his production remains revolutionary in its own right. Still, the original had that old movie charm wherein great actors stood around and talked a bit more, giving me -- as an audience member -- a bit more to chew on. I'm renowned for liking great dialogue, and -- to my surprise when I first saw it -- The Thing From Another World is downright chatty in the first half. It's a great back-and-forth between the whole ensemble; and I strongly encourage those of you who haven't seen it to take it in at some point. Maybe put it on your bucket list. Yes, I think it's that good.
A year or two back, I convinced the local theater chain mogul to showcase 1956's Forbidden Planet as part of its weekly Classic film line-up. (For those unaware, Harkins has this Tuesday Night Classics series that's good and bad.) While I can say that Planet didn't exactly play to standing room only crowds, there was a respectable turnout. And why not? Which of us in fandom wouldn't want to see it on the big screen. Well, I bring that up because now I think I'll make it my life's mission to see The Thing From Another World given the same big screen screening. I'd truly love to see it there.
It probably goes without saying that each of us would like to be remembered for something. Some of us spend our lives in pursuits of excellence in any number of disciplines, but when we reach our final destination I think it's natural to look back and ask, "What did I do that might last beyond my days?"
Well ...
How would you like to be the guy remembered for delivering one of the world's biggest, boldest, and baddest franchises to worldwide audiences?
That's what the name Albert R. Broccoli means to me, anyway. The guy apparently knew a good thing when he saw it, and that good thing turned out to be the spy books of Ian Fleming. He paired up with Harry Saltzman -- the gentleman who secured the rights to any film adaptations -- and Eon Productions Ltd. formed as a result. They cast Sean Connery to headline their first outing as Agent 007 James Bond of Her Majesty's Secret Service ... and film history was made.
Where are they now?
Decades later, the Bond franchise (according to the latest Google.com information) has a legacy of twenty-five different productions, and that catalog of titles has amassed just short of an incredible $8 billion in box office receipts.
How do you like them apples?
Or do you prefer martinis? Shaken? Not stired?
Though he's no longer with us, Broccoli was born on this day in 1909.
Well ...
How would you like to be the guy remembered for delivering one of the world's biggest, boldest, and baddest franchises to worldwide audiences?
That's what the name Albert R. Broccoli means to me, anyway. The guy apparently knew a good thing when he saw it, and that good thing turned out to be the spy books of Ian Fleming. He paired up with Harry Saltzman -- the gentleman who secured the rights to any film adaptations -- and Eon Productions Ltd. formed as a result. They cast Sean Connery to headline their first outing as Agent 007 James Bond of Her Majesty's Secret Service ... and film history was made.
Where are they now?
Decades later, the Bond franchise (according to the latest Google.com information) has a legacy of twenty-five different productions, and that catalog of titles has amassed just short of an incredible $8 billion in box office receipts.
How do you like them apples?
Or do you prefer martinis? Shaken? Not stired?
Though he's no longer with us, Broccoli was born on this day in 1909.
Ohh, I'll bet there's not a one of you young pups out there in Readerland right now who've even heard the name of Robert Bloch. Hell, I'd even wager good money (not great money) that a fair number of my contemporaries have never heard it, and that's a damn dirty shame, indeed.
Well, Bloch got his creative start toiling away as a protege of genre master H.P. Lovecraft who discovered the young man's skill at slinging words on the page and encouraged him to buckle down and make a writer of himself. And a career was made with Bloch's time in the limelight stretching a mind-blowing 60 years in the publishing business. Chiefly known for stories in Fantasy and Horror, he was also known to dabble just a wee bit outside the lines in Science Fiction and Mystery ... and, yet, I'll still bet you've heard little of his exploits.
Well, let me name a few, shall I?
Not long after breaking ground in Science Fiction Radio dramas of the 1950's (such as Dimension X and X Minus One), Bloch's impressive sixth novel -- a little something-something called Psycho -- ended up being adapted for the silver screen by Hollywood heavyweight Alfred Hitchcock. (Ohhh! Now you've heard of him, eh?)
In 1962, Bloch delivered a screenplay for the flick The Cabinet Of Caligari for Associated Producers.
In 1965, the silver screen release of The Skull was adapted from one of the author's short stories.
On top of crafting three episodes for the 1960's television phenomenon Star Trek ("What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Catspaw," and "Wolf In The Fold"), the man also turned in scripts for such genre entries as The Girl From U.N.C.L.E., Journey To The Unknown, Night Gallery, Gemini Man, Tales From the Unexpected, and Tales From The Darkside.
Heard of him now?
Though he's no longer with us, Bloch was born on this day in 1917.
Well, Bloch got his creative start toiling away as a protege of genre master H.P. Lovecraft who discovered the young man's skill at slinging words on the page and encouraged him to buckle down and make a writer of himself. And a career was made with Bloch's time in the limelight stretching a mind-blowing 60 years in the publishing business. Chiefly known for stories in Fantasy and Horror, he was also known to dabble just a wee bit outside the lines in Science Fiction and Mystery ... and, yet, I'll still bet you've heard little of his exploits.
Well, let me name a few, shall I?
Not long after breaking ground in Science Fiction Radio dramas of the 1950's (such as Dimension X and X Minus One), Bloch's impressive sixth novel -- a little something-something called Psycho -- ended up being adapted for the silver screen by Hollywood heavyweight Alfred Hitchcock. (Ohhh! Now you've heard of him, eh?)
In 1962, Bloch delivered a screenplay for the flick The Cabinet Of Caligari for Associated Producers.
In 1965, the silver screen release of The Skull was adapted from one of the author's short stories.
On top of crafting three episodes for the 1960's television phenomenon Star Trek ("What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Catspaw," and "Wolf In The Fold"), the man also turned in scripts for such genre entries as The Girl From U.N.C.L.E., Journey To The Unknown, Night Gallery, Gemini Man, Tales From the Unexpected, and Tales From The Darkside.
Heard of him now?
Though he's no longer with us, Bloch was born on this day in 1917.
Once again, gentle readers, we've reached that part of the Daily Genre Affirmation wherein its my scholarly duty to remind you that there's more -- and at a mind-bending 69 different citations there's a lot more -- over on the page for April 5th. As is my custom, I'll always encourage you to head on over to that space to check it all out and perform your own deep dive into the minutae as it's what our founding fathers of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror would expect from each of you. Don't delay!
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good afternoon, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for April 4, 2024!
How's your week going, readers?
If you missed it, then let me remind you that your truly -- your faithful editor -- was a little down in the dumps yesterday for presenting a day that came in a bit under my high expectations. (FYI: the Daily Citation Page for April 3 had only 50 genre trivia tidbits.) Yes, I added a few things, and I researched a few more, but ... only 50? Sigh. Well, lo and behold, just 24 hours later I find myself celebrating an incredible, astonishing, and mind-blowing 103 different genre trivia items.
Wow. Is it a great day to be alive and be a genre fan or what?!
Yes, you're damn right I'm tooting my own horn because horns don't get tooted in a vacuum. These days with the always shifting landscape of entertainment available on the Information Superhighway, sites come and go on a regular basis. I can name a few places I used to visit just five or ten years ago that don't exist; but here I am, still standing, still growing, still evolving, and still celebrating. Now, I'm not saying that I'm going to be around ten years from now -- one never knows what challenges life brings -- but I'm definitely going to showcase when I've had a great ride. That's just how I roll.
But enough about me ... let's get to the brass tacks of history, shall we?
How's your week going, readers?
If you missed it, then let me remind you that your truly -- your faithful editor -- was a little down in the dumps yesterday for presenting a day that came in a bit under my high expectations. (FYI: the Daily Citation Page for April 3 had only 50 genre trivia tidbits.) Yes, I added a few things, and I researched a few more, but ... only 50? Sigh. Well, lo and behold, just 24 hours later I find myself celebrating an incredible, astonishing, and mind-blowing 103 different genre trivia items.
Wow. Is it a great day to be alive and be a genre fan or what?!
Yes, you're damn right I'm tooting my own horn because horns don't get tooted in a vacuum. These days with the always shifting landscape of entertainment available on the Information Superhighway, sites come and go on a regular basis. I can name a few places I used to visit just five or ten years ago that don't exist; but here I am, still standing, still growing, still evolving, and still celebrating. Now, I'm not saying that I'm going to be around ten years from now -- one never knows what challenges life brings -- but I'm definitely going to showcase when I've had a great ride. That's just how I roll.
But enough about me ... let's get to the brass tacks of history, shall we?
You know me, folks: I'm always willing and able to court a bit of controversy.
Let it be said that the late Andrei Tarkovsky is revered as one of Russia's greatest directors; and -- cool beans! -- the truth of the matter is a great deal of what he brought to theaters was some Earth-shattering Science Fiction projects. IMDB.com reports that he amassed a mind-boggling 23 different wins for his features playing at film festivals and beyond. His work is renowned for approaching some of life's meatiest ideas, and it has even been suggested that his death was the result of a long-brewing conflict between the storyteller and his own government. Do I know what happened? No I don't, but it's worth mentioning because those rumors persist even to this day. Genius ruffles the feathers of the establishment, so I'll allow room to consider he may've fallen to a dark fate.
Now -- and here's the controversy, peeps -- I'm just not a fan.
This isn't to suggest in any way that his films aren't worth the effort or praise. They're singular visions, and it's easy to accept that his stories speak to some who like, say, long takes, slow-moving plots, and more than enough time to think about everything on the screen while you're taking it all in. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot of his stuff -- mostly because what I have seen I've believed suffered from an incredible amount of bloat -- but all one need do is little research into the man's catalogue to see that my sentiment isn't without some merit. It could be that Tarkovsky emerged from a certain generation of filmmakers -- ones who liked using the craft in experimental ways -- and their pacing didn't leave much to the imagination.
Whatever the case may be, I'm still thrilled to mention the guy on his birthday. Though he's no longer with us, Tarkovsky was born on this day back in 1932.
Let it be said that the late Andrei Tarkovsky is revered as one of Russia's greatest directors; and -- cool beans! -- the truth of the matter is a great deal of what he brought to theaters was some Earth-shattering Science Fiction projects. IMDB.com reports that he amassed a mind-boggling 23 different wins for his features playing at film festivals and beyond. His work is renowned for approaching some of life's meatiest ideas, and it has even been suggested that his death was the result of a long-brewing conflict between the storyteller and his own government. Do I know what happened? No I don't, but it's worth mentioning because those rumors persist even to this day. Genius ruffles the feathers of the establishment, so I'll allow room to consider he may've fallen to a dark fate.
Now -- and here's the controversy, peeps -- I'm just not a fan.
This isn't to suggest in any way that his films aren't worth the effort or praise. They're singular visions, and it's easy to accept that his stories speak to some who like, say, long takes, slow-moving plots, and more than enough time to think about everything on the screen while you're taking it all in. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot of his stuff -- mostly because what I have seen I've believed suffered from an incredible amount of bloat -- but all one need do is little research into the man's catalogue to see that my sentiment isn't without some merit. It could be that Tarkovsky emerged from a certain generation of filmmakers -- ones who liked using the craft in experimental ways -- and their pacing didn't leave much to the imagination.
Whatever the case may be, I'm still thrilled to mention the guy on his birthday. Though he's no longer with us, Tarkovsky was born on this day back in 1932.
Regular readers on this space know all too well that I'm no Marvel guy. Sorry, but I grew up reading DC Comics, and the Marvel stuff I checked out was good. Still, it just never quite 'took,' if you know what I mean, so I kept on my side of the fence, only occasionally grabbing issues of mutant-y goodness from time-to-time.
Also, I've debated with some on the merits (or lack thereof) of the first two Iron Man movies. (I'm kinda/sorta split on Iron Man 3 which has parts I like but feels weirdly uneven.) Honestly, they bored me to tears. Of course, that had nothing to do with the work of Robert Downey Jr. in bringing the projects to life; it's just that I couldn't quite get into the subversive vibe of a multi-billionaire somehow being an anti-establishment guy. You HAVE to be in the establishment in reality in order to go anywhere, so ...?
No, no, and no. I don't bring this up to get into any intellectual throwndown with readers or casual observers alike. I'll always concede that Downey Jr.'s work is nothing short of epic. He truly banked his reputation on those productions, and -- for the most part -- it shows exceedingly well what storytellers and talent can accomplish when they put their noggins together and shoot for the skies. The actor arguably hoisted that entire franchise on his shoulders for a time; and I think he'll probably always deserve the lion's share of the credit for bringing the classic comic book film to the mainstream in much the same way Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton did decades before.
So ... Happy birthday, Mr. Downey Jr. It was a shame you had to check out on that universe (I'm betting Marvel's really kicking themselves now), but it is what it is.
Also, I've debated with some on the merits (or lack thereof) of the first two Iron Man movies. (I'm kinda/sorta split on Iron Man 3 which has parts I like but feels weirdly uneven.) Honestly, they bored me to tears. Of course, that had nothing to do with the work of Robert Downey Jr. in bringing the projects to life; it's just that I couldn't quite get into the subversive vibe of a multi-billionaire somehow being an anti-establishment guy. You HAVE to be in the establishment in reality in order to go anywhere, so ...?
No, no, and no. I don't bring this up to get into any intellectual throwndown with readers or casual observers alike. I'll always concede that Downey Jr.'s work is nothing short of epic. He truly banked his reputation on those productions, and -- for the most part -- it shows exceedingly well what storytellers and talent can accomplish when they put their noggins together and shoot for the skies. The actor arguably hoisted that entire franchise on his shoulders for a time; and I think he'll probably always deserve the lion's share of the credit for bringing the classic comic book film to the mainstream in much the same way Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton did decades before.
So ... Happy birthday, Mr. Downey Jr. It was a shame you had to check out on that universe (I'm betting Marvel's really kicking themselves now), but it is what it is.
Back in the days when going viral actually meant a damn, there was a little something-something called Max Headroom.
Am I right?
On my side of the pond (aka America), we kinda/sorta took Max for granted, never really knowing just where he came from, how he got here, what he meant, why his sp-sp-sp-speaking cap-cap-captivated so many viewers, etc; and yet we still embraced his kinda/sorta zany presence for what it was. Before you knew it, he was everywhere -- again, this was viral before viral was viral -- and no one ever stopped to truly appreciate his origin.
Well, it was a little telefilm that aired on this day in 1985 in the United Kingdom of all places. Yes, the flick eventually captivated Americans well enough that it got a kinda/sorta loose do-over (of sorts), and then that effort spun off into a remarkably prescient television series for those of us who knew what good and smart and prescient looked like. Sadly, it never quite went mainstream -- viral sensations ebb and flow far too much to be given legitimacy, which is what the show tried to do with an essentially one-off character -- and it fizzled after a mere two seasons.
Yet, what a delightful two seasons they were ...
For those of you who are interested, I strongly encourage you check into the series. As I sad, it's very well written and well-acted. I know I've a DVD copy (still a physical media junkie) but perhaps it's out there for streaming if you're so inclined.
Am I right?
On my side of the pond (aka America), we kinda/sorta took Max for granted, never really knowing just where he came from, how he got here, what he meant, why his sp-sp-sp-speaking cap-cap-captivated so many viewers, etc; and yet we still embraced his kinda/sorta zany presence for what it was. Before you knew it, he was everywhere -- again, this was viral before viral was viral -- and no one ever stopped to truly appreciate his origin.
Well, it was a little telefilm that aired on this day in 1985 in the United Kingdom of all places. Yes, the flick eventually captivated Americans well enough that it got a kinda/sorta loose do-over (of sorts), and then that effort spun off into a remarkably prescient television series for those of us who knew what good and smart and prescient looked like. Sadly, it never quite went mainstream -- viral sensations ebb and flow far too much to be given legitimacy, which is what the show tried to do with an essentially one-off character -- and it fizzled after a mere two seasons.
Yet, what a delightful two seasons they were ...
For those of you who are interested, I strongly encourage you check into the series. As I sad, it's very well written and well-acted. I know I've a DVD copy (still a physical media junkie) but perhaps it's out there for streaming if you're so inclined.
For those of you who worship at the altar of all things pulp, did you know that it was on this day all the way back in 1914 that Edgar Rice Burrough first took readers on that fun-filled trip into the land of Pellucidar with the publication of At The Earth's Core?
Oh, I know, I know, I know ... "But, editor, it was published in novel format until some time in 1922!" Yes, I hear you purists complaining now; yet back in those days a great many tomes were first introduced to the masses-at-large in serialized format, thus giving them a chapter-by-chapter exploration of a wider work in progress. Eventually true, it was all collected under one seamless cover and retailed at an affordable price (unlike today's press), but it all first began on this day back in 1914.
From what I've read, there were seven books in the greater Pellucidar saga ... and, unless I miss my guess, I think I've read three of them. I believe there were three collected in one massive book, and I raced through them. (Again, I'll leaving room for error here because I don't recall all of the specifics as it was a long, long time ago.) Over the years, I've picked up a good handful of reprints of these pulp novels from yesterday; while I haven't exactly been thrilled with all of them, I do believe ERB's stuff what quite interesting.
Oh, I know, I know, I know ... "But, editor, it was published in novel format until some time in 1922!" Yes, I hear you purists complaining now; yet back in those days a great many tomes were first introduced to the masses-at-large in serialized format, thus giving them a chapter-by-chapter exploration of a wider work in progress. Eventually true, it was all collected under one seamless cover and retailed at an affordable price (unlike today's press), but it all first began on this day back in 1914.
From what I've read, there were seven books in the greater Pellucidar saga ... and, unless I miss my guess, I think I've read three of them. I believe there were three collected in one massive book, and I raced through them. (Again, I'll leaving room for error here because I don't recall all of the specifics as it was a long, long time ago.) Over the years, I've picked up a good handful of reprints of these pulp novels from yesterday; while I haven't exactly been thrilled with all of them, I do believe ERB's stuff what quite interesting.
Need I remind you that -- with over 100 different trivia items to behold -- there's a vast array of more for you to absorb. It isn't always about what I like at SciFiHistory.Net; rather, it's about what we like -- each of us. That's why I do what I do ... all in the hopes that we can be brought just a bit closer together for a few moments every day to celebrate what unites us in fandom as opposed to those who would divide and conquer us with their sorcerer's ways!
Anyway ... here's the link ...
As always, peeps, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good afternoon, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror History' for April 3, 2024!
How's everyone's Hump Day going, eh?
Me? Well, I'm pretty good today. Got a decent night's sleep. Had a little snack-style breakfast. Went out to the health club and had a really solid workout. Hit the grocery store to pick up a few items. And now? Well, now I'm back at the house, checking out today's breaking news (the Disney Company is a total clusterfart, folks), and taking my own deep dive into April 3rd's genre citations. So, yeah ... I'm pretty good.
Last night, I finished streaming a Netflix comedy called Medical Police. It was a little something-something that I'd heard about but hadn't yet stumbled across for streaming. For those of you unaware, it's certainly not Science Fiction and Fantasy (though a case could be made for the fact that it dabbles into some SciFi elements here and there), but don't let that disturb you. It's a farce-style comedy, and it's pretty solid ... if you like that sort of thing. Basically, it's a loose follow-up to the comic Children's Hospital -- employs many of the same cast and crew -- but it plays out on a much broader campus with some great guest stars and a goofy end-of-the-world premise. For those of you who have Netflix, you might wanna check it out ... but, again, it's pure F-A-R-C-E so go in understanding what you're about to get.
How's everyone's Hump Day going, eh?
Me? Well, I'm pretty good today. Got a decent night's sleep. Had a little snack-style breakfast. Went out to the health club and had a really solid workout. Hit the grocery store to pick up a few items. And now? Well, now I'm back at the house, checking out today's breaking news (the Disney Company is a total clusterfart, folks), and taking my own deep dive into April 3rd's genre citations. So, yeah ... I'm pretty good.
Last night, I finished streaming a Netflix comedy called Medical Police. It was a little something-something that I'd heard about but hadn't yet stumbled across for streaming. For those of you unaware, it's certainly not Science Fiction and Fantasy (though a case could be made for the fact that it dabbles into some SciFi elements here and there), but don't let that disturb you. It's a farce-style comedy, and it's pretty solid ... if you like that sort of thing. Basically, it's a loose follow-up to the comic Children's Hospital -- employs many of the same cast and crew -- but it plays out on a much broader campus with some great guest stars and a goofy end-of-the-world premise. For those of you who have Netflix, you might wanna check it out ... but, again, it's pure F-A-R-C-E so go in understanding what you're about to get.
Sigh.
Do all of you remember the days when the BBC's Doctor Who was actually good?
Sigh.
I miss those days.
In any event, it was on this day back in 2010 that the Matt Smith era of the long-running Science Fiction and Fantasy show got its start with the first airing of "The Eleventh Hour." Giving audiences a look at a markedly younger time traveller, the show found a bit of extended life in the wake of David Tennant's departure. It was a great 'save the Earth' story that introduced the new Doctor and his young companion; and -- even if my opinion is in the minority -- I thought it was damn good fun. Granted, it may've felt a bit estranged from the Tennant stuff, but -- hey -- Tennant remains a hard act to follow. What Smith did certainly grew on me, though toward the end of his tenure is was becoming clearer that the writers' room was struggling a bit to come up with some fresh ideas.
Still ... when it was good, it was good, at least ... and that's saying a lot for how low this one-time juggernaut has fallen.
Do all of you remember the days when the BBC's Doctor Who was actually good?
Sigh.
I miss those days.
In any event, it was on this day back in 2010 that the Matt Smith era of the long-running Science Fiction and Fantasy show got its start with the first airing of "The Eleventh Hour." Giving audiences a look at a markedly younger time traveller, the show found a bit of extended life in the wake of David Tennant's departure. It was a great 'save the Earth' story that introduced the new Doctor and his young companion; and -- even if my opinion is in the minority -- I thought it was damn good fun. Granted, it may've felt a bit estranged from the Tennant stuff, but -- hey -- Tennant remains a hard act to follow. What Smith did certainly grew on me, though toward the end of his tenure is was becoming clearer that the writers' room was struggling a bit to come up with some fresh ideas.
Still ... when it was good, it was good, at least ... and that's saying a lot for how low this one-time juggernaut has fallen.
I've always reminded readers that genre entertainment has a lot of middling entries. This isn't to say that a particular show or shows are unworthy; rather, it's just a reminder that a run-of-the-mill production might spread out the great stuff with some lesser adventures. Again: don't even remotely think I'm suggesting that you tune off stuff like The Lost World which premiered on this day back in 1999 and lasted for three seasons. In fact, I'd argue that even though its effect stuff hasn't aged all that well I think this remains a property that earned its sea legs and then some even if it wasn't a wide hit.
No, I didn't catch this one in U.S. TV syndication when it was on. I had to pick it up on home video to enjoy (without commercials, which I absolutely loathe). Having heard about it from a few friends, it was a property that sounded like it had potential ... and I'm thrilled to say that, yes, it was a modest winner. Nestled somewhere between, say, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and a TV-grade incarnation of the Indiana Jones stuff, The Lost World basically only took its foundation from the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story and then serialized it with a good cast, shifting allegiances, and the usual TV corn.
The result?
Well, as I said, it lasted a good three seasons; and, sadly, it came to an end with an epic cliffhanger that to this date has never been resolved. What a shame, as I think its audiences deserved better than a cliffhanger.
No, I didn't catch this one in U.S. TV syndication when it was on. I had to pick it up on home video to enjoy (without commercials, which I absolutely loathe). Having heard about it from a few friends, it was a property that sounded like it had potential ... and I'm thrilled to say that, yes, it was a modest winner. Nestled somewhere between, say, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and a TV-grade incarnation of the Indiana Jones stuff, The Lost World basically only took its foundation from the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story and then serialized it with a good cast, shifting allegiances, and the usual TV corn.
The result?
Well, as I said, it lasted a good three seasons; and, sadly, it came to an end with an epic cliffhanger that to this date has never been resolved. What a shame, as I think its audiences deserved better than a cliffhanger.
Though 1953's theatrical adaptation of H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds is probably not considered required viewing by today's generation of Science Fiction fans, there are still those of us who'd argue it's still one of the best flicks to introduce viewers to the quintessential Martian invasion of Earth.
Yes, I say this as one of the web's 'old dogs' who still works very hard to draw attention to older flicks; and -- readers -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Its groundbreaking visual effects are backed up with some very real human relationship drama -- albeit a bit dated -- and the sight of those invading spacecraft along with their Martian crew still stirs the imaginations of fans who discover it. Its sights and sounds still mean something, and -- to top it off -- it's one of the rare Science Fiction productions inducted into the U.S.'s National Film Registry.
Now, sure, I get that the narrative and the relationships aren't what appear to be authentic to the modern age. That's ok, too, because it wasn't made for the modern age. It was crafted to captivate audiences of another era; and -- on that front -- it succeeded so well that specialists have chosen it to be preserved for tomorrow's watchers. If you haven't seen it, then give it a whirl. You may not like all of it; but if you're a true SciFi and Fantasy junkie like so many who traffic in these parts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Yes, I say this as one of the web's 'old dogs' who still works very hard to draw attention to older flicks; and -- readers -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Its groundbreaking visual effects are backed up with some very real human relationship drama -- albeit a bit dated -- and the sight of those invading spacecraft along with their Martian crew still stirs the imaginations of fans who discover it. Its sights and sounds still mean something, and -- to top it off -- it's one of the rare Science Fiction productions inducted into the U.S.'s National Film Registry.
Now, sure, I get that the narrative and the relationships aren't what appear to be authentic to the modern age. That's ok, too, because it wasn't made for the modern age. It was crafted to captivate audiences of another era; and -- on that front -- it succeeded so well that specialists have chosen it to be preserved for tomorrow's watchers. If you haven't seen it, then give it a whirl. You may not like all of it; but if you're a true SciFi and Fantasy junkie like so many who traffic in these parts I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Of course, it goes without saying that there's more. Now, yes, I'm a bit underwhelmed myself with only 50 genre trivia citations, but this is where I remind folks that SciFiHistory.Net has always been -- and will always be -- a work-in-progress. I have a good many other items I'm working to add to the Daily Citation Page for today, but it takes time. I'll work this afternoon to add a few more, and, hopefully, this time next year it'll be more than you could ever possibly imagine.
In the meantime, here's the link:
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Ah, folks ... this one hurts more than I can say.
Back in the days of my youth, Saturday Night Live was all the rage with the kids at school. Yes, a lot of it is owed to the groundbreaking comedy brought to television well ahead of its time; but, frankly, I and those I hung out with kinda/sorta saw that preference as a fairly easy choice.
Instead, we stayed up a bit later, and after SNL came to its close, a little something-something out of Canada called SCTV (Second City Television) came on-the-air. Now, granted, the producers of the show didn't quite have the budget that perhaps the NBC juggernaut did; but what it had in damn near endless supply was an astonishingly talented cast that pushed their way through and made the material funnier because of it. Names like John Candy or Eugene Levy or Martin Short or Catherine O'Hara earned their time in the spotlight beyond SCTV, but sadly funnyman Joe Flaherty never really did.
It's hard being the straight guy; and -- more often than not -- Flaherty filled out those shoes (at least, that's my two cents on his career in sketch comedy). Every now and then, he delivered his own unique brand of lunacy -- you kids just Google 'Count Floyd' to see what I mean -- and it worked swimmingly. But, yeah, as the show's token straight guy it was probably hard for him to find the same kind of career traction that his co-stars did. Yet, I recognized him every single time he turned up in anything I watched since. His demeanor is that memorable.
Alas, none of us lasts forever ... and I just noticed word reaching the World Wide Web this morning of the comedian's passing. I wanted to post something in this space for readers who might've grown up in my era as I'm certain a number of them may've been aware of his talent. His was a unique personae, and I really do wish it had wider play when it truly mattered.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Joe Flaherty.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
Back in the days of my youth, Saturday Night Live was all the rage with the kids at school. Yes, a lot of it is owed to the groundbreaking comedy brought to television well ahead of its time; but, frankly, I and those I hung out with kinda/sorta saw that preference as a fairly easy choice.
Instead, we stayed up a bit later, and after SNL came to its close, a little something-something out of Canada called SCTV (Second City Television) came on-the-air. Now, granted, the producers of the show didn't quite have the budget that perhaps the NBC juggernaut did; but what it had in damn near endless supply was an astonishingly talented cast that pushed their way through and made the material funnier because of it. Names like John Candy or Eugene Levy or Martin Short or Catherine O'Hara earned their time in the spotlight beyond SCTV, but sadly funnyman Joe Flaherty never really did.
It's hard being the straight guy; and -- more often than not -- Flaherty filled out those shoes (at least, that's my two cents on his career in sketch comedy). Every now and then, he delivered his own unique brand of lunacy -- you kids just Google 'Count Floyd' to see what I mean -- and it worked swimmingly. But, yeah, as the show's token straight guy it was probably hard for him to find the same kind of career traction that his co-stars did. Yet, I recognized him every single time he turned up in anything I watched since. His demeanor is that memorable.
Alas, none of us lasts forever ... and I just noticed word reaching the World Wide Web this morning of the comedian's passing. I wanted to post something in this space for readers who might've grown up in my era as I'm certain a number of them may've been aware of his talent. His was a unique personae, and I really do wish it had wider play when it truly mattered.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Joe Flaherty.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ