- Published on
Well, I guess I've avoided wading into this controversy long enough. Now that a trailer has slipped to mankind via its airing at the Stuporbowl, I guess I'll finally say something about it.
Sigh.
Not all that long ago, the producers behind Amazon Studios' massive Middle-Earth prequel -- The Rings Of Power -- let it slip that their visit to the worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien would "massively" involve POC (Persons Of Color). The way this news broke at the time ... well, it almost seemed to me like it was more of a strategic marketing blitz, you know what I mean? It was almost as if some suit said, "Hey, you know how we could ratchet up the interest in our Rings project? Well, let's let it be known that we're going 'all in' with having persons of color finally turn up in Middle-Earth!" Lo and behold, there was a controversy as some folks sounded off on it -- some of it curious, some of it actually well thought out and articulate, and -- sigh -- some other stuff, too.
Like so many, I don't see color. I see characters. If a character is created with intelligence and grace, then I really don't a damn what his or her skin color happens to be. Honestly, it's incidental; and -- in most cases -- skin color isn't even relevant to the story. Now, that isn't always the case with comedies and dramas -- there are times when a cultural class practically relies on audiences noticing these differences -- but when it comes to Science Fiction and Fantasy? Sorry, folks, but I just don't see why it matters ... except for those trying to virtue signal.
This is different from the current controversy involving, say, James Bond. Virtue signallers are all over that franchise demanding that the next Bond be a black man, maybe even a trans, maybe even differently-abled. (You can't believe the garbage some folks post.) Again, James Bond isn't a real person, so on one level I've no vested interest in his skin color. But on another point ... why not create your own British secret service franchise and cast a black actor? Why must it be Bond? Bond has a screen legacy as well as a print one that might seriously question the legitimacy of making him black or any other Person Of Color, but I guess it's the franchise those spinning the arguments really want control over (think "the money") and not the character. Always follow the money. Always.
But with Tolkien's world?
Meh.
I just don't see any logical reason to expend any emotional energy over this debate. Cast TALENTED PEOPLE and give them GOOD STORIES to tell, and I guarantee you an audience will show up whether it's the lands of the Shire, Narnia, or Bajor. Otherwise, all these producers are trying to do is take your money, and that's something I'm less inclined to fork over.
That's my point, too: what message are you sending Persons Of Color when you have to give them something already established in order to be cinematically legitimate? Are you suggesting that Persons Of Color can't build their own legacy and must co-opt something that's already existing in order to find box office glory? It's a slippery slope, one that rarely takes audiences somewhere that they deserve to go, and I'd rather we as a culture spend more time on crafted interesting characters than jumping aboard the bandwagon while there's money to be made.
In any event, the trailer dropped last night; and I wanted to share it for those of you who may not have seen it. Apologies if anything I've written above offends anyone as that's never my intent. I try to always be true to thine own self ... and this is an argument I just don't see merits much attention.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Sigh.
Not all that long ago, the producers behind Amazon Studios' massive Middle-Earth prequel -- The Rings Of Power -- let it slip that their visit to the worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien would "massively" involve POC (Persons Of Color). The way this news broke at the time ... well, it almost seemed to me like it was more of a strategic marketing blitz, you know what I mean? It was almost as if some suit said, "Hey, you know how we could ratchet up the interest in our Rings project? Well, let's let it be known that we're going 'all in' with having persons of color finally turn up in Middle-Earth!" Lo and behold, there was a controversy as some folks sounded off on it -- some of it curious, some of it actually well thought out and articulate, and -- sigh -- some other stuff, too.
Like so many, I don't see color. I see characters. If a character is created with intelligence and grace, then I really don't a damn what his or her skin color happens to be. Honestly, it's incidental; and -- in most cases -- skin color isn't even relevant to the story. Now, that isn't always the case with comedies and dramas -- there are times when a cultural class practically relies on audiences noticing these differences -- but when it comes to Science Fiction and Fantasy? Sorry, folks, but I just don't see why it matters ... except for those trying to virtue signal.
This is different from the current controversy involving, say, James Bond. Virtue signallers are all over that franchise demanding that the next Bond be a black man, maybe even a trans, maybe even differently-abled. (You can't believe the garbage some folks post.) Again, James Bond isn't a real person, so on one level I've no vested interest in his skin color. But on another point ... why not create your own British secret service franchise and cast a black actor? Why must it be Bond? Bond has a screen legacy as well as a print one that might seriously question the legitimacy of making him black or any other Person Of Color, but I guess it's the franchise those spinning the arguments really want control over (think "the money") and not the character. Always follow the money. Always.
But with Tolkien's world?
Meh.
I just don't see any logical reason to expend any emotional energy over this debate. Cast TALENTED PEOPLE and give them GOOD STORIES to tell, and I guarantee you an audience will show up whether it's the lands of the Shire, Narnia, or Bajor. Otherwise, all these producers are trying to do is take your money, and that's something I'm less inclined to fork over.
That's my point, too: what message are you sending Persons Of Color when you have to give them something already established in order to be cinematically legitimate? Are you suggesting that Persons Of Color can't build their own legacy and must co-opt something that's already existing in order to find box office glory? It's a slippery slope, one that rarely takes audiences somewhere that they deserve to go, and I'd rather we as a culture spend more time on crafted interesting characters than jumping aboard the bandwagon while there's money to be made.
In any event, the trailer dropped last night; and I wanted to share it for those of you who may not have seen it. Apologies if anything I've written above offends anyone as that's never my intent. I try to always be true to thine own self ... and this is an argument I just don't see merits much attention.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
As best as I've been able to deduce, it looks like the latest from critical darling Alex Garland won't hit theaters in the U.S. until late May, but the studio released a trailer recently to kinda/sorta hype up the potential for its box office performance. I thought I'd give it a share with a few comments this morning ... so buckle up.
I say that Garland's a 'critical darling' not out of any disdain for his work. I think he's done some great flicks, but I'd also argue that he's coasting a bit on that solid (and earned) reputation while not exactly adding anything new to the genre other than slick visuals. I thought his script for the Zombie Apocalypse that was 28 Days Later ... (2002) was brilliant. (FYI: he had nothing to do with its sequel, 28 Weeks Later.) His screenplay for Dredd (2012) -- an adaptation of the comic book property -- was equally engaging, finally giving that character a well deserved big screen incarnation.
But then it wasn't long before people were tripping over themselves silly to line up to praise him for his Ex Machina (2014) and Annihilation (2018) efforts. While I found both films to be rendering with some fascinating visuals, I was torn by the quality of the scripts. Ex Machina -- performed exquisitely by a gifted cast -- was entirely predictable; and if you say otherwise then you clearly weren't watching the same film. Annihilation? Meh. I just found the thing a bit messy so far as the story unrolled; I wasn't as won over by the cast as were others, and again I found the effort weighed down with a fairly uninspired ending.
Yes, yes, yes. I realize that's just me, folks, but if you learn one thing about me today then let it be this: I don't care that I'm often left on an island. I try to be true to me, and that's all I really have to say about that.
None of this eliminates the fact that Garland's clearly a gifted storyteller. I just haven't been as inspired by his latest works as I were his earlier stuff. Such is life.
In any event, Men looks to be a bit more scare than smarts. There's really no way to tell from the trailer as it's all atmosphere and no story whatsoever. While that may not bode well, it's far too soon to know anything for certain. Here's the premise as provided by IMDB.com:
"A young woman goes on a solo vacation to the English countryside after the death of her ex-husband."
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I say that Garland's a 'critical darling' not out of any disdain for his work. I think he's done some great flicks, but I'd also argue that he's coasting a bit on that solid (and earned) reputation while not exactly adding anything new to the genre other than slick visuals. I thought his script for the Zombie Apocalypse that was 28 Days Later ... (2002) was brilliant. (FYI: he had nothing to do with its sequel, 28 Weeks Later.) His screenplay for Dredd (2012) -- an adaptation of the comic book property -- was equally engaging, finally giving that character a well deserved big screen incarnation.
But then it wasn't long before people were tripping over themselves silly to line up to praise him for his Ex Machina (2014) and Annihilation (2018) efforts. While I found both films to be rendering with some fascinating visuals, I was torn by the quality of the scripts. Ex Machina -- performed exquisitely by a gifted cast -- was entirely predictable; and if you say otherwise then you clearly weren't watching the same film. Annihilation? Meh. I just found the thing a bit messy so far as the story unrolled; I wasn't as won over by the cast as were others, and again I found the effort weighed down with a fairly uninspired ending.
Yes, yes, yes. I realize that's just me, folks, but if you learn one thing about me today then let it be this: I don't care that I'm often left on an island. I try to be true to me, and that's all I really have to say about that.
None of this eliminates the fact that Garland's clearly a gifted storyteller. I just haven't been as inspired by his latest works as I were his earlier stuff. Such is life.
In any event, Men looks to be a bit more scare than smarts. There's really no way to tell from the trailer as it's all atmosphere and no story whatsoever. While that may not bode well, it's far too soon to know anything for certain. Here's the premise as provided by IMDB.com:
"A young woman goes on a solo vacation to the English countryside after the death of her ex-husband."
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Again: if you're keeping score, I'm not a Superbowl fanatic. Nor do I get jazzed by watching commercials. I can appreciate a good coming attractions trailer as much as the next Tom, Dick, or Harry ... but I found some of the behind-the-scenes drama involving Walt Disney's latest announcement involving its Kenobi series to be pretty damn funny.
For those of you unaware, here's a bit of a summary.
Some time last week, the Mouse House made the formal statement involving the slimmest of particulars for the Kenobi series to air on Disney+. In all honesty, you probably couldn't say less about the popular property if you tried; and the press release's sole intent was basically just to broadcast the show's air date. FYI: it's set to blast off into hyperspace on May 25th.
Anyway ...
Someone somewhere sometime last week also made the statement that, lo and behold, Disney would be releasing a super-secret trailer for the new show during the world's biggest marketing blitz ever -- the Superbowl. Naturally, such an announcement had legions of fans around the world tuning in ... and all of this was based on a rumor.
For those of you too young to know this, George Lucas's Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace made history when, in November 1998, Lucasfilm itself announced that the film's trailer would be released on November 17th attached to the films The Waterboy, Meet Joe Black, and The Siege. As this film would be Lucas's return to the saga that both made him famous and built a veritable screen empire, fans raced to buy tickets to these films for the day in question ... and ticket sales went through the roof. This is how hungry fandom was for a return to the galaxy far, far away; and the box office definitely benefitted from letting them know how, when, and where to capture that first look.
So it's natural that a trailer for Kenobi might draw similar results, and I suspect that's exactly what our rumor monger thought he (or she) would create by making the suggestion on the Information Superhighway that it was going to be aired during the Superbowl.
Can you imagine mankind's disappointment?
I popped onto 'The Twitter' a few times during the night to see if the trailer had aired. What kept me going back, however, were the infinite number of posts waxing on about their continued disappointment that it hadn't aired yet, it didn't look like it would be airing, now it's too late for Disney to air it, what was Disney thinking in not airing it during the game, who in the Hell started the damn rumor anyway, WHY DO I ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CRAP I READ ON THE INTERNET?!?! It was like an old comedy skit: as the night wore on, these peoples' frustration was clearly through the roof.
Sorry, but those of us on the cultural sidelines really got a laugh at your expense.
In any event, here's the text from Disney's announcement last week. Enjoy!
“Obi-Wan Kenobi,” the new Disney+ limited series from Lucasfilm, will debut exclusively on Disney+ May 25. The series stars Ewan McGregor, reprising his role as the iconic Jedi Master.
The story begins 10 years after the dramatic events of “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” where Obi-Wan Kenobi faced his greatest defeat—the downfall and corruption of his best friend and Jedi apprentice, Anakin Skywalker, who turned to the dark side as evil Sith Lord Darth Vader.
The series also marks the return of Hayden Christensen in the role of Darth Vader. Joining the cast are Moses Ingram, Joel Edgerton, Bonnie Piesse, Kumail Nanjiani, Indira Varma, Rupert Friend, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Sung Kang, Simone Kessell and Benny Safdie.
“Obi-Wan Kenobi” is executive-produced by Kathleen Kennedy, Michelle Rejwan, Deborah Chow, Ewan McGregor and Joby Harold."
For those of you unaware, here's a bit of a summary.
Some time last week, the Mouse House made the formal statement involving the slimmest of particulars for the Kenobi series to air on Disney+. In all honesty, you probably couldn't say less about the popular property if you tried; and the press release's sole intent was basically just to broadcast the show's air date. FYI: it's set to blast off into hyperspace on May 25th.
Anyway ...
Someone somewhere sometime last week also made the statement that, lo and behold, Disney would be releasing a super-secret trailer for the new show during the world's biggest marketing blitz ever -- the Superbowl. Naturally, such an announcement had legions of fans around the world tuning in ... and all of this was based on a rumor.
For those of you too young to know this, George Lucas's Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace made history when, in November 1998, Lucasfilm itself announced that the film's trailer would be released on November 17th attached to the films The Waterboy, Meet Joe Black, and The Siege. As this film would be Lucas's return to the saga that both made him famous and built a veritable screen empire, fans raced to buy tickets to these films for the day in question ... and ticket sales went through the roof. This is how hungry fandom was for a return to the galaxy far, far away; and the box office definitely benefitted from letting them know how, when, and where to capture that first look.
So it's natural that a trailer for Kenobi might draw similar results, and I suspect that's exactly what our rumor monger thought he (or she) would create by making the suggestion on the Information Superhighway that it was going to be aired during the Superbowl.
Can you imagine mankind's disappointment?
I popped onto 'The Twitter' a few times during the night to see if the trailer had aired. What kept me going back, however, were the infinite number of posts waxing on about their continued disappointment that it hadn't aired yet, it didn't look like it would be airing, now it's too late for Disney to air it, what was Disney thinking in not airing it during the game, who in the Hell started the damn rumor anyway, WHY DO I ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CRAP I READ ON THE INTERNET?!?! It was like an old comedy skit: as the night wore on, these peoples' frustration was clearly through the roof.
Sorry, but those of us on the cultural sidelines really got a laugh at your expense.
In any event, here's the text from Disney's announcement last week. Enjoy!
“Obi-Wan Kenobi,” the new Disney+ limited series from Lucasfilm, will debut exclusively on Disney+ May 25. The series stars Ewan McGregor, reprising his role as the iconic Jedi Master.
The story begins 10 years after the dramatic events of “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” where Obi-Wan Kenobi faced his greatest defeat—the downfall and corruption of his best friend and Jedi apprentice, Anakin Skywalker, who turned to the dark side as evil Sith Lord Darth Vader.
The series also marks the return of Hayden Christensen in the role of Darth Vader. Joining the cast are Moses Ingram, Joel Edgerton, Bonnie Piesse, Kumail Nanjiani, Indira Varma, Rupert Friend, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Sung Kang, Simone Kessell and Benny Safdie.
“Obi-Wan Kenobi” is executive-produced by Kathleen Kennedy, Michelle Rejwan, Deborah Chow, Ewan McGregor and Joby Harold."
- Published on
Unlike others who blog aboard genre projects, I've generally been supportive of remakes ... but that's only when the new versions look to either correct some inferior treatment of the original or the updating brings something new to the table creatively. While there's no way to make that determination based solely on a coming attraction, I'm inclined at this juncture to think that 2022's Firestarter really looks an awful lot like 1984's undercooked version with young'un Drew Barrymore in the lead.
Yes, yes, yes: I wasn't all that thrilled with that version. I read part of the book -- a buddy of mine back in the day thought it was Stephen King's best, so he pointed out some passages that he thought might elevate my opinion of the movie after we saw it -- and the 1984 incarnation felt like a servicable attempt to capture some of the author's vision. There's no doubt that a modern attempt will likely correct a lot of effects sequences limited by the technology of the time, so maybe that'll help serve as a game changer when the new version in May, 2022.
Still, I do give the young Barrymore a lot of credit for what I liked about that flick. She had the right look and certainly did what she could with the material provided. I'm usually a fan of the oft-overlooked David Keith, but I vaguely recall not feeling he was right for the role of dear ol' dad. I honestly couldn't put my finger on what it was I didn't like; it's been decades since I've seen it, and I'm working entirely off reflections this morning. With the new one opening up in a few months, maybe I'll seek out and destroy the original if I can squeeze it in sometime between now and then.
I'll be copying and pasting the studio's press release below (after the trailer).
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Yes, yes, yes: I wasn't all that thrilled with that version. I read part of the book -- a buddy of mine back in the day thought it was Stephen King's best, so he pointed out some passages that he thought might elevate my opinion of the movie after we saw it -- and the 1984 incarnation felt like a servicable attempt to capture some of the author's vision. There's no doubt that a modern attempt will likely correct a lot of effects sequences limited by the technology of the time, so maybe that'll help serve as a game changer when the new version in May, 2022.
Still, I do give the young Barrymore a lot of credit for what I liked about that flick. She had the right look and certainly did what she could with the material provided. I'm usually a fan of the oft-overlooked David Keith, but I vaguely recall not feeling he was right for the role of dear ol' dad. I honestly couldn't put my finger on what it was I didn't like; it's been decades since I've seen it, and I'm working entirely off reflections this morning. With the new one opening up in a few months, maybe I'll seek out and destroy the original if I can squeeze it in sometime between now and then.
I'll be copying and pasting the studio's press release below (after the trailer).
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
In a new adaptation of Stephen King’s classic thriller from the producers of The Invisible Man, a girl with extraordinary pyrokinetic powers fights to protect her family and herself from sinister forces that seek to capture and control her.
For more than a decade, parents Andy (Zac Efron; Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile; The Greatest Showman) and Vicky (Sydney Lemmon; Fear the Walking Dead, Succession) have been on the run, desperate to hide their daughter Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong; American Horror Story: Double Feature, The Tomorrow War) from a shadowy federal agency that wants to harness her unprecedented gift for creating fire into a weapon of mass destruction.
Andy has taught Charlie how to defuse her power, which is triggered by anger or pain. But as Charlie turns 11, the fire becomes harder and harder to control. After an incident reveals the family’s location, a mysterious operative (Michael Greyeyes; Wild Indian, Rutherford Falls) is deployed to hunt down the family and seize Charlie once and for all. Charlie has other plans.
The film also stars Kurtwood Smith (Amityville: The Awakening, Hitchcock), John Beasley (The Purge: Anarchy, The Sum of All Fears) and Gloria Reuben (Lincoln, Mr. Robot). The Firestarter score is composed by the legendary John Carpenter (Halloween, Christine, The Fog) and his fellow Halloween franchise composers Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies.
Directed by Keith Thomas (The Vigil), from a screenplay by Scott Teems (Halloween Kills) based on the novel by Stephen King, Firestarter is produced by Jason Blum (Halloween, The Invisible Man) for Blumhouse and Oscar® winner Akiva Goldsman (I Am Legend, Constantine) for Weed Road Pictures. The film’s executive producers are Ryan Turek, Gregory Lessans, Scott Teems, Martha De Laurentiis, J.D. Lifshitz and Raphael Margules.
- Published on
Science Fiction has many 'faces,' but the dirty little secret about the much-discussed genre is that its best stories are always about P-E-O-P-L-E.
Ideas come and go. Some of our favorite SciFi and Fantasy programs will tinker with something that's the latest trend in science; and while the tale might make for an interesting diversion it ends up being wildly dated when an audience rediscovers it years later. The stories that transcend the ordinary -- especially in the world of Star Trek -- are those are fundamentally stick very near to the human experience, even when that might mean assigning 'humanity' (or the trials of being human) to an android.
For example, Star Trek TOS's stellar "The City Of The Edge Of Forever" is a fabulous time travel yarn -- a brilliant 'what if' scenario that removes Starfleet from the equation when Dr. McCoy changes one little thing in Earth's distant past. However, at its core the story is more about love and loss than it is anything else as Captain James T. Kirk must let the woman he loves die in order to preserve the timeline. See what I mean? Time travel is merely a construct with which to tell a very human story.
Similarly, Star Trek: The Next Generation's "The Measure Of A Man" would appear to be a debate on the merits of Artificial Intelligence (at least, I've read some make that suggestion). For those unaware (or living on an island), the hour centers on Commander Data when he refuses to participate in a Starfleet order for his disassembly. The goal? Commander Bruce Maddox seeks to understand how to replicate the android in order to potentially make more of them. Eventually, Data's refusal prompts the requirement for a legal hearing, giving the episode a courtroom with which the various characters get to discuss the issue.
As one can imagine, the hour gives license to any number of related science topics -- the rights of organizations versus the rights of people; an examination of sentience; organics vs. synthetics ethics; etc. -- but so far as this watcher was concerned it all boiled down to a single line of dialogue. In her closing statement, JAG Officer Phillipa Louvois asked, "Does Data have a soul?"
Atheists would posit that the scene is a bit of a cannard -- a narrative misdirect -- because in their minds none of us have souls, but therein lies the rub, eh? That's a concept up to each of us to decide, certainly not a court of law. Nor one individual over another. Nor a movement. Nor a government. Nor a dictator. Simply put, it's up to Y-O-U. You get to make that decision. You get to do the legwork. And -- if you do -- then you get to aspire for its immortal worth.
Louvois's stated position -- that the pursuit of the self -- proves what the true 'measure of a man' remains: it's the province of the individual. It always has been. It always will be. Even when its examintion may be couched in all kinds of bells, whistles, technobabble, buttons, switches, positronic brains, or the like.
It's a brilliant hour, one that I've always called one of the best in all of Trekdom, and I celebrate it as today's SciFi Moment.
-- EZ
Ideas come and go. Some of our favorite SciFi and Fantasy programs will tinker with something that's the latest trend in science; and while the tale might make for an interesting diversion it ends up being wildly dated when an audience rediscovers it years later. The stories that transcend the ordinary -- especially in the world of Star Trek -- are those are fundamentally stick very near to the human experience, even when that might mean assigning 'humanity' (or the trials of being human) to an android.
For example, Star Trek TOS's stellar "The City Of The Edge Of Forever" is a fabulous time travel yarn -- a brilliant 'what if' scenario that removes Starfleet from the equation when Dr. McCoy changes one little thing in Earth's distant past. However, at its core the story is more about love and loss than it is anything else as Captain James T. Kirk must let the woman he loves die in order to preserve the timeline. See what I mean? Time travel is merely a construct with which to tell a very human story.
Similarly, Star Trek: The Next Generation's "The Measure Of A Man" would appear to be a debate on the merits of Artificial Intelligence (at least, I've read some make that suggestion). For those unaware (or living on an island), the hour centers on Commander Data when he refuses to participate in a Starfleet order for his disassembly. The goal? Commander Bruce Maddox seeks to understand how to replicate the android in order to potentially make more of them. Eventually, Data's refusal prompts the requirement for a legal hearing, giving the episode a courtroom with which the various characters get to discuss the issue.
As one can imagine, the hour gives license to any number of related science topics -- the rights of organizations versus the rights of people; an examination of sentience; organics vs. synthetics ethics; etc. -- but so far as this watcher was concerned it all boiled down to a single line of dialogue. In her closing statement, JAG Officer Phillipa Louvois asked, "Does Data have a soul?"
Atheists would posit that the scene is a bit of a cannard -- a narrative misdirect -- because in their minds none of us have souls, but therein lies the rub, eh? That's a concept up to each of us to decide, certainly not a court of law. Nor one individual over another. Nor a movement. Nor a government. Nor a dictator. Simply put, it's up to Y-O-U. You get to make that decision. You get to do the legwork. And -- if you do -- then you get to aspire for its immortal worth.
Louvois's stated position -- that the pursuit of the self -- proves what the true 'measure of a man' remains: it's the province of the individual. It always has been. It always will be. Even when its examintion may be couched in all kinds of bells, whistles, technobabble, buttons, switches, positronic brains, or the like.
It's a brilliant hour, one that I've always called one of the best in all of Trekdom, and I celebrate it as today's SciFi Moment.
-- EZ
- Published on
As I always warn in this space, Science Fiction and Fantasy has never been the only the playground of the old and mature; in fact, all one need do is review a bit of history, and you’ll see that the young and young-at-heart have always embraced the genre!
Stretching all the way back to the days of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers in newsprint, SciFi has captivated the minds of youngsters. Its fiery rocket ships and blasting ray guns have left them cheering for more while its aliens and monsters have had them covering their eyes in fright. Star Wars creator George Lucas has long maintained that his space saga – while appealing to audiences of all ages – was chiefly meant to entertain children, catapulting their still evolving minds to other places with tales of good versus evil, prattling droids, and mysterious wizards. As you can imagine, Lucas has never been alone in his sentiments, and other storytellers have been all too happy to follow his lead.
Thankfully, there’s never been a “one size fits all” approach to weaving yarns for children as that’s allowed for properties like 1979’s C.H.O.M.P.S. to come to life. Its narrative is more ‘live action cartoon’ than it is ‘live action,’ especially with moments like a big, black dog called Monster sharing his thoughts with the audience. Furthermore, the horseplay of established commodities like Red Buttons, Chuck McCann, and Jim Bachus – all well into their golden years at the time of this production – is the kind of thing kids have loved, still love, and will likely always love. The film is light on specifics but big with its robotic heart … exactly how children would’ve wanted it.
(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 product packaging:
“The crime rate is going through the roof – and at Norton Securities, business is going to the dogs. Desperate to save her father’s company, Casey Norton and her fiancé, electronics genius Brian Foster, are about to unveil a secret weapon that’ll have the burglars begging for mercy: C.H.O.M.P.S. (Canine Home Protection System), the world’s first computerized watchdog!”
There is a bit more, but …
Believe it or not, kiddies, but yours truly is old enough to have actually seen this one first-run in theaters. And I’m proud to say that I did. (Oh, the things young men will endure for a glimpse of Valerie Bertinelli in those days, am I right? Can I get an amen?)
For all of its blemishes (and there are plenty), C.H.O.M.P.S. still feels like something a bunch of TV folks got together and decided to make it while their day jobs were on seasonal hiatus. Every face in here had a foot (or two) in television at the time of its release (Eure, Bain, Bertinelli), and those who didn’t probably had plenty of time in their respective schedules as Hollywood had largely moved on to less-seasoned professionals (Buttons, Backus, McCann). That’s no insult because the film is undeniably loaded with talent; it’s just a reflection that greener pastures inevitably await every one of us.
But about those TV veterans? Let me be a bit more specific.
Stretching all the way back to the days of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers in newsprint, SciFi has captivated the minds of youngsters. Its fiery rocket ships and blasting ray guns have left them cheering for more while its aliens and monsters have had them covering their eyes in fright. Star Wars creator George Lucas has long maintained that his space saga – while appealing to audiences of all ages – was chiefly meant to entertain children, catapulting their still evolving minds to other places with tales of good versus evil, prattling droids, and mysterious wizards. As you can imagine, Lucas has never been alone in his sentiments, and other storytellers have been all too happy to follow his lead.
Thankfully, there’s never been a “one size fits all” approach to weaving yarns for children as that’s allowed for properties like 1979’s C.H.O.M.P.S. to come to life. Its narrative is more ‘live action cartoon’ than it is ‘live action,’ especially with moments like a big, black dog called Monster sharing his thoughts with the audience. Furthermore, the horseplay of established commodities like Red Buttons, Chuck McCann, and Jim Bachus – all well into their golden years at the time of this production – is the kind of thing kids have loved, still love, and will likely always love. The film is light on specifics but big with its robotic heart … exactly how children would’ve wanted it.
(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 product packaging:
“The crime rate is going through the roof – and at Norton Securities, business is going to the dogs. Desperate to save her father’s company, Casey Norton and her fiancé, electronics genius Brian Foster, are about to unveil a secret weapon that’ll have the burglars begging for mercy: C.H.O.M.P.S. (Canine Home Protection System), the world’s first computerized watchdog!”
There is a bit more, but …
Believe it or not, kiddies, but yours truly is old enough to have actually seen this one first-run in theaters. And I’m proud to say that I did. (Oh, the things young men will endure for a glimpse of Valerie Bertinelli in those days, am I right? Can I get an amen?)
For all of its blemishes (and there are plenty), C.H.O.M.P.S. still feels like something a bunch of TV folks got together and decided to make it while their day jobs were on seasonal hiatus. Every face in here had a foot (or two) in television at the time of its release (Eure, Bain, Bertinelli), and those who didn’t probably had plenty of time in their respective schedules as Hollywood had largely moved on to less-seasoned professionals (Buttons, Backus, McCann). That’s no insult because the film is undeniably loaded with talent; it’s just a reflection that greener pastures inevitably await every one of us.
But about those TV veterans? Let me be a bit more specific.
Director Don Chaffey may not be a name all that well known, though genre fans might recognize it best for his work in bringing Jason And The Argonauts (1963) to the silver screen for Columbia Pictures. Though it’s a film recognized to be one of Ray Harryhausen’s best work in stop motion effects, Chaffey’s contribution is largely overlooked from history, and that’s a shame: he’s also contributed to hours of episodic television amongst some fondly remembered properties, including Secret Agent, The Prisoner, The Avengers, Fantasy Island, and Airwolf.
C.H.O.M.P.S.’s script is credited to Dick Robbins, Duane Poole, and Joseph Barbera, all three of which have an expansive background in the world of television and children’s entertainment. For those raised on an island, Barbera is the co-founder of Hanna-Barbera, the company that put Saturday Morning on the map so far as kids of a certain generation are concerned. Their roster of success includes such memorable programs as The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Jonny Quest, Super Friends, and Scooby-Doo. A rundown of Dick Robbins’ resume shows screenwriting contributions to Spider-Man, Super Friends, Electra Woman And Dyna Girl, The Transformers, and Defenders Of The Earth. Duane Poole clearly cut his teeth in Hanna-Barbera territory before transitioning into more adult fare, and his resume shows early scripts for Far Out Space Nuts, Electra Woman And Dyna Girl, The Krofft Supershow, and The All-New Super Friends Hour.
Conrad Bain is best remembered for his work aboard TV’s Maude and Diff’rent Strokes. Valerie Bertinelli found breakout stardom for her work in One Day At A Time, an award-winning sitcom that kinda/sorta broke ground by focusing on single parenthood. (I believe this was her big screen debut, as well.) And lead star Wesley Eure definitely has fans in the realm of genre entertainment as one of the members of a family trapped in TV’s Land Of The Lost for its three seasons of small screen brilliance.
As I said above, C.H.O.M.P.S. isn’t exactly what I’d call a brilliant project.
It’s humor – aimed entirely at children – is a bit low brow even by standards of the day; and the flick certainly didn’t burn up records at the box office. In fact, I’ve read that it’s Hanna-Barbera’s only live action film, and I can’t help but wonder if that sub-par performance kept the production company focused more on television projects as a consequence. (Interestingly enough, IMDB.com reports on its trivia page that the film’s low box office return brought about the cancellation of a deal that would’ve involved other motion pictures.) Also, given the reality that this was directed at kids, there’s a bit of a narrative disconnect as a few scenes feature our inventor (Eure) removing the dog’s robotic head, leaving the canine with a face fixed with a decidedly pained expression; I can’t help but wonder if those scenes alone might’ve given some in the audience a nightmare or two.
Still, the star of this curious affair always was and always will be the hound – that wonderful crime-fighting pooch – and I suspect everyone involved wouldn’t have it any other way.
C.H.O.M.P.S. (1979) was produced by American International Pictures (AIP) and Hanna-Barbera Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? The packaging boasts that this is a brand new 2K restoration; I noticed a few sequences where the original master may’ve had some weird degradation, but it doesn’t distract from the overall quality of the experience. As for the special features? Again, the disc’s packaging lists:
Recommended but only for the young and truly young-at-heart. C.H.O.M.P.S. – even in its day – was a bit dated with its kid-friendly humor (dogs talking to the camera, general buffoonery from its villains, etc.), so this one might really have parents rolling their eyes at the increasingly silly antics. Still, it’s the kind of harmless fun the youngest among us enjoy … and which of us wouldn’t wish to own their very own robotic dog? He’s the real star of the show, and it shows!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of C.H.O.M.P.S. (1979) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
C.H.O.M.P.S.’s script is credited to Dick Robbins, Duane Poole, and Joseph Barbera, all three of which have an expansive background in the world of television and children’s entertainment. For those raised on an island, Barbera is the co-founder of Hanna-Barbera, the company that put Saturday Morning on the map so far as kids of a certain generation are concerned. Their roster of success includes such memorable programs as The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Jonny Quest, Super Friends, and Scooby-Doo. A rundown of Dick Robbins’ resume shows screenwriting contributions to Spider-Man, Super Friends, Electra Woman And Dyna Girl, The Transformers, and Defenders Of The Earth. Duane Poole clearly cut his teeth in Hanna-Barbera territory before transitioning into more adult fare, and his resume shows early scripts for Far Out Space Nuts, Electra Woman And Dyna Girl, The Krofft Supershow, and The All-New Super Friends Hour.
Conrad Bain is best remembered for his work aboard TV’s Maude and Diff’rent Strokes. Valerie Bertinelli found breakout stardom for her work in One Day At A Time, an award-winning sitcom that kinda/sorta broke ground by focusing on single parenthood. (I believe this was her big screen debut, as well.) And lead star Wesley Eure definitely has fans in the realm of genre entertainment as one of the members of a family trapped in TV’s Land Of The Lost for its three seasons of small screen brilliance.
As I said above, C.H.O.M.P.S. isn’t exactly what I’d call a brilliant project.
It’s humor – aimed entirely at children – is a bit low brow even by standards of the day; and the flick certainly didn’t burn up records at the box office. In fact, I’ve read that it’s Hanna-Barbera’s only live action film, and I can’t help but wonder if that sub-par performance kept the production company focused more on television projects as a consequence. (Interestingly enough, IMDB.com reports on its trivia page that the film’s low box office return brought about the cancellation of a deal that would’ve involved other motion pictures.) Also, given the reality that this was directed at kids, there’s a bit of a narrative disconnect as a few scenes feature our inventor (Eure) removing the dog’s robotic head, leaving the canine with a face fixed with a decidedly pained expression; I can’t help but wonder if those scenes alone might’ve given some in the audience a nightmare or two.
Still, the star of this curious affair always was and always will be the hound – that wonderful crime-fighting pooch – and I suspect everyone involved wouldn’t have it any other way.
C.H.O.M.P.S. (1979) was produced by American International Pictures (AIP) and Hanna-Barbera Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? The packaging boasts that this is a brand new 2K restoration; I noticed a few sequences where the original master may’ve had some weird degradation, but it doesn’t distract from the overall quality of the experience. As for the special features? Again, the disc’s packaging lists:
- Audio Commentary with star Wesley Eure, Co-Writer Duane Poole, and Film Historian Nathaniel Thompson
- An interview with star Wesley Eure, and
- Theatrical trailer
Recommended but only for the young and truly young-at-heart. C.H.O.M.P.S. – even in its day – was a bit dated with its kid-friendly humor (dogs talking to the camera, general buffoonery from its villains, etc.), so this one might really have parents rolling their eyes at the increasingly silly antics. Still, it’s the kind of harmless fun the youngest among us enjoy … and which of us wouldn’t wish to own their very own robotic dog? He’s the real star of the show, and it shows!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of C.H.O.M.P.S. (1979) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Just in case any of you smilers perhaps missed the news on the Information Superhighway yesterday, I'm here this morning to let you know that the SciFi/Animated property Futurama will be returning to life on Hulu. Yes, yes, and yes: that is 'good news' for everyone.
I was a huge fan of the program's original run when it aired on Fox TV, but in all honesty its revival on Comedy Central in 2007 was -- argh -- mixed at best. Most of the time, its episodes were just tired in my estimation; it had lost much of its edge in the years between, and the stories were flat and predictable by comparison to what had come before. I didn't do any research to find out if they had perhaps changed out its writing crew, but that revisitation is best forgotten for all intents and purposes.
While I'm glad to see it's returning, I'm a bit dismayed about it returning via Hulu. Yes, yes, and yes: as I opined yesterday in my brief column regarding The Orville doing much the same (transitioning from public cable television to a private streaming platform), I maintain that I'm too old and too set in my ways to sign up for an all-new service for a single show. I realize that there are hundreds of other choices behind that paywall, so maybe (MAYBE) my decision will change in the future. In the meantime, I've way too much content to absorb anyway from regular television, HBO Max, and Disney+ to keep me entertained, so don't lose any sleep over it.
Hopefully, Matt Groening and David X. Cohen's third dip into the Futurama well will be better than their second one. Keep your fingers crossed, people, and let's all hope for the best.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I was a huge fan of the program's original run when it aired on Fox TV, but in all honesty its revival on Comedy Central in 2007 was -- argh -- mixed at best. Most of the time, its episodes were just tired in my estimation; it had lost much of its edge in the years between, and the stories were flat and predictable by comparison to what had come before. I didn't do any research to find out if they had perhaps changed out its writing crew, but that revisitation is best forgotten for all intents and purposes.
While I'm glad to see it's returning, I'm a bit dismayed about it returning via Hulu. Yes, yes, and yes: as I opined yesterday in my brief column regarding The Orville doing much the same (transitioning from public cable television to a private streaming platform), I maintain that I'm too old and too set in my ways to sign up for an all-new service for a single show. I realize that there are hundreds of other choices behind that paywall, so maybe (MAYBE) my decision will change in the future. In the meantime, I've way too much content to absorb anyway from regular television, HBO Max, and Disney+ to keep me entertained, so don't lose any sleep over it.
Hopefully, Matt Groening and David X. Cohen's third dip into the Futurama well will be better than their second one. Keep your fingers crossed, people, and let's all hope for the best.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Though I’m sure others will agree, I think it’s safe to conclude that Disney+’s The Book Of Boba Fett is a mixed bag.
Now before I get into the meat of the review of the finale, let me just assure readers right up front that here’s nothing wrong with the above estimation. Much like the entire run of Star Wars motion pictures, I’d argue we can all agree that there are good ones and bad ones. Each of us have our favorites. Each of us cling to certain characters or certain sequences more than we do others. Experiencing entertainment is a very personal experience, so we just have to learn to accept ‘it is what it is’ when it comes to the delivery of these streaming series for better or for worse.
As I’ve tried to remain consistent from Fett’s first episode, I’ve no qualms whatsoever with his new mythology. I think of it as a new take on a classic character, and I’ve found some of it grand storytelling. In some ways, much of it has made perfect sense, even though there’s been very little established definitively about the galaxy’s greatest bounty hunter. Showrunner Jon Favreau delivered a solid product – yes, one with a few flaws – and while I don’t see it as being anywhere near the greatness that is The Mandalorian’s first two seasons I certainly don’t expect every series to smash a homerun just because. That isn’t an easy achievement, and I do think fans should be a bit more appreciative and maybe even a bit less destructive.
In fact, just yesterday I engaged with a Star Wars fan over ‘The Twitter,’ that Dark Side of the World Wide Web.
His argument against the Fett show was that it was entirely too short, that seven episodes do not a series, and someone (if not all someones) should get on the horn to Walt Disney itself and let them know we’re not gonna take this anymore. Being of ripe age and somewhat still ripe mind, I had to remind the youngling that, back in the day, die hard Star Wars fans had to wait three years between roughly two hours of programming; by comparison, the Mouse House is delivering anywhere from five to twenty hours annually theses, so I think a bit of appreciation is owed. This stuff isn’t cheap; and I’d rather the powers that be take some time to get it done right instead of shoving that JJ Abrams’ garbage down our gullets again.
In other words, let’s try to be a little more thankful, ok? I’m not encouraging folks to like a show maybe they didn’t like because as all of you should know by now that isn’t my ‘way.’ I’m more of a ‘to each his own’ kinda guy. But show a little appreciation for the fact that – in the very least – someone is trying to continue the legacy of the galaxy far, far away in a meaningful way. Let’s not demand more for the sake of demanding more. That usually doesn’t end well.
Just like The Book Of Boba Fett took a side journey as ‘The Mandalorian: Season Two-And-A-Half,’ I’m now back on track with a review for “In The Name Of Honor.”
In my mind, Fett has always worked best as a character somewhat shrouded in mystery; I think while others may not have realized that there are far more who agree with those sentiments based on his show’s reception. I’ve read reviews that postulated ‘Boba wouldn’t do this’ and ‘Boba wouldn’t do that,’ and – while much of it has been interesting – I don’t know how these folks in the know have reached their conclusions. Granted, the clone has enjoyed a reasonable amount of exploration in the books and comics; but Disney is already on record as removing them as canon. Consequently, his choices in the program are all we have as establishing parameters.
That said, I’m dismayed that he’s decided to kinda/sorta settle down.
Now before I get into the meat of the review of the finale, let me just assure readers right up front that here’s nothing wrong with the above estimation. Much like the entire run of Star Wars motion pictures, I’d argue we can all agree that there are good ones and bad ones. Each of us have our favorites. Each of us cling to certain characters or certain sequences more than we do others. Experiencing entertainment is a very personal experience, so we just have to learn to accept ‘it is what it is’ when it comes to the delivery of these streaming series for better or for worse.
As I’ve tried to remain consistent from Fett’s first episode, I’ve no qualms whatsoever with his new mythology. I think of it as a new take on a classic character, and I’ve found some of it grand storytelling. In some ways, much of it has made perfect sense, even though there’s been very little established definitively about the galaxy’s greatest bounty hunter. Showrunner Jon Favreau delivered a solid product – yes, one with a few flaws – and while I don’t see it as being anywhere near the greatness that is The Mandalorian’s first two seasons I certainly don’t expect every series to smash a homerun just because. That isn’t an easy achievement, and I do think fans should be a bit more appreciative and maybe even a bit less destructive.
In fact, just yesterday I engaged with a Star Wars fan over ‘The Twitter,’ that Dark Side of the World Wide Web.
His argument against the Fett show was that it was entirely too short, that seven episodes do not a series, and someone (if not all someones) should get on the horn to Walt Disney itself and let them know we’re not gonna take this anymore. Being of ripe age and somewhat still ripe mind, I had to remind the youngling that, back in the day, die hard Star Wars fans had to wait three years between roughly two hours of programming; by comparison, the Mouse House is delivering anywhere from five to twenty hours annually theses, so I think a bit of appreciation is owed. This stuff isn’t cheap; and I’d rather the powers that be take some time to get it done right instead of shoving that JJ Abrams’ garbage down our gullets again.
In other words, let’s try to be a little more thankful, ok? I’m not encouraging folks to like a show maybe they didn’t like because as all of you should know by now that isn’t my ‘way.’ I’m more of a ‘to each his own’ kinda guy. But show a little appreciation for the fact that – in the very least – someone is trying to continue the legacy of the galaxy far, far away in a meaningful way. Let’s not demand more for the sake of demanding more. That usually doesn’t end well.
Just like The Book Of Boba Fett took a side journey as ‘The Mandalorian: Season Two-And-A-Half,’ I’m now back on track with a review for “In The Name Of Honor.”
In my mind, Fett has always worked best as a character somewhat shrouded in mystery; I think while others may not have realized that there are far more who agree with those sentiments based on his show’s reception. I’ve read reviews that postulated ‘Boba wouldn’t do this’ and ‘Boba wouldn’t do that,’ and – while much of it has been interesting – I don’t know how these folks in the know have reached their conclusions. Granted, the clone has enjoyed a reasonable amount of exploration in the books and comics; but Disney is already on record as removing them as canon. Consequently, his choices in the program are all we have as establishing parameters.
That said, I’m dismayed that he’s decided to kinda/sorta settle down.
It’s kind of a curious choice for someone in his line of work. While I’ll concede it’s perfectly natural for any aging fighter to realize his best days are behind him (certainly the showdown between him and Cad Bane should have him thinking twice), characters like Fett tend to die in the line of duty and not slumped over a throne on Tatooine. I’m hoping that maybe Favreau and Dave Filoni have some long-term game plan for this development, and only time will tell. Stranger things have happened, certainly in this universe. But – at present – Disney hasn’t announced that there will be a second season of the show. While I’m inclined to think that we’ll see him again, Fett may very well have hung up his helmet for the last time.
As show co-star Ming-Na Wen recently promised in an interview, “In The Name Of Honor” did deliver a thrilling finale, much in the same way most tentpole summer films want to go out with signature action sequences, kinetic action, and a slam-bang intensity. The 60-minute installment started with a trickle, but once it was up to speed it didn’t relent until the final shots were fired. So in that respect, “Honor” embraced its true Star Wars undercurrent, delivering a spectacle that was big, loud, and explosive.
Alas, I thought it was also a bit dumb.
Audiences had already been treated to visuals of the Pyke Syndicate arriving on Tatooine in fairly big numbers, but these characters apparently were unaware of it. Furthermore, the Pykes rather easily convinced the Mos Espa crime families to join up with them – viewers learned this in the show’s opening moments – so it’s safe to say that Fett and his very, very, very small clan of warriors were not only outnumbered, they were VASTLY outnumbered. Alas, Favreau seemed to have forgotten this, as “Honor” only had a handful of thieves and cutthroats stepping in to attack Fett’s allegiance.
While there are other ways that the bounty hunter and his small crew could’ve worked to level the playing field, Favreau stuck to the path of least resistance and played out the cards in a relatively predictable way, turning our heroes into superheroes and removing any true risk of loss of life or limb from the equation. Star Wars, after all, is a kids show … though Fennec Shand’s last series of deadly deeds against the Pyke’s surviving members would likely get the Mouse House a campaign of letters from outraged mothers in any other day and time.
Though the hour did boast a welcome surprise here and there (the true identity of who killed Fett’s Tusken Raiders’ tribe and Peli Motto’s evolution to a lady-of-action), much of it felt a bit too cookie cutter for my tastes. The people of Freetown arrived just in the knick of time, and Fett finally put Mok Shaiz’s sniveling city official to good use … but I think we all knew that would happen. Even the arrival of a rampaging Rancor across the cityscape of Mos Espa should’ve been anticipated – certainly once Fett raced away from combat – but I’ll give you that it was a glorious development, one that I think was the high point to an otherwise obvious affair.
It's over now. Fans hungry for a return to The Mandalorian were given scenes to whet their appetite. They’ll no doubt revisit in the days between now and the fantastical ‘Mando and Grogu Magic Hour’ return to prominence on the streaming platform. In the meantime, those of us wishing to get to know the galaxy’s one-time deadliest bounty hunter a little better will hope and pray a second season gives us more Boba and less everything else.
May the Force be with us. Always.
-- EZ
As show co-star Ming-Na Wen recently promised in an interview, “In The Name Of Honor” did deliver a thrilling finale, much in the same way most tentpole summer films want to go out with signature action sequences, kinetic action, and a slam-bang intensity. The 60-minute installment started with a trickle, but once it was up to speed it didn’t relent until the final shots were fired. So in that respect, “Honor” embraced its true Star Wars undercurrent, delivering a spectacle that was big, loud, and explosive.
Alas, I thought it was also a bit dumb.
Audiences had already been treated to visuals of the Pyke Syndicate arriving on Tatooine in fairly big numbers, but these characters apparently were unaware of it. Furthermore, the Pykes rather easily convinced the Mos Espa crime families to join up with them – viewers learned this in the show’s opening moments – so it’s safe to say that Fett and his very, very, very small clan of warriors were not only outnumbered, they were VASTLY outnumbered. Alas, Favreau seemed to have forgotten this, as “Honor” only had a handful of thieves and cutthroats stepping in to attack Fett’s allegiance.
While there are other ways that the bounty hunter and his small crew could’ve worked to level the playing field, Favreau stuck to the path of least resistance and played out the cards in a relatively predictable way, turning our heroes into superheroes and removing any true risk of loss of life or limb from the equation. Star Wars, after all, is a kids show … though Fennec Shand’s last series of deadly deeds against the Pyke’s surviving members would likely get the Mouse House a campaign of letters from outraged mothers in any other day and time.
Though the hour did boast a welcome surprise here and there (the true identity of who killed Fett’s Tusken Raiders’ tribe and Peli Motto’s evolution to a lady-of-action), much of it felt a bit too cookie cutter for my tastes. The people of Freetown arrived just in the knick of time, and Fett finally put Mok Shaiz’s sniveling city official to good use … but I think we all knew that would happen. Even the arrival of a rampaging Rancor across the cityscape of Mos Espa should’ve been anticipated – certainly once Fett raced away from combat – but I’ll give you that it was a glorious development, one that I think was the high point to an otherwise obvious affair.
It's over now. Fans hungry for a return to The Mandalorian were given scenes to whet their appetite. They’ll no doubt revisit in the days between now and the fantastical ‘Mando and Grogu Magic Hour’ return to prominence on the streaming platform. In the meantime, those of us wishing to get to know the galaxy’s one-time deadliest bounty hunter a little better will hope and pray a second season gives us more Boba and less everything else.
May the Force be with us. Always.
-- EZ
- Published on
Holy mother of dragons! Ryan Reynolds has become the new Eric Roberts: he shows up in just about everything ever made!
Meh ...
I guess I did read recently that he wants to take some time off from acting in order to spend time with his growing family, and who can blame the guy? Making motion pictures all over the world has got to drain memories (as well as the opportunity for making more of them), so maybe all he's trying to do is earn his keep as quickly as possible to save for those rainy days. Good on him, though, for wanting to be with the missus and his children: that's a rare statement we hear from those in Hollywood these days, and I have a lot of respect for those capable and willing to make it.
But The Adam Project looks to be another attempt to cement his already cemented reality as a major motion picture star. I realize that perhaps he hasn't carried the kind of box office clout (yet) that, say, a Tom Cruise or a Tom Hanks has; but, in all fairness, his name isn't 'Tom.' Those things take time and the right project; keep swinging and something eventually is going to be that break out property to push him from stardom to superstardom. It's bound to happen, methinks, as he appears to be a really affable guy with a great sense of humor.
I happened across the trailer for The Adam Project and wanted to share it in this space. It definitely has a good vibe to it, looking to throw audience back to the days of the 1980's thematically when flicks tugged at your heartstrings in just the right measure. Plus there's time travel, spaceships, laser swords, and Zoe Saldana. Those gotta add up to something, no? Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A time-traveling pilot teams up with his younger self and his late father to come to terms with his past while saving the future."
Trailer is below, and you're all encouraged to do what you know you must.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Meh ...
I guess I did read recently that he wants to take some time off from acting in order to spend time with his growing family, and who can blame the guy? Making motion pictures all over the world has got to drain memories (as well as the opportunity for making more of them), so maybe all he's trying to do is earn his keep as quickly as possible to save for those rainy days. Good on him, though, for wanting to be with the missus and his children: that's a rare statement we hear from those in Hollywood these days, and I have a lot of respect for those capable and willing to make it.
But The Adam Project looks to be another attempt to cement his already cemented reality as a major motion picture star. I realize that perhaps he hasn't carried the kind of box office clout (yet) that, say, a Tom Cruise or a Tom Hanks has; but, in all fairness, his name isn't 'Tom.' Those things take time and the right project; keep swinging and something eventually is going to be that break out property to push him from stardom to superstardom. It's bound to happen, methinks, as he appears to be a really affable guy with a great sense of humor.
I happened across the trailer for The Adam Project and wanted to share it in this space. It definitely has a good vibe to it, looking to throw audience back to the days of the 1980's thematically when flicks tugged at your heartstrings in just the right measure. Plus there's time travel, spaceships, laser swords, and Zoe Saldana. Those gotta add up to something, no? Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A time-traveling pilot teams up with his younger self and his late father to come to terms with his past while saving the future."
Trailer is below, and you're all encouraged to do what you know you must.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
IMPORTANT PROGRAMMING NOTE!!!
If you're a fan of David Lynch's Dune, then I'd strongly encourage everyone to check out the documentary -- The Sleeper Must Awaken -- as it's available now for streaming exclusively on Arrow's very own streaming platform.
I wrote about the service previously on SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage right here; or if you're interested in heading directly to the source, then feel free to check it out directly right here.
There are many, many, many things categorically wrong with Dune (1984).
Frankly, I say this as one who always has a lot of respect for filmmakers and their various visions. Additionally, readers in this space will know that I have nothing but love for the talents of writer/director David Lynch, so much so that it pains me at times to consider what his definitive vision of Frank Herbert’s singular novel could’ve looked like had he been given the chance to legitimately complete it. Alas, that ship has sailed … and I hope we can all agree that it wasn’t fueled by spice in the slightest.
Because of my love/hate relationship with the 1984 film, I approached Arrow Video’s documentary on the making-of it – The Sleeper Must Awaken – with some trepidation, but I’m glad I endured it. Though I’ve read much about Lynch’s efforts to adapt the story to celluloid, I’ve avoided the usual documentary efforts to chronicle its rise and fall (and rise again?) mostly because there’s little benefit to them because the master himself – David Lynch – never speaks of his time on it. What can truly be learned if the man who called most of the shots isn’t involved?
However, last year – when the prospect of Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation was suddenly all the rage in the entertainment industry – Lynch was quoted as having called his attempt “a huge sadness” in his life. I suspect much of this relates to the film’s performance at the box office – it did no studio any favors – as well as the fact that he’s never been allowed to produce his director’s cut of the material. Since he’s kinda/sorta made peace with Dune, I figured, “Why can’t I?”
In that spirit, I waded into The Sleeper Must Awaken, the title referring to a quotation from the Herbert novel. Dune is a book I’ve tried to read – several times, in fact – and I’ve always given it up in frustration. As a reader, I need to feel some personal connection with a tale or else I find it exceedingly difficult to follow the prose. When I sense I’m wandering away from a particular yarn, I’m prone to put it down and start something else. I figure I’ll eventually make the way through Dune; it’s just going to take me serious effort.
But what I do take away from my handful of encounters with it is that there’s something ‘grand’ missing from its mythological universe, and perhaps that’s what Herbert was saying when he penned that line.
Tapping into that construct, the Arrow documentary attempts to re-examine the film from its earliest, failed attempts (there were several), through its construction, and all the way until its critical drubbing. (FYI: it took a beating.) In doing so, the Sleeper drops a helluva lot of high-profile names who were involved at some stage of the adaptation’s development (Roger Corman, Ridley Scott, etc.) and admirably tries to peel back some of the confusion about how something so compellingly put together failed to resonate with a wider audience. I’ve always argued that filmed Dune stories are best discussed by folks who’ve read the Herbert books, and I’d strongly encourage those same aficionados to watch this curious biopic as I think it’s a quality distillation that pays tribute to the work performed by Lynch and his veritable army of artisans.
Frankly, I say this as one who always has a lot of respect for filmmakers and their various visions. Additionally, readers in this space will know that I have nothing but love for the talents of writer/director David Lynch, so much so that it pains me at times to consider what his definitive vision of Frank Herbert’s singular novel could’ve looked like had he been given the chance to legitimately complete it. Alas, that ship has sailed … and I hope we can all agree that it wasn’t fueled by spice in the slightest.
Because of my love/hate relationship with the 1984 film, I approached Arrow Video’s documentary on the making-of it – The Sleeper Must Awaken – with some trepidation, but I’m glad I endured it. Though I’ve read much about Lynch’s efforts to adapt the story to celluloid, I’ve avoided the usual documentary efforts to chronicle its rise and fall (and rise again?) mostly because there’s little benefit to them because the master himself – David Lynch – never speaks of his time on it. What can truly be learned if the man who called most of the shots isn’t involved?
However, last year – when the prospect of Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation was suddenly all the rage in the entertainment industry – Lynch was quoted as having called his attempt “a huge sadness” in his life. I suspect much of this relates to the film’s performance at the box office – it did no studio any favors – as well as the fact that he’s never been allowed to produce his director’s cut of the material. Since he’s kinda/sorta made peace with Dune, I figured, “Why can’t I?”
In that spirit, I waded into The Sleeper Must Awaken, the title referring to a quotation from the Herbert novel. Dune is a book I’ve tried to read – several times, in fact – and I’ve always given it up in frustration. As a reader, I need to feel some personal connection with a tale or else I find it exceedingly difficult to follow the prose. When I sense I’m wandering away from a particular yarn, I’m prone to put it down and start something else. I figure I’ll eventually make the way through Dune; it’s just going to take me serious effort.
But what I do take away from my handful of encounters with it is that there’s something ‘grand’ missing from its mythological universe, and perhaps that’s what Herbert was saying when he penned that line.
Tapping into that construct, the Arrow documentary attempts to re-examine the film from its earliest, failed attempts (there were several), through its construction, and all the way until its critical drubbing. (FYI: it took a beating.) In doing so, the Sleeper drops a helluva lot of high-profile names who were involved at some stage of the adaptation’s development (Roger Corman, Ridley Scott, etc.) and admirably tries to peel back some of the confusion about how something so compellingly put together failed to resonate with a wider audience. I’ve always argued that filmed Dune stories are best discussed by folks who’ve read the Herbert books, and I’d strongly encourage those same aficionados to watch this curious biopic as I think it’s a quality distillation that pays tribute to the work performed by Lynch and his veritable army of artisans.
What Sleeper does well is provides some greater visual context for a wealth of archival interviews conducted with the principal movers and shakers behind-the-scenes (included Herbert). The viewer is not overwhelmed with faces they’ll never recognize: instead, these audiotapes are matched with filmed efforts or the associated behind-the-scenes footage showing the effort discussed, and I found this wonderfully refreshing as opposed to the usual ‘let’s sit and talk’ format that populates so much of documentaries these days. Anyone coming to an examination of Dune wants to see Dune, not merely the faces of the costuming department; they’re shown, yes, but they’re shown working on the film. They’re shown putting their wares together. The footage gives meaning to what they’re discussing, and the audience gets drawn into the spectacle.
Also, Sleeper is great in producing some interesting anecdotes regarding how some of the cast and crew were drawn to the project in the beginning. Because the project experienced so many failed starts, there are an incredible number of professionals who may’ve touched it in ways big and small, and still other names that wanted to be a part of it but for whatever reason weren’t selected. (Hello, H.R. Giger! Hello, Val Kilmer! Hello, Rob Lowe!) These anecdotes are fleshed out, in some cases they’re even further investigation about why so-and-so was turned down or passed over. It would appear the folks behind this wanted to provide as concise an explanation for these side stories as was possible, and I think they succeeded more than I expected.
What Sleeper doesn’t do all that well – in this reviewer’s humble opinion – is point fingers specifically at why Dune failed as epically as it did.
I don’t want to belabor that point, but I do think – based entirely on my own research into the flick – that the lion’s share of that blame must and should rest on Dino De Laurentiis’ shoulders. Naturally, I understand anyone’s compulsion to avoid assigning blame; De Laurentiis enjoyed a solid and long-lasting career in an industry that isn’t exactly well-known for eating its own alive (tip: it does), so I think all of that goodwill has served him well. But his efforts inevitably crippled Lynch’s ability to realize a vision that could be remembered much differently than the one lingering today, and I’ve not yet figured out how to forgive the guy for it nearly four decades later.
Recommended ... but you know who is going to enjoy this the most? Fans of Dune, both the film and the book, as Herbert's archival comments are well represented.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary streaming link for The Sleeper Must Awaken (2022) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Also, Sleeper is great in producing some interesting anecdotes regarding how some of the cast and crew were drawn to the project in the beginning. Because the project experienced so many failed starts, there are an incredible number of professionals who may’ve touched it in ways big and small, and still other names that wanted to be a part of it but for whatever reason weren’t selected. (Hello, H.R. Giger! Hello, Val Kilmer! Hello, Rob Lowe!) These anecdotes are fleshed out, in some cases they’re even further investigation about why so-and-so was turned down or passed over. It would appear the folks behind this wanted to provide as concise an explanation for these side stories as was possible, and I think they succeeded more than I expected.
What Sleeper doesn’t do all that well – in this reviewer’s humble opinion – is point fingers specifically at why Dune failed as epically as it did.
I don’t want to belabor that point, but I do think – based entirely on my own research into the flick – that the lion’s share of that blame must and should rest on Dino De Laurentiis’ shoulders. Naturally, I understand anyone’s compulsion to avoid assigning blame; De Laurentiis enjoyed a solid and long-lasting career in an industry that isn’t exactly well-known for eating its own alive (tip: it does), so I think all of that goodwill has served him well. But his efforts inevitably crippled Lynch’s ability to realize a vision that could be remembered much differently than the one lingering today, and I’ve not yet figured out how to forgive the guy for it nearly four decades later.
Recommended ... but you know who is going to enjoy this the most? Fans of Dune, both the film and the book, as Herbert's archival comments are well represented.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary streaming link for The Sleeper Must Awaken (2022) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ