- Published on
Hi-ho, Hi-ho, it's off to space we go!
Welcome to Wednesday, gentle readers, and let's all be thankful that we've made it to Hump Day (as they say) in one piece ... well, at least those of us in one piece can still say that.
As I mentioned the other day, I've been fortunate enough to receive a 4-Western set from the folks at Arrow Films that I'm spending a bit of time with over the next few days (and some), so you can watch for those reviews getting up on the MainPage as I finish them. Yes, yes, yes: I realize this isn't SciFi, per se, but when you own the place you can do with it as you like. In the meantime, I'll continue doing as I like ... and -- as I said -- I do so love a good Western.
Haters, be hated!
Otherwise, I'll encourage everyone to head on over to July 12th and check out the glory and the goodness that is this day in wider genre history. I've got quite a bit from my research this morning that I need to add to that space -- along with a few corrections I'll have to make to the day itself, from what I'm reading -- but that goes with the territory. Momma never said it'd be easy serving as one of webdom's leading Science Fiction Historians, and I think she knew what she was talking about after all.
In any event, here's the linkie ...
Welcome to Wednesday, gentle readers, and let's all be thankful that we've made it to Hump Day (as they say) in one piece ... well, at least those of us in one piece can still say that.
As I mentioned the other day, I've been fortunate enough to receive a 4-Western set from the folks at Arrow Films that I'm spending a bit of time with over the next few days (and some), so you can watch for those reviews getting up on the MainPage as I finish them. Yes, yes, yes: I realize this isn't SciFi, per se, but when you own the place you can do with it as you like. In the meantime, I'll continue doing as I like ... and -- as I said -- I do so love a good Western.
Haters, be hated!
Otherwise, I'll encourage everyone to head on over to July 12th and check out the glory and the goodness that is this day in wider genre history. I've got quite a bit from my research this morning that I need to add to that space -- along with a few corrections I'll have to make to the day itself, from what I'm reading -- but that goes with the territory. Momma never said it'd be easy serving as one of webdom's leading Science Fiction Historians, and I think she knew what she was talking about after all.
In any event, here's the linkie ...
As always, feel free to share and share alike. I know that there are quite a few of you out there in Cyberspace who make use of SciFiHistory.Net in producing your own vlogs, blogs, and other materials. I welcome the additional exposure; all I ask is that you please please please put in either a link over to this space (to assist in my promotional efforts) and give me a proper shout-out so's that others can find my place of residence as well. I always appreciate the assitance.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Those who know me best know that I was no fan of Star Trek: Enterprise. Don't get me wrong: I loved the idea of going back to a pre-TOS era, but I just didn't care for the general aesthetic of Enterprise from the get-go. Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks.
In any event ...
There were many online who tried to convince me that late in Season 3 (I had watched faithfully through two seasons) and into Season 4, the behind-the-scenes crew had brought in Manny Coto to write and help run things, and this decision was allegedly a huge improvement over the state of affairs. Having since gone back and watched a little of what Coto was involved with, I would agree that it was a definite improvement, and maybe -- just maybe -- if the show had had his participation from the starting square then it could've, would've, should've been something a bit more interesting. It definitely would've been something that felt a bit more cohesive in this bigger narrative universe.
As fate would have it, I did keep an eye out for Coto's name since those days, and I was thrilled to see that he came over and helped out in Fox TV's incredible 24 series for a time as well. 24 is a show that I wish was still around in some way, shape, or form; and I think Coto's contributions there were also solid. If in any small way his participation helped make the program even better than it was, then hats off to the guy for a job well done.
Clearly, the guy was no stranger to the world of genre projects. All one need do is take a gander at his IMDB.com profile to get an incredible list of some shows and movies near and dear to us. Tales From The Crypt. Dr. Giggles (1992). Dead At 21. The Outer Limits. Strange World. Odyssey 5. American Horror Story. While all of these might not be everyone's 'cup of tea' (as they say), it's still a compact and impressive list of the potential and perhaps zaniness that helped fuel some of Coto's mind ... at least so much that he was thrilled to share with us.
Alas, none of us gets out of this game of life alive, and word reached my desk that Coto recently passed from pancreatic cancer. From what I've read (and seen firsthand), cancer is a helluva way to go, and I have nothing but prayers for anyone who suffers that ugly, ugly disease.
Thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Manny Coto. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
In any event ...
There were many online who tried to convince me that late in Season 3 (I had watched faithfully through two seasons) and into Season 4, the behind-the-scenes crew had brought in Manny Coto to write and help run things, and this decision was allegedly a huge improvement over the state of affairs. Having since gone back and watched a little of what Coto was involved with, I would agree that it was a definite improvement, and maybe -- just maybe -- if the show had had his participation from the starting square then it could've, would've, should've been something a bit more interesting. It definitely would've been something that felt a bit more cohesive in this bigger narrative universe.
As fate would have it, I did keep an eye out for Coto's name since those days, and I was thrilled to see that he came over and helped out in Fox TV's incredible 24 series for a time as well. 24 is a show that I wish was still around in some way, shape, or form; and I think Coto's contributions there were also solid. If in any small way his participation helped make the program even better than it was, then hats off to the guy for a job well done.
Clearly, the guy was no stranger to the world of genre projects. All one need do is take a gander at his IMDB.com profile to get an incredible list of some shows and movies near and dear to us. Tales From The Crypt. Dr. Giggles (1992). Dead At 21. The Outer Limits. Strange World. Odyssey 5. American Horror Story. While all of these might not be everyone's 'cup of tea' (as they say), it's still a compact and impressive list of the potential and perhaps zaniness that helped fuel some of Coto's mind ... at least so much that he was thrilled to share with us.
Alas, none of us gets out of this game of life alive, and word reached my desk that Coto recently passed from pancreatic cancer. From what I've read (and seen firsthand), cancer is a helluva way to go, and I have nothing but prayers for anyone who suffers that ugly, ugly disease.
Thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Manny Coto. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, and Happy Tuesday, smilers!
If you're reading this, then you're alive and well and you're now fully aware that it is not only Tuesday but also you've got yourself an incredible 66 -- as in Star Wars' fated Order 66 -- genre trivia citations from the worlds of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror just awaiting your exploration! Woohoo! Yippee! Fantastic! And, yes, you're welcome.
I do have a few more that I'll likely be adding to the page over the course of the day, but I'll leave that work to speak for itself. I have a few errands to run so I may not get all that many more announcements up-and-running on the MainPage. If I do, then I'll naturally be sharing them online (Twitter feed) for folks to get up-to-speed. This morning, I also saw a scorpion in the garage (yikes!), so I'll probably be spraying some of the usual scorpion killer as I try to search and destroy their ugly, ugly kind. Ah, the trials and tribulations of being an Arizona resident. It can get ugly.
In any event, here's a link that'll transport you to the highlights for July 11th.
If you're reading this, then you're alive and well and you're now fully aware that it is not only Tuesday but also you've got yourself an incredible 66 -- as in Star Wars' fated Order 66 -- genre trivia citations from the worlds of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror just awaiting your exploration! Woohoo! Yippee! Fantastic! And, yes, you're welcome.
I do have a few more that I'll likely be adding to the page over the course of the day, but I'll leave that work to speak for itself. I have a few errands to run so I may not get all that many more announcements up-and-running on the MainPage. If I do, then I'll naturally be sharing them online (Twitter feed) for folks to get up-to-speed. This morning, I also saw a scorpion in the garage (yikes!), so I'll probably be spraying some of the usual scorpion killer as I try to search and destroy their ugly, ugly kind. Ah, the trials and tribulations of being an Arizona resident. It can get ugly.
In any event, here's a link that'll transport you to the highlights for July 11th.
Please, please, please: help me out and do your part in sharing all of the goodness that is SciFiHistory.Net with friends and family around the world. I'd really love to see the readership grow. Based on the data Weebly provides me with, the blog is down a little bit on the MainPage but way, way, way up on the Daily Citation pages, so any little assistance you can provide helps me out a great deal. And I truly, truly appreciate any and all help my faithful readers can provide.
As always, thanks for reading, have a fabulous day, and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
So the wifey and I are making our way around a local mall store -- one of the mid-level retailers that sells an awful lot of Walt Disney, Marvel, DC, and more intellectual property's t-shirts, jammies, and more. We rarely pick up anything from the place any longer; prices being what they are, the merchandise these days tends to feature a great number of characters that neither of us -- at our advanced age -- really care all that much about.
When it comes to Star Wars, we prefer the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy as both of us feel mostly let down with the -- cough cough -- Sequel Trilogy, but we did tune in for Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels full runs on television. Again, we may not have found all of the players and the circumstances as interesting as they could've been, but as both shows truly made great use of George Lucas' core mythology they both kept our interest.
In any event ...
I'm glancing over the Star Wars merchandise, and there's a young(ish) mother with her daughter over there as well. The young'un points to a shirt emblazened with the face of Ahsoka Tano, and she asks her mom, "Who's that?"
Mommie Dearest glances at the cartoon face and says, "That's Rey. In a hat."
Without chucking, I stepped over and politely said, "Actually, that's a character called Ahsoka Tano from Star Wars."
Now it's the mother's turn to look at me and ask, "Who's that?"
I only bring this personal anecdote up because it kinda/sorta demonstrates what I've long said about the future of Star Wars, that being it's difficult to see the franchise truly growing and changing unless there are some familiar faces amongst the cast. For the record, I'm not speaking about Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher (may she rest in peace), but I am talking about the characters they portray. Think what you will, but I've often argued that -- like Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock chiefly cannot and will not ever be separated from the wide, wide world that is Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek -- Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, and those lovable droids are likely to forever be linked with audiences when thinking about a galaxy far, far away.
As popular as Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels may've been among fandom, I just don't think they've aptly translated to the hearts, souls, and minds of the general viewing public. If you can't bring in more than just the most ardent hardcore fans, then any producer or production company will always be faced with the prospect of diminishing returns. Like the original's characters, the audience is getting older and going the way of the do-do. Viewers have other choices these days, and no one seems to be all that interested in Star Wars but the most vocal fans. That doesn't bode well for the I.P. -- look at the news, and you'll see that both Walt Disney and Lucasfilm are presently in some creative and financial disarray -- so forgive me for suggesting that I've got a bad feeling about Ahsoka.
Created by Dave Filoni (again, his is a name no one outside of Star Wars' fandom knows), Ahsoka Tano is most definitely an inspired character. Originally voiced by Ashley Eckstein (in animated fashion), the would-be Jedi had more than a healthy amount of what my grandmother called 'piss & vinegar,' though it got watered down a bit in Rebels. Chiefly, that's why I didn't much care for her presentation there, and -- in all honesty -- I wasn't all that thrilled with the live action sequences Disney+ audiences have been treated to aboard The Mandalorian and The Book Of Boba Fett. While I don't see this so much as the actress's fault (Rosario Dawson can only work with what she's given), I'm certainly hoping that her Alec Guinness tone of the newly released trailer for her standalone series isn't indicative of that show's writing.
Not to nitpick, but Ahsoka is no Jedi. This isn't to say that she doesn't have some skills. But depending upon when this series is set, her training has never been complete. Showcasing her so prominently as -- cough cough -- one of the galaxy's last hopes is a bit much to swallow. (Yes, I'm reserving judgment until I see the show; I'm only pointing out that I'm not digging this trailer's vibe.)
Still, I'd be remiss if I refused to be excited about the series' prospects. With The Mandalorian Season Three barely emerging with a pulse (so far as ratings are concerned), I do hope this lady can bring a bit of luster back that's so needed in the universe.
Trailer is below. You know you want to watch.
When it comes to Star Wars, we prefer the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy as both of us feel mostly let down with the -- cough cough -- Sequel Trilogy, but we did tune in for Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels full runs on television. Again, we may not have found all of the players and the circumstances as interesting as they could've been, but as both shows truly made great use of George Lucas' core mythology they both kept our interest.
In any event ...
I'm glancing over the Star Wars merchandise, and there's a young(ish) mother with her daughter over there as well. The young'un points to a shirt emblazened with the face of Ahsoka Tano, and she asks her mom, "Who's that?"
Mommie Dearest glances at the cartoon face and says, "That's Rey. In a hat."
Without chucking, I stepped over and politely said, "Actually, that's a character called Ahsoka Tano from Star Wars."
Now it's the mother's turn to look at me and ask, "Who's that?"
I only bring this personal anecdote up because it kinda/sorta demonstrates what I've long said about the future of Star Wars, that being it's difficult to see the franchise truly growing and changing unless there are some familiar faces amongst the cast. For the record, I'm not speaking about Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher (may she rest in peace), but I am talking about the characters they portray. Think what you will, but I've often argued that -- like Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock chiefly cannot and will not ever be separated from the wide, wide world that is Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek -- Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, and those lovable droids are likely to forever be linked with audiences when thinking about a galaxy far, far away.
As popular as Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels may've been among fandom, I just don't think they've aptly translated to the hearts, souls, and minds of the general viewing public. If you can't bring in more than just the most ardent hardcore fans, then any producer or production company will always be faced with the prospect of diminishing returns. Like the original's characters, the audience is getting older and going the way of the do-do. Viewers have other choices these days, and no one seems to be all that interested in Star Wars but the most vocal fans. That doesn't bode well for the I.P. -- look at the news, and you'll see that both Walt Disney and Lucasfilm are presently in some creative and financial disarray -- so forgive me for suggesting that I've got a bad feeling about Ahsoka.
Created by Dave Filoni (again, his is a name no one outside of Star Wars' fandom knows), Ahsoka Tano is most definitely an inspired character. Originally voiced by Ashley Eckstein (in animated fashion), the would-be Jedi had more than a healthy amount of what my grandmother called 'piss & vinegar,' though it got watered down a bit in Rebels. Chiefly, that's why I didn't much care for her presentation there, and -- in all honesty -- I wasn't all that thrilled with the live action sequences Disney+ audiences have been treated to aboard The Mandalorian and The Book Of Boba Fett. While I don't see this so much as the actress's fault (Rosario Dawson can only work with what she's given), I'm certainly hoping that her Alec Guinness tone of the newly released trailer for her standalone series isn't indicative of that show's writing.
Not to nitpick, but Ahsoka is no Jedi. This isn't to say that she doesn't have some skills. But depending upon when this series is set, her training has never been complete. Showcasing her so prominently as -- cough cough -- one of the galaxy's last hopes is a bit much to swallow. (Yes, I'm reserving judgment until I see the show; I'm only pointing out that I'm not digging this trailer's vibe.)
Still, I'd be remiss if I refused to be excited about the series' prospects. With The Mandalorian Season Three barely emerging with a pulse (so far as ratings are concerned), I do hope this lady can bring a bit of luster back that's so needed in the universe.
Trailer is below. You know you want to watch.
As always, thanks for reading, live long and prosper, and may the Force be with us!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning and Happy Monday, gentle readers! Here's hoping that each and every one of you enjoyed a fabulous, fabulous weekend, giving you the rejuventation you'll be needing to face this all-new week with something but smiles and vigor!
Ah, well ...
In any event, I wanted to continue in trying to establish this new habit of mine, promoting the incredible work I've completed over the many years in bringing SciFiHistory.Net to life for not only myself but also all of the readers and fans out there in cyberspace. Certainly, some of these days have plenty of room for continued growth -- and, incidentally, I've uncovered a good handful of new tidbits I'll be trying to add over the course of the day, as time permits -- and here's hoping I live long enough to get each day to the very respectable 100 citations. With a good 62 birthday, film, and TV highlights for July 10th, I think that's a great foundation upon which to keep building. So -- without further ado -- everyone is encouraged to click below and be transported into the past and present ...
Ah, well ...
In any event, I wanted to continue in trying to establish this new habit of mine, promoting the incredible work I've completed over the many years in bringing SciFiHistory.Net to life for not only myself but also all of the readers and fans out there in cyberspace. Certainly, some of these days have plenty of room for continued growth -- and, incidentally, I've uncovered a good handful of new tidbits I'll be trying to add over the course of the day, as time permits -- and here's hoping I live long enough to get each day to the very respectable 100 citations. With a good 62 birthday, film, and TV highlights for July 10th, I think that's a great foundation upon which to keep building. So -- without further ado -- everyone is encouraged to click below and be transported into the past and present ...
Incidentally, I'm also taking this opportunity to let you know that I'm going to be taking some time over the week to watch and review a few Westerns in my collection. (These are some new home video releases graciously shared with me via a distributor relationship.) From time-to-time, I like to commit a bit of time away from SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror, especially when I'm feeling a bit creatively under the weather; focusing on a little 'something something' that's out of the norm for me helps to refresh the old brain cells, helping to regain some much needed perspective in the quest to always find something different to say about a project. So if Westerns aren't your thing, then just keep on scrolling. But if you're like me and you like to be well-rounded, I encourage you to check out those reviews as well.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Occasionally a reader of two reaches out to me, asking for a recommendation of what might be one of the better books into the whole UFO affair that might be reading.
For the uninformed, regular readers of this space know of my fondness for All Things High Strangeness, and I’ve been shown to cover them from time-to-time. My issue with making recommendations is that I haven’t read all that many tomes into the phenomenon – certainly more than most but far less than anyone claiming to be an expert of such subject matter – so I’m always hesitant to give out suggestions of what might or might not be ‘the better’ books. I will say that I’ve read far more than I wouldn’t pass along praise for than I’d give a reviewer’s thumbs-up, and this is only because – from my limited perspective – I’ve ventured into published works that ‘feel’ more like vanity projects (or vanity perspectives) and offer little of substance to a field needing more light shone upon it (for a variety of reasons).
But because I’ve been recently asked and I just so happen to have finished something of interest let me point folks in the direction of Jacques F. Vallée and Paola Leopizzi Harris’ Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret.
This one was first published in 2021 and then expanded (with additional information and commentary) again in 2022, and I purchased the updated edition and am very happy with it. The book is a 300+ pages plus investigation into the little covered 1945 UFO crash and recovery story that, frankly, I’ve seen more writers either dismiss and/or ‘poopoo’ as having so little evidence that it doesn’t warrant any further inquiry. Let me assure you that – based entirely on Vallée and Harris’ learned opinions here – nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, whatever may have taken place in the outskirts of San Antonito, New Mexico might very well be vastly more significant than many other sights and/or encounters precisely because not only was evidence recovered and multiple eyewitnesses involved but also the occurrence can possibly be linked to other events in human history (the test of nuclear bombs in Trinity) and other well-documented cases of unexplained phenomena. This rarely discussed incident predates a great deal of activity that took place in the late 1940’s and perhaps shows that not all answers to the great, existential puzzle are beyond mankind’s reach. The sad truth is that we may have been looking in the wrong places because of our government’s sleight of hand, meaning that agents just beyond the federal bureaucracy may have been holding the trump cards since the beginning.
While many authors have ‘made bank’ on linking the American secret development of the atomic bomb to the increase of UFO sightings across the fruited plains, Vallée and Harris actually push the research a bit further as well as coaxing it into a vastly more useful direction: indeed, it looks as though they may have found some significant similarities between the San Antonito event and a few others. That connection alone makes the book well worth a read as I can’t tell you how tired I am of skeptics arguing that the lack of connectivity amongst documented sightings is the biggest reason to dismiss the entire concern as a product of a society’s overactive imagination. Because the pair are able to establish some basic commonalities between three of UFOlogy’s bigger cases, I retain a bit of hope that one day we’ll be able to get beyond ‘it’s all just coincidence’ and maybe have a serious, frank study to see what more we might be missing.
And it isn’t always a perfect read. The authors have been a great deal of time into presenting nearly every word of some exhaustive interviews. Occasionally, these transcripts get repetitive or even a bit tiresome (with their accuracy), but it’s clear that – as scientists – they’re well aware of the tactics critics in the government and media use to dismiss authentic work and are hoping to circumvent those quibbles by giving more information instead of less. What they do prove here – so far as this reviewer is concerned – is that they’ve gone to great lengths to validate eyewitness accounts through cross-referencing damn near anything available, and the tale told – whether you ultimately believe it or not – is still very convincing and equally concerning.
-- EZ
For the uninformed, regular readers of this space know of my fondness for All Things High Strangeness, and I’ve been shown to cover them from time-to-time. My issue with making recommendations is that I haven’t read all that many tomes into the phenomenon – certainly more than most but far less than anyone claiming to be an expert of such subject matter – so I’m always hesitant to give out suggestions of what might or might not be ‘the better’ books. I will say that I’ve read far more than I wouldn’t pass along praise for than I’d give a reviewer’s thumbs-up, and this is only because – from my limited perspective – I’ve ventured into published works that ‘feel’ more like vanity projects (or vanity perspectives) and offer little of substance to a field needing more light shone upon it (for a variety of reasons).
But because I’ve been recently asked and I just so happen to have finished something of interest let me point folks in the direction of Jacques F. Vallée and Paola Leopizzi Harris’ Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret.
This one was first published in 2021 and then expanded (with additional information and commentary) again in 2022, and I purchased the updated edition and am very happy with it. The book is a 300+ pages plus investigation into the little covered 1945 UFO crash and recovery story that, frankly, I’ve seen more writers either dismiss and/or ‘poopoo’ as having so little evidence that it doesn’t warrant any further inquiry. Let me assure you that – based entirely on Vallée and Harris’ learned opinions here – nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, whatever may have taken place in the outskirts of San Antonito, New Mexico might very well be vastly more significant than many other sights and/or encounters precisely because not only was evidence recovered and multiple eyewitnesses involved but also the occurrence can possibly be linked to other events in human history (the test of nuclear bombs in Trinity) and other well-documented cases of unexplained phenomena. This rarely discussed incident predates a great deal of activity that took place in the late 1940’s and perhaps shows that not all answers to the great, existential puzzle are beyond mankind’s reach. The sad truth is that we may have been looking in the wrong places because of our government’s sleight of hand, meaning that agents just beyond the federal bureaucracy may have been holding the trump cards since the beginning.
While many authors have ‘made bank’ on linking the American secret development of the atomic bomb to the increase of UFO sightings across the fruited plains, Vallée and Harris actually push the research a bit further as well as coaxing it into a vastly more useful direction: indeed, it looks as though they may have found some significant similarities between the San Antonito event and a few others. That connection alone makes the book well worth a read as I can’t tell you how tired I am of skeptics arguing that the lack of connectivity amongst documented sightings is the biggest reason to dismiss the entire concern as a product of a society’s overactive imagination. Because the pair are able to establish some basic commonalities between three of UFOlogy’s bigger cases, I retain a bit of hope that one day we’ll be able to get beyond ‘it’s all just coincidence’ and maybe have a serious, frank study to see what more we might be missing.
And it isn’t always a perfect read. The authors have been a great deal of time into presenting nearly every word of some exhaustive interviews. Occasionally, these transcripts get repetitive or even a bit tiresome (with their accuracy), but it’s clear that – as scientists – they’re well aware of the tactics critics in the government and media use to dismiss authentic work and are hoping to circumvent those quibbles by giving more information instead of less. What they do prove here – so far as this reviewer is concerned – is that they’ve gone to great lengths to validate eyewitness accounts through cross-referencing damn near anything available, and the tale told – whether you ultimately believe it or not – is still very convincing and equally concerning.
-- EZ
- Published on
Happy Friday, gentle readers! It looks like we're on the verge of yet another great weekend -- well, those of us who don't work over the weekend, anyway -- so hats off to another week well done!
Folks, I get told all the time that "I'm not doing it correctly," and -- from what I can tell -- there are some of you who don't think I promote the individual pages -- the real blood and guts -- of SciFiHistory.Net. I know that not all of you follow me on the ol' Twitter -- some of you left there because you loathe what Elon Musk is doing with the site -- so I understand how you might miss the unGodly number of Tweets I put out (damn near) each and every day across that express lane of the Information Superhighway. And hey! That's OK! I don't begrudge you your political opinions, so don't begrudge me mine! But I do spend a great many hours each day on servicing not only this ever-growing blog but also your daily Infotainment needs, so please please please cut me some slack.
However, I did receive a suggestion from a regular. Yes, it is a little 'something something' I've done off-and-on over the years, but when time is tight this kind of self promotion is usually the first thing that gets chucked aside. But ... in the spirit of drawing yet even more attention to the Daily Citation pages, I decided that I would try and get back in the habit of creating one additional post for Twitter sharing that would promote the individual day.
So ... without further ado ... here it is ... please click below ...
Folks, I get told all the time that "I'm not doing it correctly," and -- from what I can tell -- there are some of you who don't think I promote the individual pages -- the real blood and guts -- of SciFiHistory.Net. I know that not all of you follow me on the ol' Twitter -- some of you left there because you loathe what Elon Musk is doing with the site -- so I understand how you might miss the unGodly number of Tweets I put out (damn near) each and every day across that express lane of the Information Superhighway. And hey! That's OK! I don't begrudge you your political opinions, so don't begrudge me mine! But I do spend a great many hours each day on servicing not only this ever-growing blog but also your daily Infotainment needs, so please please please cut me some slack.
However, I did receive a suggestion from a regular. Yes, it is a little 'something something' I've done off-and-on over the years, but when time is tight this kind of self promotion is usually the first thing that gets chucked aside. But ... in the spirit of drawing yet even more attention to the Daily Citation pages, I decided that I would try and get back in the habit of creating one additional post for Twitter sharing that would promote the individual day.
So ... without further ado ... here it is ... please click below ...
All you need to do is click directly on that July 7th, and your destination awaits. There's an incredible amount of daily trivia surrounding This Day In Science Fiction History -- yes, yes, yes, I know there's Fantasy, Horror, and occasionally a bit more, but you catch my drift -- and I encourage readers to head on over and begin digesting all of it. Right now, the day is an incredible 89 different tidbits strong with Birthdays, Movie Releases, TV Airings, and just a bit more.
It's a fabulous day to celebrate being a fan of genre entertainment, and I encourage everybody to hop aboard today's train if for no better reason than to remind you once more ... it's Friday!
As always, THANKS FOR READING ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Stardate 07.07.2023.B: Happy Anniversary - 1978's 'Battlestar Galactica' Turns 45 Years Young Today!
Frankly, I would never begrudge any of my faithful readers from saying that they prefer the modern incarnation of Battlestar Galactica over the original, but if I'm being perfectly honest with you -- and I do try very hard to do that each and every time I blog -- I'm an old dog. I still have nothing but love and respect for the first incarnation. While a good deal of the update felt a bit cold and impersonal to me, I do so very much love the landscape of a galactic adventure tied to the 1978 incarnation ... and I'm sticking with that.
Yes, yes, and yes: I was a young'un back when it first aired on television. It had been so heavily advertised as a regular broadcast show meant to tap into that vein Star Wars so wonderfully fueled with blood that no kid my age would turn away from watching this. It had just the right amount of swagger and wholesomeness that we were easily swept away to the worlds out there, and -- sure -- it probably promised far more than it ever delivered. And yet ... we still couldn't turn away.
Apollo. Adama. Athena. Starbuck. Boomer. Boxey. Casseopeia.
These were names were got to know very quickly, and we turned in during regular broadcast hours just to see what they were up to this week. As the episodes wore on, it was pretty clear that no TV show could quite match the feverish pitch that Star Wars set (1970's budgets and effects work being what they were), and I think a good number of us were still ok with that. Many who had seen Star Trek before knew that we'd likely be treated to a great deal of reused footage (as opposed to producing new starfight sequences each and every week); but I'd also agree with those who suggested that maybe the writers could've worked a bit harder at concocting stories that relied a bit less on space dogfights. Or -- at the very least -- use them a bit more sparingly ...
Still, what we got was reasonably glorious at times. The acting stayed very good, thanks in large part of the skills of Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, and Dirk Benedict as leading men, along with Laurette Spang and Anne Lockhart (once she joined the program midway) as the leading ladies.
Yes, yes, and yes: I was a young'un back when it first aired on television. It had been so heavily advertised as a regular broadcast show meant to tap into that vein Star Wars so wonderfully fueled with blood that no kid my age would turn away from watching this. It had just the right amount of swagger and wholesomeness that we were easily swept away to the worlds out there, and -- sure -- it probably promised far more than it ever delivered. And yet ... we still couldn't turn away.
Apollo. Adama. Athena. Starbuck. Boomer. Boxey. Casseopeia.
These were names were got to know very quickly, and we turned in during regular broadcast hours just to see what they were up to this week. As the episodes wore on, it was pretty clear that no TV show could quite match the feverish pitch that Star Wars set (1970's budgets and effects work being what they were), and I think a good number of us were still ok with that. Many who had seen Star Trek before knew that we'd likely be treated to a great deal of reused footage (as opposed to producing new starfight sequences each and every week); but I'd also agree with those who suggested that maybe the writers could've worked a bit harder at concocting stories that relied a bit less on space dogfights. Or -- at the very least -- use them a bit more sparingly ...
Still, what we got was reasonably glorious at times. The acting stayed very good, thanks in large part of the skills of Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, and Dirk Benedict as leading men, along with Laurette Spang and Anne Lockhart (once she joined the program midway) as the leading ladies.
Interestingly enough, I have a vague recollection of arguing with someone online not all that long ago about which of the big SciFi franchises that hasn't aged all that well; and -- if I remember correctly -- the original Galactica was this guy's choice. I don't recall the specifics, but I believe this guy was really nitpicking apart some of the effects sequences. Meh. I get that BSG might not have been to everyone's liking directly -- such is the nature of storytelling -- but for what it's worth I think the effects are still some of the best of their day. Alright, the producers may've relied a bit too heavily of re-using key fight footage, but that's the only way they could've brought the show to life at that scale of production back in the late 1970's without bankrupting the studio. Such is life.
Hate it if you must, but I'll still go to my grave thanking the Lords of Kobol for this wondrous little gem bringing me nothing but smiles when they mattered most.
Hate it if you must, but I'll still go to my grave thanking the Lords of Kobol for this wondrous little gem bringing me nothing but smiles when they mattered most.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
We don't always get things right on the first attempt.
Some great ideas fuel some solid inspiration, but -- no matter how much time, effort, and money gets put into some projects -- first attempts don't always rise to the level that perhaps they should. When we're dealing with films, I don't mean this to say that the project was a misfire; rather, I think there have been a great many productions that missed the mark just enough that audiences -- that tend to be forgiving -- will look the other way when it comes to short-sightedness or even outright blemishes. For far too long, genre fans have accepted what we get -- probably because we go into so many affairs realizing that we and our films are society's red-headed stepchildren anyway -- and we take it all with a grin, wanting to be happy with something lesser instead of wishing for something greater.
That's my take on Species (1995). It was a series of very interesting ideas -- along with a fabulous cast -- that just didn't quite reach high enough under director Roger Donaldson's stewardship. No, no, and no: I'm not blaming anyone in particular involved with the production at any level. I'm merely saying that it never quite felt complete as a fully realized creation, giving the whole concept the feel of a Science Fiction hand-me-down. Too many bits and pieces felt too derivative of greater features, and I think all of this stood in the way of having me appreciate it as much as I should have back in its day.
Still, it had enough of 'The Right Stuff' to establish itself as one of SciFi and Fantasy's lesser franchises, producing a handful of sequels for those willing to reap some small rewards. None of them were nearly as fascinating as the original, and that's why I'd suggest that Species is exactly the kind of intellectual property that's ripe for a modern re-invention. Not a continuation. Not a reboot, per se. Why not just pick up its ideas and give it all another go?
Some great ideas fuel some solid inspiration, but -- no matter how much time, effort, and money gets put into some projects -- first attempts don't always rise to the level that perhaps they should. When we're dealing with films, I don't mean this to say that the project was a misfire; rather, I think there have been a great many productions that missed the mark just enough that audiences -- that tend to be forgiving -- will look the other way when it comes to short-sightedness or even outright blemishes. For far too long, genre fans have accepted what we get -- probably because we go into so many affairs realizing that we and our films are society's red-headed stepchildren anyway -- and we take it all with a grin, wanting to be happy with something lesser instead of wishing for something greater.
That's my take on Species (1995). It was a series of very interesting ideas -- along with a fabulous cast -- that just didn't quite reach high enough under director Roger Donaldson's stewardship. No, no, and no: I'm not blaming anyone in particular involved with the production at any level. I'm merely saying that it never quite felt complete as a fully realized creation, giving the whole concept the feel of a Science Fiction hand-me-down. Too many bits and pieces felt too derivative of greater features, and I think all of this stood in the way of having me appreciate it as much as I should have back in its day.
Still, it had enough of 'The Right Stuff' to establish itself as one of SciFi and Fantasy's lesser franchises, producing a handful of sequels for those willing to reap some small rewards. None of them were nearly as fascinating as the original, and that's why I'd suggest that Species is exactly the kind of intellectual property that's ripe for a modern re-invention. Not a continuation. Not a reboot, per se. Why not just pick up its ideas and give it all another go?
While the film didn't garner any acting award nominations from the 1996 Saturn Awards (not all that much a big surprise, was it?), the project did score a solid nod in the categories of 'Best Make-Up,' 'Best Special Effects,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film' ... and that definitely bodes well should anyone or any studio be interested in going back to the well, as they say. At the very least, you'd have to bring as much to the table with a revisitation; otherwise why really make the effort? If you can't at least match what was done before, then why bother?
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
“Where do I begin?”
That’s the first question I asked when I was a young spud trying to figure out how to write. Dabbling in fiction at a very young age – and even when exercising that habit from time-to-time as an adult – I’d always ask myself that in hopes of shaping up what I thought would be a story worth telling. Every writer does it – whether they admit to it or not – but there’s an even greater underlying question they might not ask out loud yet requires an answer at some point in the process.
“Whose story is this?”
You see, the point-of-view matters in every work of fiction perhaps more than any other single element. Everything – and I do mean everything – descends from that foundation. This doesn’t mean that the narrator is the owner because in many cases authors will use a particular observer to spin a yarn about something or someone else. The main character doesn’t necessarily have to be the proprietor; he or she may have their own narrative arc – some lesson that’s learned and expressed along the way – but if the audience remains unclear about who actually is central to all of the action then there’s likely to be an awful lot of confusion as a result.
“Why is this story necessary?”
Right there. That’s the pay-off. That’s the moral-to-the-story.
Knowing where a tale begins and knowing precisely whose story is being told ties directly to why this story – as designed and delivered – is required viewing of the audience. (Yes, I realize that may sound bossy, but – from a storyteller’s perspective – nothing could be truer.) These elements are woven together in such a way that you really can’t separate them from one another and, ultimately, maintain the adventure’s central view. The big point. The “what’s it all about.”
In the end, nothing should be about spectacle (though Hollywood will disagree) but, instead, s-u-b-s-t-a-n-c-e. If there’s no substance behind the affair, it’ll be shallow. It won’t ring as true. It’ll be one of those puppet shows that tries to import a bit of logic to those watching closely, and they’ll more likely be scratching their heads as a consequence of the confusion, no matter if it’s told at a snail’s crawl or a blistering pace.
That’s the first question I asked when I was a young spud trying to figure out how to write. Dabbling in fiction at a very young age – and even when exercising that habit from time-to-time as an adult – I’d always ask myself that in hopes of shaping up what I thought would be a story worth telling. Every writer does it – whether they admit to it or not – but there’s an even greater underlying question they might not ask out loud yet requires an answer at some point in the process.
“Whose story is this?”
You see, the point-of-view matters in every work of fiction perhaps more than any other single element. Everything – and I do mean everything – descends from that foundation. This doesn’t mean that the narrator is the owner because in many cases authors will use a particular observer to spin a yarn about something or someone else. The main character doesn’t necessarily have to be the proprietor; he or she may have their own narrative arc – some lesson that’s learned and expressed along the way – but if the audience remains unclear about who actually is central to all of the action then there’s likely to be an awful lot of confusion as a result.
“Why is this story necessary?”
Right there. That’s the pay-off. That’s the moral-to-the-story.
Knowing where a tale begins and knowing precisely whose story is being told ties directly to why this story – as designed and delivered – is required viewing of the audience. (Yes, I realize that may sound bossy, but – from a storyteller’s perspective – nothing could be truer.) These elements are woven together in such a way that you really can’t separate them from one another and, ultimately, maintain the adventure’s central view. The big point. The “what’s it all about.”
In the end, nothing should be about spectacle (though Hollywood will disagree) but, instead, s-u-b-s-t-a-n-c-e. If there’s no substance behind the affair, it’ll be shallow. It won’t ring as true. It’ll be one of those puppet shows that tries to import a bit of logic to those watching closely, and they’ll more likely be scratching their heads as a consequence of the confusion, no matter if it’s told at a snail’s crawl or a blistering pace.
If you haven’t guess, then – yes! – this brings us to the latest tentpole blockbuster of the summer movie season: Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny premiered to a great bit of controversy, serving to yet again fracture fandom around what makes a movie work or not. In my customary fashion, I’ve reserved judgment for a few days to kinda/sorta mull it over, and none of the mulling has really helped to improve my opinion of it. I didn’t hate it – as so many fanboys and fangirls did – but I didn’t love it, either.
Up front, I will say that I think all involved tried to make it a bit more thematically complex than maybe all of the other Indiana Jones flicks have been – what with confronting the action hero’s advanced age front-and-center – and that might just be its biggest problem.
These adventure films have never been about taking things seriously, so introducing a measure of reasoned maturity into the frenetic madness kinda/sorta goes against the whole grain of the aesthetic. Essentially, these are popcorn movies – that delightful strain of entertainment that says ‘leave your brain at the door and witness these thrills … at your own peril!’ This isn’t to say that the script didn’t try to approach the subject with some deftness, but – again – deftness has never been Dr. Jones’ defining characteristic (as played by Harrison Ford). In case you’ve missed it – and I think these screenwriters have – our hero rushes headlong in where angels fear to tread. They could’ve done that and also dealt with age, but instead they delivered something that doesn’t quite make much sense … because it’s never clear whose story this is.
(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:
“Archaeologist Indiana Jones races against time to retrieve a legendary artifact that can change the course of history.”
Sigh.
I’ve often pointed out that these synopses as provided by IMDB.com don’t always accurately reflect what a story is about. (Yes, yes, and yes: I know that this material is supplied to IMDB.com and not necessarily written by the site.) In this case, nothing could be further from the truth – the artifact cannot change the course of history – and it was likely written by a marketing knucklehead who hoped to spark a reader’s interest, to compel him or her to want to see this picture. In point of fact, a nefarious person can employ the powers of the Antikythera Device (aka Archimedes’ Dial) to go back in time, giving the user the opportunity to alter history in some way. But the dial itself? It’s nothing more than a means to an end.
Therein lies a major problem with Dial Of Destiny: it lacks a convincing villain.
Up front, I will say that I think all involved tried to make it a bit more thematically complex than maybe all of the other Indiana Jones flicks have been – what with confronting the action hero’s advanced age front-and-center – and that might just be its biggest problem.
These adventure films have never been about taking things seriously, so introducing a measure of reasoned maturity into the frenetic madness kinda/sorta goes against the whole grain of the aesthetic. Essentially, these are popcorn movies – that delightful strain of entertainment that says ‘leave your brain at the door and witness these thrills … at your own peril!’ This isn’t to say that the script didn’t try to approach the subject with some deftness, but – again – deftness has never been Dr. Jones’ defining characteristic (as played by Harrison Ford). In case you’ve missed it – and I think these screenwriters have – our hero rushes headlong in where angels fear to tread. They could’ve done that and also dealt with age, but instead they delivered something that doesn’t quite make much sense … because it’s never clear whose story this is.
(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:
“Archaeologist Indiana Jones races against time to retrieve a legendary artifact that can change the course of history.”
Sigh.
I’ve often pointed out that these synopses as provided by IMDB.com don’t always accurately reflect what a story is about. (Yes, yes, and yes: I know that this material is supplied to IMDB.com and not necessarily written by the site.) In this case, nothing could be further from the truth – the artifact cannot change the course of history – and it was likely written by a marketing knucklehead who hoped to spark a reader’s interest, to compel him or her to want to see this picture. In point of fact, a nefarious person can employ the powers of the Antikythera Device (aka Archimedes’ Dial) to go back in time, giving the user the opportunity to alter history in some way. But the dial itself? It’s nothing more than a means to an end.
Therein lies a major problem with Dial Of Destiny: it lacks a convincing villain.
Mads Mikkelsen plays Jürgen Voller, a mathematician/physicist employed by the Nazis to help find those ancient relics that Dr. Jones and his various companions have been trying to keep from them. In the film’s opening sequence, Voller is a secondary character, one who is taking his marching orders from S.S. officer Colonel Weber (Thomas Kretschmann). In fact, in these scenes Voller is entirely unconvincing as even a Nazi: he seems bookish, uncalculating, and perhaps even uncertain of himself and his skills. In their first meeting, Jones merely punches the scholar in the face, and he’s out cold. Perhaps the screenwriters thought that this would feed a character arc for the actor to play – start out meek and then achieve a level of old school Nazi arrogance that ultimately serves a comeuppance (which it does in a small way) – but Voller’s supposed menace/genius are never given ample screen time for them to be sufficiently believed. Instead, he employs common thugs to do his bidding, and he somewhat magically accomplishes whatever the script requires of him instead of displaying his prowess along the way.
Still, Destiny has a problem far greater than just presenting viewers with a baddie to hate.
Stories work (and work best) when there’s clear ownership. Audiences need to know without a doubt who has ownership of a story. This isn’t to say that a cast of characters needs to be limited or even cultural diverse (a current Hollywood trend leaning heavily on representation); it’s simply a statement of fact. In order for anything contained therein to make narrative sense, the fable needs ultimately to be about someone. Yes, others can learn lessons on the way and they often do (especially the villain), but without one central driving person casting the proper light on the proper path along the proper way the narrative risks being nothing more than a loosely connected series of events all wrapped up between the opening and closing credits.
Destiny is a particular mess because – think what you will – it’s never Indiana Jones’ film. And, yes, I say this with full knowledge that his name is in the title!
Now, some who’ve written and/or spoken about the flick have likely tried to sell you a bill of goods about Destiny truly belonging to Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). Throughout the production of the film, it was heavily rumored (through leaks) that the feature was actually intended to set up a continuation, spin-off, and/or re-imaging of the franchise in which the all-new archaeologist would headline her own series of adventures. In fact, it was heavily discussed online several months ago that a vastly different version of Destiny was test-screened for audiences in which Shaw was alleged digitally inserted into footage from previous Indiana Jones’ films and shown to be somewhat recreating those serials for a new generation of viewers. While director James Mangold and the suits at Walt Disney categorically denied this ever took place, it grew increasingly difficult to take them at their word as more and more whistleblowers emerged telling the same story. Even composer John Williams and Harrison Ford have said on record that they’ve either dramatically re-shot or ‘altered’ the original ending, so I’m more inclined to believe Dr. Jones suffered a tragic ending at Mangold’s or producer Kathleen Kennedy’s hands than anything else. (Mind you: I’ve no dog in the fight, and I’m just stating my opinion.)
However, the difficulty with this being Shaw’s story is that she also never quite emerges as a force to be reckoned with much less a character deserving of our collective sympathies. Shown as manipulative, recklessly impulsive, and downright uncaring, she never connects emotionally with viewers (in my humble opinion), instead serving as a foil to what has long been Jones’ tradition of turning relics over to the stewards of museums so that they can be preserved for the sake of history. Shaw sells them to the highest bidder – for her own personal gain – and never comes to the realization that this is a bad thing, even in the last reel. At each and every opportunity, she both criticizes and (thematically) castrates her male counterparts – including the series’ lead – and never displays even a modest appreciation for the safety of anyone other than herself.
Still, Destiny has a problem far greater than just presenting viewers with a baddie to hate.
Stories work (and work best) when there’s clear ownership. Audiences need to know without a doubt who has ownership of a story. This isn’t to say that a cast of characters needs to be limited or even cultural diverse (a current Hollywood trend leaning heavily on representation); it’s simply a statement of fact. In order for anything contained therein to make narrative sense, the fable needs ultimately to be about someone. Yes, others can learn lessons on the way and they often do (especially the villain), but without one central driving person casting the proper light on the proper path along the proper way the narrative risks being nothing more than a loosely connected series of events all wrapped up between the opening and closing credits.
Destiny is a particular mess because – think what you will – it’s never Indiana Jones’ film. And, yes, I say this with full knowledge that his name is in the title!
Now, some who’ve written and/or spoken about the flick have likely tried to sell you a bill of goods about Destiny truly belonging to Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). Throughout the production of the film, it was heavily rumored (through leaks) that the feature was actually intended to set up a continuation, spin-off, and/or re-imaging of the franchise in which the all-new archaeologist would headline her own series of adventures. In fact, it was heavily discussed online several months ago that a vastly different version of Destiny was test-screened for audiences in which Shaw was alleged digitally inserted into footage from previous Indiana Jones’ films and shown to be somewhat recreating those serials for a new generation of viewers. While director James Mangold and the suits at Walt Disney categorically denied this ever took place, it grew increasingly difficult to take them at their word as more and more whistleblowers emerged telling the same story. Even composer John Williams and Harrison Ford have said on record that they’ve either dramatically re-shot or ‘altered’ the original ending, so I’m more inclined to believe Dr. Jones suffered a tragic ending at Mangold’s or producer Kathleen Kennedy’s hands than anything else. (Mind you: I’ve no dog in the fight, and I’m just stating my opinion.)
However, the difficulty with this being Shaw’s story is that she also never quite emerges as a force to be reckoned with much less a character deserving of our collective sympathies. Shown as manipulative, recklessly impulsive, and downright uncaring, she never connects emotionally with viewers (in my humble opinion), instead serving as a foil to what has long been Jones’ tradition of turning relics over to the stewards of museums so that they can be preserved for the sake of history. Shaw sells them to the highest bidder – for her own personal gain – and never comes to the realization that this is a bad thing, even in the last reel. At each and every opportunity, she both criticizes and (thematically) castrates her male counterparts – including the series’ lead – and never displays even a modest appreciation for the safety of anyone other than herself.
In order for folks to identify with characters, there must be a connection.
As hard as screenwriters Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, David Koepp, and James Mangold worked on this (all of this feels notoriously rewritten), no single player takes center stage consistently for him or her to claim central ownership of the entire affair. Points of view shift here and there, but there’s no single through-line that achieves the appreciation required of an audience to elevate all of this from ‘just a film’ to ‘a film worth admiration.’ Perhaps viewers who’ve gone along with George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford from the beginning might feel those pangs of knowing regret when Indy stops to complain about his aches and pains, and – yes – I felt a tug at my heart when the archaeologist talks about his familial relationships falling apart, but those are easy emotional plays and not the kind of thing that makes for required viewing. They could have – if the story had been fully structured to belong to our capable leading man – but they just don’t here, no matter the effort expended.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the producers knew putting “Indiana Jones” in the title was going to guarantee them a reasonable box office draw. But because Destiny never quite becomes Indy’s story – he’s even reduced to the ‘damsel in distress’ more than once in here, requiring assistance from others in order to rebound – I can’t help but suspect that this feature won’t have the legs necessary to make this outing as memorable as anything that’s come before … and that’s the real shame here. For a character that’s already had two previous swan songs – both with vastly happier endings – I think Dr. Jones deserved a better twilight.
And folks?
Believe me when I say that I could say much, much, much more about Destiny as well as the entirety of the ‘Raiders’ series. Like any flick, Destiny has stuff that hints at greatness and stuff that doesn’t. Many in the media have talked already about the strength of the opening set-up – the flashback sequence set during World War II, Ford’s rather obvious de-aging, and whatnot. My problem is that I try not to separate pieces out that often – I try to look at a film as a whole – so I have critical issues with praising A because A is still a part of B (which leads to C, D, E, and F). Parsing chapters and praising them seems academic and, ultimately, more like an attempt to justify what worked versus what didn’t. My point is that the film as a whole just didn’t work, and no amount of a creative piecemeal approach makes me feel any better for Dr. Jones and his companions in the final estimation.
Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny (2023) was produced by Lucasfilm and the Walt Disney Company. The film is currently playing theatrically around the world. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds contained within were mostly exceptional; there are some obvious CGI effects – along with a degree of green-screenery – that get in the way here and there, but it isn’t awful in any regard.
Recommended.
Harrison Ford gives a good performance in what looks to be the last of his kind with Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny (2023). Though the story as provided is far from perfect, there was enough visual magic to make it worth a single viewing, but like the previous outing – Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (2008) – I don’t know that I’ll ever pick this one up nor watch it again. While Phoebe Waller-Bridge doesn’t ruin the affair, she certainly doesn’t play a character I’d much care to ever see again … and that’s a huge miscalculation (again, in my humble opinion) for a franchise that’s built on some of the finest screen creations in all of filmdom.
-- EZ
As hard as screenwriters Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, David Koepp, and James Mangold worked on this (all of this feels notoriously rewritten), no single player takes center stage consistently for him or her to claim central ownership of the entire affair. Points of view shift here and there, but there’s no single through-line that achieves the appreciation required of an audience to elevate all of this from ‘just a film’ to ‘a film worth admiration.’ Perhaps viewers who’ve gone along with George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford from the beginning might feel those pangs of knowing regret when Indy stops to complain about his aches and pains, and – yes – I felt a tug at my heart when the archaeologist talks about his familial relationships falling apart, but those are easy emotional plays and not the kind of thing that makes for required viewing. They could have – if the story had been fully structured to belong to our capable leading man – but they just don’t here, no matter the effort expended.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the producers knew putting “Indiana Jones” in the title was going to guarantee them a reasonable box office draw. But because Destiny never quite becomes Indy’s story – he’s even reduced to the ‘damsel in distress’ more than once in here, requiring assistance from others in order to rebound – I can’t help but suspect that this feature won’t have the legs necessary to make this outing as memorable as anything that’s come before … and that’s the real shame here. For a character that’s already had two previous swan songs – both with vastly happier endings – I think Dr. Jones deserved a better twilight.
And folks?
Believe me when I say that I could say much, much, much more about Destiny as well as the entirety of the ‘Raiders’ series. Like any flick, Destiny has stuff that hints at greatness and stuff that doesn’t. Many in the media have talked already about the strength of the opening set-up – the flashback sequence set during World War II, Ford’s rather obvious de-aging, and whatnot. My problem is that I try not to separate pieces out that often – I try to look at a film as a whole – so I have critical issues with praising A because A is still a part of B (which leads to C, D, E, and F). Parsing chapters and praising them seems academic and, ultimately, more like an attempt to justify what worked versus what didn’t. My point is that the film as a whole just didn’t work, and no amount of a creative piecemeal approach makes me feel any better for Dr. Jones and his companions in the final estimation.
Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny (2023) was produced by Lucasfilm and the Walt Disney Company. The film is currently playing theatrically around the world. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds contained within were mostly exceptional; there are some obvious CGI effects – along with a degree of green-screenery – that get in the way here and there, but it isn’t awful in any regard.
Recommended.
Harrison Ford gives a good performance in what looks to be the last of his kind with Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny (2023). Though the story as provided is far from perfect, there was enough visual magic to make it worth a single viewing, but like the previous outing – Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (2008) – I don’t know that I’ll ever pick this one up nor watch it again. While Phoebe Waller-Bridge doesn’t ruin the affair, she certainly doesn’t play a character I’d much care to ever see again … and that’s a huge miscalculation (again, in my humble opinion) for a franchise that’s built on some of the finest screen creations in all of filmdom.
-- EZ