- Published on
C'mon, Americans! Are we gonna let those dreaded Russkies beat the living tar out of us in the only real Space Race that matters?!
Well, as Fate would have it, it looks like we're a distant second place as rapid Star Wars Mandalorian fanatic Ayaal Fedorov spent the better part of his year-long COVID lockdown completing construction on a life-sized version of the Razor's Crest, the famed ship featured prominently in the Walt Disney streaming property, The Mandalorian. According to Fedorov's specifications, his version of the ship measures 46 feet long, 13 feet high, and weighs over one ton.
That, my friends, is quite the fan. And that, my friends, is also a tourist attraction.
Interested in knowing more? Well, there isn't all that much I can find, but here's the link that made me first aware of the project. Had I the room in the backyard? Maybe I'd ask the wife. This is the way, you know.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Well, as Fate would have it, it looks like we're a distant second place as rapid Star Wars Mandalorian fanatic Ayaal Fedorov spent the better part of his year-long COVID lockdown completing construction on a life-sized version of the Razor's Crest, the famed ship featured prominently in the Walt Disney streaming property, The Mandalorian. According to Fedorov's specifications, his version of the ship measures 46 feet long, 13 feet high, and weighs over one ton.
That, my friends, is quite the fan. And that, my friends, is also a tourist attraction.
Interested in knowing more? Well, there isn't all that much I can find, but here's the link that made me first aware of the project. Had I the room in the backyard? Maybe I'd ask the wife. This is the way, you know.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Like so many folks, I love getting a pleasant surprise ... and the biggest of this past week was the complimentary Blu-ray of Psycho Goreman I received in the mail from a favorite distributor I shuck films for occasionally.
For those unaware, Psycho Goreman is one of the smaller films that made the rounds fairly recently in theaters, but largely due to the pandemic I don't think many folks have seen it. Well, that can change next week, as it's getting released on home video this upcoming March 16, and it looks like it has an incredible assortment of extras (for folks who like that sort of thing).
I've watched it. And I'm planning on watching it again. I'll probably watch the commentary this weekend. I'll have a review up next week, but the straight skinny? I love it. It's a helluva lot of fun.
Now, what I find funny and what you find funny are probably different things; so be warned that the humor might not work as well for you as it did for me. But I loved it. Seriously. It's the best B-Movie I've seen in a long time.
Trailer is below. Release details will follow under that.
For those unaware, Psycho Goreman is one of the smaller films that made the rounds fairly recently in theaters, but largely due to the pandemic I don't think many folks have seen it. Well, that can change next week, as it's getting released on home video this upcoming March 16, and it looks like it has an incredible assortment of extras (for folks who like that sort of thing).
I've watched it. And I'm planning on watching it again. I'll probably watch the commentary this weekend. I'll have a review up next week, but the straight skinny? I love it. It's a helluva lot of fun.
Now, what I find funny and what you find funny are probably different things; so be warned that the humor might not work as well for you as it did for me. But I loved it. Seriously. It's the best B-Movie I've seen in a long time.
Trailer is below. Release details will follow under that.
LOS ANGELES, (February 12, 2021) – RLJE Films, a business unit of AMC Networks, and Shudder, AMC Networks’ streaming service for horror, thriller and the supernatural will release the horror/comedy, PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN, on DVD and Blu-ray on March 16, 2021.
Written and directed by Steven Kostanski (The Void, The Divide, Father’s Day), PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN stars Nita-Josee Hanna (Books of Blood, 4teen), Owen Myre (“NOS4A2,” Alternate Ground), Adam Brooks (The Return, Father’s Day), Alexis Hancey (Silver Tongue ), and Matthew Ninaber (Transference).
In PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN, siblings Mimi and Luke unwittingly resurrect an ancient alien overlord who was entombed on Earth millions of years ago after a failed attempt to destroy the universe. They nickname the evil creature Psycho Goreman (or PG for short) and use the magical amulet they discovered to force him to obey their childish whims. It isn’t long before PG’s reappearance draws the attention of intergalactic friends and foes from across the cosmos and a rogues’ gallery of alien combatants converges in small-town suburbia to battle for the fate of the galaxy.
Over 2 hours of bonus features on the DVD and Blu-Ray including:
· Director Commentary
· One-on-One: An Interview with the Director of PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN
· Interviews with the Cast
· Interview with Adam Brooks
· Kortex: A Konversation
· The Music of PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN
· Fight Choreography
· Fight Pre-Viz
· Filming the Paladin Fight
· PG vs Pandora
· Miniature Magic
· Inside the Creature Shop
· Concept Art Gallery
· PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN Trading Cards Gallery
· Behind the Scenes Photo Gallery
Written and directed by Steven Kostanski (The Void, The Divide, Father’s Day), PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN stars Nita-Josee Hanna (Books of Blood, 4teen), Owen Myre (“NOS4A2,” Alternate Ground), Adam Brooks (The Return, Father’s Day), Alexis Hancey (Silver Tongue ), and Matthew Ninaber (Transference).
In PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN, siblings Mimi and Luke unwittingly resurrect an ancient alien overlord who was entombed on Earth millions of years ago after a failed attempt to destroy the universe. They nickname the evil creature Psycho Goreman (or PG for short) and use the magical amulet they discovered to force him to obey their childish whims. It isn’t long before PG’s reappearance draws the attention of intergalactic friends and foes from across the cosmos and a rogues’ gallery of alien combatants converges in small-town suburbia to battle for the fate of the galaxy.
Over 2 hours of bonus features on the DVD and Blu-Ray including:
· Director Commentary
· One-on-One: An Interview with the Director of PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN
· Interviews with the Cast
· Interview with Adam Brooks
· Kortex: A Konversation
· The Music of PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN
· Fight Choreography
· Fight Pre-Viz
· Filming the Paladin Fight
· PG vs Pandora
· Miniature Magic
· Inside the Creature Shop
· Concept Art Gallery
· PG: PSYCHO GOREMAN Trading Cards Gallery
· Behind the Scenes Photo Gallery
- Published on
Pardon me if you've heard this rant.
Over the past two days, I've been inundated with press accounts from a variety of outlets regarding this potential "new Star Trek" project from long-time Trek contributor Nicholas Meyer, the filmmaking genius who contributed to the best films from the original crew. For the uninformed, this largely involves Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. These so-called new reports discusses the fact that Meyer has recently pitched a new project to Paramount for a Trek film, maybe a Trek series, or maybe a bit of both that would blend together. These articles handle this as though Meyer's possible involvement is an all-new development ... but the truth in that respect couldn't be further from the reality.
All one has to do is google Meyer's past offerings with Paramount, and you'll find that he's been active in several notices over the past decade if not longer. I've read articles that linked him to efforts to resusitate Star Trek after TV's Star Trek: Enterprise demise. There are articles out there linking him to efforts during the debacle that was the JJ Abrams' incarnation of Trek. And, yes, you can do just a little bit of leg work and find that Meyer's name was dropped regarding the development of programming for said Trek on their not-all-that-old subscriber streaming service. So Meyer's ideas for Star Trek are far from new ... so why is this being dribbled in the press yet again?
Call me cynical, if you will, but I can't help but wonder if this reportage is little more than Paramount's press campaign to try to woo old Treksters like myself back to the franchise.
Paramount doesn't really want to discuss streaming Star Trek successes or failures in any practical means. Star Trek: Discovery hasn't exactly been the bombshell that I suspect executives believed it would be; and (ahem) Star Trek: Lower Decks certainly didn't bring fans clamoring for more as its animated sensibilities would probably attract more viewers from Cartoon Network than it would Trek purists. Star Trek: Picard -- in my opinion -- was hot garbage that tried to trample over a franchise's legacy in favor of delivering blue ink (aka curse words) to a franchise that was at one time invested in big ideas. Sadly, what many of us knew as being Trek died a long time ago, but that won't stop Paramount from slapping the label on something new and different for the sake of being new and different.
So ... how do you bring back some of those tried-and-true Trek enthusiasts?
Why, you drop the name of someone who has some street cred, and you hope for the best, of course!
Yes, I like my Star Trek being allegorical and relevant. What Paramount is dishing out today is best served cold as its creative staff appears enamored with cancel culture and the ever-expanding LGBT movement. I'm not saying that there aren't stories to be told from those corners of existence; to the contrary, there are ... I just wish we had relatable characters telling them. STD's crew? Meh. In the eyes of the current writing staff, I suspect they can't figure out how Starfleet made it as far as it did without the guidance of Michael Burnham.
Notice the name: Burnham.
Burn ... as in insult.
Ham ... as in 'hammy' acting. Think William Shatner.
The character's name is an insult hurled back at classic Trek.
That's the level of intelligent discourse these writers offer any viewership.
So, yes, I wouldn't put it past some Paramount suit to try to confuse the disaffected amongst us to think that the next project to roll down the pike (pun intended) might just be something from Nicholas Meyer.
They're just that stupid.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Over the past two days, I've been inundated with press accounts from a variety of outlets regarding this potential "new Star Trek" project from long-time Trek contributor Nicholas Meyer, the filmmaking genius who contributed to the best films from the original crew. For the uninformed, this largely involves Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. These so-called new reports discusses the fact that Meyer has recently pitched a new project to Paramount for a Trek film, maybe a Trek series, or maybe a bit of both that would blend together. These articles handle this as though Meyer's possible involvement is an all-new development ... but the truth in that respect couldn't be further from the reality.
All one has to do is google Meyer's past offerings with Paramount, and you'll find that he's been active in several notices over the past decade if not longer. I've read articles that linked him to efforts to resusitate Star Trek after TV's Star Trek: Enterprise demise. There are articles out there linking him to efforts during the debacle that was the JJ Abrams' incarnation of Trek. And, yes, you can do just a little bit of leg work and find that Meyer's name was dropped regarding the development of programming for said Trek on their not-all-that-old subscriber streaming service. So Meyer's ideas for Star Trek are far from new ... so why is this being dribbled in the press yet again?
Call me cynical, if you will, but I can't help but wonder if this reportage is little more than Paramount's press campaign to try to woo old Treksters like myself back to the franchise.
Paramount doesn't really want to discuss streaming Star Trek successes or failures in any practical means. Star Trek: Discovery hasn't exactly been the bombshell that I suspect executives believed it would be; and (ahem) Star Trek: Lower Decks certainly didn't bring fans clamoring for more as its animated sensibilities would probably attract more viewers from Cartoon Network than it would Trek purists. Star Trek: Picard -- in my opinion -- was hot garbage that tried to trample over a franchise's legacy in favor of delivering blue ink (aka curse words) to a franchise that was at one time invested in big ideas. Sadly, what many of us knew as being Trek died a long time ago, but that won't stop Paramount from slapping the label on something new and different for the sake of being new and different.
So ... how do you bring back some of those tried-and-true Trek enthusiasts?
Why, you drop the name of someone who has some street cred, and you hope for the best, of course!
Yes, I like my Star Trek being allegorical and relevant. What Paramount is dishing out today is best served cold as its creative staff appears enamored with cancel culture and the ever-expanding LGBT movement. I'm not saying that there aren't stories to be told from those corners of existence; to the contrary, there are ... I just wish we had relatable characters telling them. STD's crew? Meh. In the eyes of the current writing staff, I suspect they can't figure out how Starfleet made it as far as it did without the guidance of Michael Burnham.
Notice the name: Burnham.
Burn ... as in insult.
Ham ... as in 'hammy' acting. Think William Shatner.
The character's name is an insult hurled back at classic Trek.
That's the level of intelligent discourse these writers offer any viewership.
So, yes, I wouldn't put it past some Paramount suit to try to confuse the disaffected amongst us to think that the next project to roll down the pike (pun intended) might just be something from Nicholas Meyer.
They're just that stupid.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the hardest tasks in maintaining SciFiHistory.Net is, sadly, having to note the passing of time along with the passing of some we've come to know -- even in small ways -- on this great journey that's called "life." Each and every time I'm reminded -- much like Star Trek's Jean-Luc Picard said in the movie Star Trek: Generations that there are fewer years ahead of me than behind -- that all of this is fleeting. In the end, these small moments perhaps don't matter much, unless we've spent a fair amount of effort commemorating the stops along the way.
I'm not Stargate's biggest advocate. I've mentioned before that I just quite didn't 'get' into the show during its run on premium cable and the SciFi Channel (now Syfy). I caught episodes from time-to-time; but it was honestly only just earlier this year that I binged my way through all of Season One. There were some small gems in there. I've always enjoyed good characters, but I struggle with stories that are either too routine or too overcooked ... and I found much of SG-1 a bit thin on the bones. Still, I'll persevere as time permits and continue the journey.
Alas, the beloved franchise has lost another: Cliff Simon. With twenty-six professional credits to his name, the SciFi saga was definitely one of his biggest accomplishments in genre, with appearances in fifteen episodes as well as the Stargate: Continuum telefilm. Fans have flocked to the Information Superhighway with stories of their memories with him, so much so that it's clear that the actor was dear to Stargate fandom.
As I always point out, we'll always have the time on flickering images to remember him by. Make sure to wish the man godspeed when you can today.
-- EZ
I'm not Stargate's biggest advocate. I've mentioned before that I just quite didn't 'get' into the show during its run on premium cable and the SciFi Channel (now Syfy). I caught episodes from time-to-time; but it was honestly only just earlier this year that I binged my way through all of Season One. There were some small gems in there. I've always enjoyed good characters, but I struggle with stories that are either too routine or too overcooked ... and I found much of SG-1 a bit thin on the bones. Still, I'll persevere as time permits and continue the journey.
Alas, the beloved franchise has lost another: Cliff Simon. With twenty-six professional credits to his name, the SciFi saga was definitely one of his biggest accomplishments in genre, with appearances in fifteen episodes as well as the Stargate: Continuum telefilm. Fans have flocked to the Information Superhighway with stories of their memories with him, so much so that it's clear that the actor was dear to Stargate fandom.
As I always point out, we'll always have the time on flickering images to remember him by. Make sure to wish the man godspeed when you can today.
-- EZ
- Published on
Ay carumba!
Those who know me -- and perhaps a fair share of regular readers here at SciFiHistory.Net -- know all too well that I'm no gamer. For posterity's sake, let me clarify that: it isn't that I don't like video games but rather I truly lack the skills -- the quick-thinking, the hand-eye-coordination -- to really be any good at it, so I stayed away from it. But in the early thru mid-1990's, I had a buddy who loved the stuff so much that he'd drag me (and the wifey) to damn near anything video game related that got transformed into a major motion picture. I rarely cared for any of it, but activity like this is just what we do when we have good friends and those good friends can bribe us to do damn near anything this side of legal.
So, yes, I'd seen the original Mortal Kombat and its sequel. I knew nothing about them going in, and it's safe to say that I didn't come away a believer in any of it. Some of the 1990's theatrical fare was really a dark age so far as digital effects are concerned: yes, they had been introduced in the 1980's and grew fairly commonplace in the early 1990's, but a lot of studios weren't -- ahem -- spending as much as would be needed on these special effects to deliver a truly transformative visual experience. Instead, they ponied up decent thrills for a modest audience, hoping that whatever buzz got created would more likely transform to stronger shelf life in the home rental business, which was still growing in leaps and bounds throughout that decade (for the most part).
A property like Mortal Kombat still has a decent following today (I'm told and have no direct knowledge of this firsthand), so it makes sense that some enterprising film executives would decide the franchise was ripe for a remake. Why not? Everything is getting remade these days, and these films tend to break even more often than they bankrupt a studio.
So the trailer for the new incarnation of Mortal Kombat has dropped. It's up on Youtube.com, and I'm pleased to post it below, though I suspect the trailer's rating might require you to surf over there to see it in its umblemished glory. Buyer beware.
Those who know me -- and perhaps a fair share of regular readers here at SciFiHistory.Net -- know all too well that I'm no gamer. For posterity's sake, let me clarify that: it isn't that I don't like video games but rather I truly lack the skills -- the quick-thinking, the hand-eye-coordination -- to really be any good at it, so I stayed away from it. But in the early thru mid-1990's, I had a buddy who loved the stuff so much that he'd drag me (and the wifey) to damn near anything video game related that got transformed into a major motion picture. I rarely cared for any of it, but activity like this is just what we do when we have good friends and those good friends can bribe us to do damn near anything this side of legal.
So, yes, I'd seen the original Mortal Kombat and its sequel. I knew nothing about them going in, and it's safe to say that I didn't come away a believer in any of it. Some of the 1990's theatrical fare was really a dark age so far as digital effects are concerned: yes, they had been introduced in the 1980's and grew fairly commonplace in the early 1990's, but a lot of studios weren't -- ahem -- spending as much as would be needed on these special effects to deliver a truly transformative visual experience. Instead, they ponied up decent thrills for a modest audience, hoping that whatever buzz got created would more likely transform to stronger shelf life in the home rental business, which was still growing in leaps and bounds throughout that decade (for the most part).
A property like Mortal Kombat still has a decent following today (I'm told and have no direct knowledge of this firsthand), so it makes sense that some enterprising film executives would decide the franchise was ripe for a remake. Why not? Everything is getting remade these days, and these films tend to break even more often than they bankrupt a studio.
So the trailer for the new incarnation of Mortal Kombat has dropped. It's up on Youtube.com, and I'm pleased to post it below, though I suspect the trailer's rating might require you to surf over there to see it in its umblemished glory. Buyer beware.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
I've always been more of a DC Comics guy than any other label.
I've mentioned before that this is largely owed to the fact that as a young guy I was handed a stack of comic books from the manager of my small town's only bookstore -- these were ones with the cover removed as they were being sent back for credit. As fate would have it, most of these were characters from the DC Universe.
Friends were quick to point out that these titles didn't sell so naturally they "weren't popular with the kids those days" (FYI: the early 1970's). I can't argue with that. But that's where I learned one of the lessons that's stuck with me throughout life: just because something fails to find an audience doesn't mean it's garbage.
These stories lit a fire in me. They showed me a whole new world outside of Small Town America. And, of course, I found the feats of heroism inspired.
As I aged, I did check out Marvel titles, as well, but for a lot of reasons many of these heroes just didn't excite me the same way the DC ones did. The Marvel mutants always seemed a bit snarky, a bit angry, and maybe even a bit disrespectful. Sure, they did the right thing in the big finish; but I didn't care for all of the quips along the way. It just seemed like filler to me.
Unlike so many others who blog these days, I'll admit to totally digging the Zack Snyder visions of some of DC's legendary good guys. (Yes, for the record, I've enjoyed some of the Marvel stuff, as well.) I'll agree that some sections of the films get a bit dark, but dark never hurt any of the Batman films, did it?
Well, I don't want to belabor the point. I essentially wanted to get up a post about the final trailer for Justice League - The Zack Snyder dropping this past weekend. It looks pretty spiffy, so I wanted to give it some props in this space. Check it out below.
I've mentioned before that this is largely owed to the fact that as a young guy I was handed a stack of comic books from the manager of my small town's only bookstore -- these were ones with the cover removed as they were being sent back for credit. As fate would have it, most of these were characters from the DC Universe.
Friends were quick to point out that these titles didn't sell so naturally they "weren't popular with the kids those days" (FYI: the early 1970's). I can't argue with that. But that's where I learned one of the lessons that's stuck with me throughout life: just because something fails to find an audience doesn't mean it's garbage.
These stories lit a fire in me. They showed me a whole new world outside of Small Town America. And, of course, I found the feats of heroism inspired.
As I aged, I did check out Marvel titles, as well, but for a lot of reasons many of these heroes just didn't excite me the same way the DC ones did. The Marvel mutants always seemed a bit snarky, a bit angry, and maybe even a bit disrespectful. Sure, they did the right thing in the big finish; but I didn't care for all of the quips along the way. It just seemed like filler to me.
Unlike so many others who blog these days, I'll admit to totally digging the Zack Snyder visions of some of DC's legendary good guys. (Yes, for the record, I've enjoyed some of the Marvel stuff, as well.) I'll agree that some sections of the films get a bit dark, but dark never hurt any of the Batman films, did it?
Well, I don't want to belabor the point. I essentially wanted to get up a post about the final trailer for Justice League - The Zack Snyder dropping this past weekend. It looks pretty spiffy, so I wanted to give it some props in this space. Check it out below.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
For the record, I have absolutely no idea whose idea it was to fire Gina Carano -- one of the supporting stars for Disney+ Star Wars epic, The Mandalorian -- over something as benign as a few politically-leaning Tweets ... but isn't it a surprise that Pedro Pascal hasn't suffered the same fate for his posturing diatribes?
Look: I originally intended to stay out of this issue. Anyone who knows me already knows my political leanings, and I've absolutely no desire to spell it out for the masses-at-large. On one hand, I've always tried to treat politics the same way folks do religion: try not to talk about it. Sure, I may hate a past President or two, but I've always tried to find happiness in areas outside of politics. Did I ever want to kill a President? Oh, hell no. Did I ever wish a past President ill? Nope. Have I openly called one or two an idiot? Sure as hell did, as I sure as hell will when any of them do something demonstrably stupid. That's my right as an American, and I exercise it when I see fit ... or when I simply can't keep it to myself any longer.
Actors and actresses have long flitted and flirted with their own political causes. Many of them have their own charitable foundations -- much of which stems from their own views on life -- and regardless of whether or not I agree with their position I've always applauded folks who've used their fame and fortune behind-the-scenes to do something good on behalf of society. I'm not a big supporter of their political drivel being pushed on us publicly, though: I just don't think platforms like Academy Awards, Emmy Awards, and the like should be used to push agendas. Push the arts. That's what those shows are for, essentially. Too many of them have blurred that line -- the one separating causes from cause cé·lè·bre -- and that usually only serves to divide us further.
While I'm a big proponent of free speech, I do believe there should be consequences from employers when speech goes too far ... and "too far" is the operative phrase in all of that. I believe that because I stand for the civil society -- the one where each of us can have a say as well as having the means to tune others out. (If you don't like Matt Damon, then don't go to see Matt Damon's movies. See how that works?) So if a creative feels the need to spout off on a topic of the day, then that person should have the freedom to do so: if the exercise of his or her freedom negatively impacts an employer financially or culturally, then that employer should exercise whatever authority it has to see the speech issue addressed responsibly, up to and including termination.
So the question becomes ... how did Gina Carano's free speech hurt the Walt Disney Company?
Well, apparently Kathleen Kennedy had her feelings hurt by the Twitterazzi all demanding their pound of flesh. Though the head of Lucasfilm has turned a blind eye to all of Pedro Pascal's offensive Tweets, Gina's speech crossed a line (in her opinion), and now we are where we are.
Alas, I think this is total crap. This didn't deserve a response from Lucasfilm or Walt Disney, so far as I think or care. It was a total non-issue -- the classic variety -- and it should've been ignored. But we are where we are these days largely because irresponsible companies like Walt Disney continue to make decisions based entirely on dollars and less on the morality they claim to be protecting.
Example: Pedro Pascal has repeatedly compared supporters of Donald Trump to Nazis and the KKK. I'm guessing Kathleen Kennedy thinks that's okay because perhaps she agrees with Pedro.
Example: the Walt Disney Company hired James Gunn -- writer and director of the Guardians Of The Galaxy flicks -- even knowing that the man's Tweets are ... Hell ... what's the word for it? Well, the polite word for it is "offensive," but some might argue "criminal." Many, many, many of them are objectionable. While others have been quick to point out that Disney did fire him when these Tweets came to light (a joke if there ever were because the Tweets have followed Gunn around for at least a decade), the MouseHouse still hired him back once their stars and starlets through a collective hissy fit about their director's dismissal.
Example: Mark Hamill's open hatred of Trump and Trump supporters brought no consequence. Is Kathleen Kennedy just biased against strong, confident, and outspoken women? Is she afraid of Mark Hamill? Or is she so afraid of Gina that this was the only way for Kathleen to create a "safe space" for herself?
Example: Joss Whedon? Anyone?
Example: Star Wars "author" Justina Ireland? Anyone?
I won't go on because, at this point, many others who are far more erudite than I have already wadded into this conflict. As I said, I hadn't intended to say anything about it, but I saw a few posts online today that got my dander up.
I will say that I stand with Gina. I will say also that I stand with those who are calling for Kathleen Kennedy's ouster. I will also add that I think both Jon Favreau and Pedro Pascal are pussies for NOT demanding Gina be rehired or, at the very least, coming to her defense publicly. (I've seen you in enough interviews, Mr. Pascal, to think you're an intellectual lightweight anyway, and I'm guessing civility is NOT in your wheelhouse.) And if you're of the mindset to cancel your subscription to Disney+ because all of this offends you, then more power to you.
As always, thanks for reading ... and May the Force be with us all.
-- EZ
Look: I originally intended to stay out of this issue. Anyone who knows me already knows my political leanings, and I've absolutely no desire to spell it out for the masses-at-large. On one hand, I've always tried to treat politics the same way folks do religion: try not to talk about it. Sure, I may hate a past President or two, but I've always tried to find happiness in areas outside of politics. Did I ever want to kill a President? Oh, hell no. Did I ever wish a past President ill? Nope. Have I openly called one or two an idiot? Sure as hell did, as I sure as hell will when any of them do something demonstrably stupid. That's my right as an American, and I exercise it when I see fit ... or when I simply can't keep it to myself any longer.
Actors and actresses have long flitted and flirted with their own political causes. Many of them have their own charitable foundations -- much of which stems from their own views on life -- and regardless of whether or not I agree with their position I've always applauded folks who've used their fame and fortune behind-the-scenes to do something good on behalf of society. I'm not a big supporter of their political drivel being pushed on us publicly, though: I just don't think platforms like Academy Awards, Emmy Awards, and the like should be used to push agendas. Push the arts. That's what those shows are for, essentially. Too many of them have blurred that line -- the one separating causes from cause cé·lè·bre -- and that usually only serves to divide us further.
While I'm a big proponent of free speech, I do believe there should be consequences from employers when speech goes too far ... and "too far" is the operative phrase in all of that. I believe that because I stand for the civil society -- the one where each of us can have a say as well as having the means to tune others out. (If you don't like Matt Damon, then don't go to see Matt Damon's movies. See how that works?) So if a creative feels the need to spout off on a topic of the day, then that person should have the freedom to do so: if the exercise of his or her freedom negatively impacts an employer financially or culturally, then that employer should exercise whatever authority it has to see the speech issue addressed responsibly, up to and including termination.
So the question becomes ... how did Gina Carano's free speech hurt the Walt Disney Company?
Well, apparently Kathleen Kennedy had her feelings hurt by the Twitterazzi all demanding their pound of flesh. Though the head of Lucasfilm has turned a blind eye to all of Pedro Pascal's offensive Tweets, Gina's speech crossed a line (in her opinion), and now we are where we are.
Alas, I think this is total crap. This didn't deserve a response from Lucasfilm or Walt Disney, so far as I think or care. It was a total non-issue -- the classic variety -- and it should've been ignored. But we are where we are these days largely because irresponsible companies like Walt Disney continue to make decisions based entirely on dollars and less on the morality they claim to be protecting.
Example: Pedro Pascal has repeatedly compared supporters of Donald Trump to Nazis and the KKK. I'm guessing Kathleen Kennedy thinks that's okay because perhaps she agrees with Pedro.
Example: the Walt Disney Company hired James Gunn -- writer and director of the Guardians Of The Galaxy flicks -- even knowing that the man's Tweets are ... Hell ... what's the word for it? Well, the polite word for it is "offensive," but some might argue "criminal." Many, many, many of them are objectionable. While others have been quick to point out that Disney did fire him when these Tweets came to light (a joke if there ever were because the Tweets have followed Gunn around for at least a decade), the MouseHouse still hired him back once their stars and starlets through a collective hissy fit about their director's dismissal.
Example: Mark Hamill's open hatred of Trump and Trump supporters brought no consequence. Is Kathleen Kennedy just biased against strong, confident, and outspoken women? Is she afraid of Mark Hamill? Or is she so afraid of Gina that this was the only way for Kathleen to create a "safe space" for herself?
Example: Joss Whedon? Anyone?
Example: Star Wars "author" Justina Ireland? Anyone?
I won't go on because, at this point, many others who are far more erudite than I have already wadded into this conflict. As I said, I hadn't intended to say anything about it, but I saw a few posts online today that got my dander up.
I will say that I stand with Gina. I will say also that I stand with those who are calling for Kathleen Kennedy's ouster. I will also add that I think both Jon Favreau and Pedro Pascal are pussies for NOT demanding Gina be rehired or, at the very least, coming to her defense publicly. (I've seen you in enough interviews, Mr. Pascal, to think you're an intellectual lightweight anyway, and I'm guessing civility is NOT in your wheelhouse.) And if you're of the mindset to cancel your subscription to Disney+ because all of this offends you, then more power to you.
As always, thanks for reading ... and May the Force be with us all.
-- EZ
- Published on
Seriously: where does Hollywood's singular fascination with depicting mankind's inevitable demise come from?
Way, way back in my college days, it seems to me I'd read a little something something that postulated one reason why storytellers so often dip into the well of Dystopia for another look, but I honestly don't recall where I may've read it. Genre magazines back in the day came and went with some regularity, and I suppose that's the great thing about the Information Superhighway these days: almost everything written can seemingly last forever ... or, at least, until that great EMP in the skies wipes out our technology once and for all ... which brings me back to the topic at hand ...
Personally, I think filmmakers have been especially fascinated with tales of doom because it allows them world-building beneath the bare bones of a budget: less and less cash is required for fancypants special effects while freeing up investment in better writers, certainly stronger talents, and potentially more interesting location shooting. Plus, I just have always believed that there's something deep within each of us -- storytellers, too -- that harkens back to the sheer will and determination Earthlings have displayed for centuries when it comes to simply surviving. Surviving anything. Each of us imagines a scenario wherein we have to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and get back to basics. Thus, the end of the world as we know continues to fascinate us personally and professionally.
In any event, I stumbled across one more coming attraction that promises to explore said circumstances: the film is called "Tides." SciFi maven Roland Emmerich is attached as executive producer, and it appears to have a cast rich with awards nominees. IMDB.com lists the film's working title as "Haven: Above Sky" (???), but promotional materials -- trailer included -- certainly makes this look like "Tides" is the final choice.
Trailer is below.
Way, way back in my college days, it seems to me I'd read a little something something that postulated one reason why storytellers so often dip into the well of Dystopia for another look, but I honestly don't recall where I may've read it. Genre magazines back in the day came and went with some regularity, and I suppose that's the great thing about the Information Superhighway these days: almost everything written can seemingly last forever ... or, at least, until that great EMP in the skies wipes out our technology once and for all ... which brings me back to the topic at hand ...
Personally, I think filmmakers have been especially fascinated with tales of doom because it allows them world-building beneath the bare bones of a budget: less and less cash is required for fancypants special effects while freeing up investment in better writers, certainly stronger talents, and potentially more interesting location shooting. Plus, I just have always believed that there's something deep within each of us -- storytellers, too -- that harkens back to the sheer will and determination Earthlings have displayed for centuries when it comes to simply surviving. Surviving anything. Each of us imagines a scenario wherein we have to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and get back to basics. Thus, the end of the world as we know continues to fascinate us personally and professionally.
In any event, I stumbled across one more coming attraction that promises to explore said circumstances: the film is called "Tides." SciFi maven Roland Emmerich is attached as executive producer, and it appears to have a cast rich with awards nominees. IMDB.com lists the film's working title as "Haven: Above Sky" (???), but promotional materials -- trailer included -- certainly makes this look like "Tides" is the final choice.
Trailer is below.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Stardate 02.15.2021.B: Arrow Video Making "The Invisible Man Appears" Visible On Blu-Ray This March!
The longer you live, the more you learn.
In fact, before this morning I'd never even knew about a pair of Japanese SciFi/Horror releases -- The Invisible Man Appears (1949) and The Invisible Man Vs. The Human Fly (1957) -- toyed with the whole 'Invisible Man' creation of H.G. Wells; so I guess it's a good thing I keep a close eye on my email as Arrow Video sent me an announcement regarding their U.S. discs of these forthcoming classics. I suspect that there are some die-hard genre fans who might be interested in checking these out with a purchase. It looks like they're 'streeting' in March, and I'm happy to do the ol' copy'n'paste of Arrow's press release and preview reel below.
On March 16, Arrow will release a double feature of Japanese sci-fi classics with The Invisible Man Appears & The Invisible Man Vs. The Human Fly. These unique riffs on the legendary H.G. Wells' characters are sure to please fans of the Universal classic. In 1949's The Invisible Man Appears, jewel thieves develop an interest in invisibility with plans to use it to help them steal a highly-coveted diamond necklace. The Invisible Man Appears is noted for being one of the earlier works of special effects icon, Eiji Tsuburaya. Eight years later, this disappearing act would return in The Invisible Man Vs. The Human Fly, a film that Rob Hunter of Slash Film dubbed "an ambitious blend of genre ideas." This murder-mystery, of sorts, delivers on exactly what the title promises. The first pressing includes an illustrated collectors' booklet featuring new writing by Keith Allison, Hayley Scanlon, and Tom Vincent.
In fact, before this morning I'd never even knew about a pair of Japanese SciFi/Horror releases -- The Invisible Man Appears (1949) and The Invisible Man Vs. The Human Fly (1957) -- toyed with the whole 'Invisible Man' creation of H.G. Wells; so I guess it's a good thing I keep a close eye on my email as Arrow Video sent me an announcement regarding their U.S. discs of these forthcoming classics. I suspect that there are some die-hard genre fans who might be interested in checking these out with a purchase. It looks like they're 'streeting' in March, and I'm happy to do the ol' copy'n'paste of Arrow's press release and preview reel below.
On March 16, Arrow will release a double feature of Japanese sci-fi classics with The Invisible Man Appears & The Invisible Man Vs. The Human Fly. These unique riffs on the legendary H.G. Wells' characters are sure to please fans of the Universal classic. In 1949's The Invisible Man Appears, jewel thieves develop an interest in invisibility with plans to use it to help them steal a highly-coveted diamond necklace. The Invisible Man Appears is noted for being one of the earlier works of special effects icon, Eiji Tsuburaya. Eight years later, this disappearing act would return in The Invisible Man Vs. The Human Fly, a film that Rob Hunter of Slash Film dubbed "an ambitious blend of genre ideas." This murder-mystery, of sorts, delivers on exactly what the title promises. The first pressing includes an illustrated collectors' booklet featuring new writing by Keith Allison, Hayley Scanlon, and Tom Vincent.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Sadly, very little happens in this day and age without courting controversy of some sort. Why, even Doctor Who gets wrapped up in that truism, it would seem ...
In many ways, controversy has become the design, an all-too-frequent diversion from inferior writing as well as subpar performances. When you don't have great stories -- and maybe when you can't recruit talent possibly more befitting the role -- showrunners embrace going 'woke' not because it's part-and-parcel of a decent narrative but because it's a means of achieving notice. Notice begets buzz, buzz begets viewers, and viewers begets ratings, the true power behind the throne of broadcast television. If you have an audience, then you're typically free to do what you want. You get a bigger budget. You get more episodes. You have talent lining up to be a part of your universe. If you don't have an audience ... well ... you tend to fade away.
Now, I didn't say any of this specific to the current predicament of the greater Whoniverse. Ratings are down. Audiences are losing interest. Fandom is split, and that's the case not for any particular reason at all. The casting of spirited actress Jodie Whittaker courted a bit of controversy, true -- she was the first female incarnation of the show's seminal 'doctor' -- but, in my estimation, she was never really given all that many great stories much less great moments in which to inhabit the role. Current showrunner Chris Chibnall and his screenwriting cohorts seemed to be more interested in going where no man had gone before (pun intended) with tales that didn't quite connect with me (and perhaps many, many more, given the show's lagging ratings), and Whittaker has implied she's leaving the show only in keeping with the current tradition which implies "three seasons and you're out."
Naturally, the response from fandom has been all over the gamut, though much of what I've read seems to have centered in on the whole 'go woke, go broke' perspective. Certainly, Whittaker's adventures have ideologically aligned with the whole 'hate' and 'cancel culture' mentality to a degree, but I've always questioned whether or not a true Fantasy program maintains an audience that thinks too deeply about messaging. Sure, maybe they see them, but aren't they capable of setting aside the differences to just enjoy the Fantasy? Isn't this all meant to be entertainment, after all? Can't we all just share a laugh, especially at our own expense?
I suppose it's only appropriate that her departure court as much controversy as her casting: as I said above, this has become the way of the world, and anyone with a keyboard these days loves sounding off on whatever platform still allows a modicum of free speech. Regardless, I wish the actress well; I do wish she'd made a stronger impression in the role that's meant so much to me as a viewer, but this is why each of us have our favorite Doctors nonetheless.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
In many ways, controversy has become the design, an all-too-frequent diversion from inferior writing as well as subpar performances. When you don't have great stories -- and maybe when you can't recruit talent possibly more befitting the role -- showrunners embrace going 'woke' not because it's part-and-parcel of a decent narrative but because it's a means of achieving notice. Notice begets buzz, buzz begets viewers, and viewers begets ratings, the true power behind the throne of broadcast television. If you have an audience, then you're typically free to do what you want. You get a bigger budget. You get more episodes. You have talent lining up to be a part of your universe. If you don't have an audience ... well ... you tend to fade away.
Now, I didn't say any of this specific to the current predicament of the greater Whoniverse. Ratings are down. Audiences are losing interest. Fandom is split, and that's the case not for any particular reason at all. The casting of spirited actress Jodie Whittaker courted a bit of controversy, true -- she was the first female incarnation of the show's seminal 'doctor' -- but, in my estimation, she was never really given all that many great stories much less great moments in which to inhabit the role. Current showrunner Chris Chibnall and his screenwriting cohorts seemed to be more interested in going where no man had gone before (pun intended) with tales that didn't quite connect with me (and perhaps many, many more, given the show's lagging ratings), and Whittaker has implied she's leaving the show only in keeping with the current tradition which implies "three seasons and you're out."
Naturally, the response from fandom has been all over the gamut, though much of what I've read seems to have centered in on the whole 'go woke, go broke' perspective. Certainly, Whittaker's adventures have ideologically aligned with the whole 'hate' and 'cancel culture' mentality to a degree, but I've always questioned whether or not a true Fantasy program maintains an audience that thinks too deeply about messaging. Sure, maybe they see them, but aren't they capable of setting aside the differences to just enjoy the Fantasy? Isn't this all meant to be entertainment, after all? Can't we all just share a laugh, especially at our own expense?
I suppose it's only appropriate that her departure court as much controversy as her casting: as I said above, this has become the way of the world, and anyone with a keyboard these days loves sounding off on whatever platform still allows a modicum of free speech. Regardless, I wish the actress well; I do wish she'd made a stronger impression in the role that's meant so much to me as a viewer, but this is why each of us have our favorite Doctors nonetheless.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ