- Published on
As someone who enjoys a whole lot of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I still always think it's pretty grand when a player gets to play in not one but two of the genre's biggest franchises. While his career on the screen was reasonably limited, that can still be said of the late Richard Franklin.
Wearing the uniform on behalf of His Majesty, the Queen, Franklin starred in the role of 'Captain Mike Yates,' and his tour of duty within the wide, wide world of Doctor Who lasted an incredible 42 episodes.
But ... that's not all, as they say ...
... for, in 2016, the man enjoyed a role -- albeit a vastly smaller one -- in the guise of one of the doomed engineers that helped usher in the age of true Imperial oppression by completing the Death Star on behalf of the Galactic Empire. His character -- along with several others -- met a grisly end on the planet of Eadu as depicted in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
Sad. Yet, characters come and go.
However, a quick glance at Franklin's resume indicates that these weren't his only forays into the realms of the Fantastic. He also enjoyed some work aboard such other entries as Blake's 7, The Tomorrow People (podcast), Sapphire & Steel (podcast), and Chemical Wedding (2008). With only thirty screen credits to his name, it's nonetheless grand to see so many in projects we here at SciFiHistory.Net find so compelling.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Richard Franklin.
May he rest in peace.
-- EZ
Wearing the uniform on behalf of His Majesty, the Queen, Franklin starred in the role of 'Captain Mike Yates,' and his tour of duty within the wide, wide world of Doctor Who lasted an incredible 42 episodes.
But ... that's not all, as they say ...
... for, in 2016, the man enjoyed a role -- albeit a vastly smaller one -- in the guise of one of the doomed engineers that helped usher in the age of true Imperial oppression by completing the Death Star on behalf of the Galactic Empire. His character -- along with several others -- met a grisly end on the planet of Eadu as depicted in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
Sad. Yet, characters come and go.
However, a quick glance at Franklin's resume indicates that these weren't his only forays into the realms of the Fantastic. He also enjoyed some work aboard such other entries as Blake's 7, The Tomorrow People (podcast), Sapphire & Steel (podcast), and Chemical Wedding (2008). With only thirty screen credits to his name, it's nonetheless grand to see so many in projects we here at SciFiHistory.Net find so compelling.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Richard Franklin.
May he rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to December 27th!
And yes, yes, yes: it's also Hump Day, ladies and gentlemen, so you know what that means.
Alas, not a whole lot to report from the SciFiHistory.Net News Desk this morning. As each of you know, we're still in the midst of the Silly Season, and this means that news doesn't quite travel as fast as it does other times of the new. Plus, I've had to spend more than a few moments this morning playing catch up on some routine matters of the space, having myself been away from the home on a small holiday trip. While it's great to be back in comfortable pursuits, there are always tasks that need to get done once back in the saddle ... and that's taken a bit of focus away from the blog. It is -- as they say -- what it is. Still, I am trying to get up a review later today: I just need to find some extra minutes to hammer the prose into shape and find some pics online to add to it. Keep your eyes peeled, and maybe -- just maybe -- I'll get it done.
In the meantime, might I offer you a hearty -- and heartfelt -- 61 different genre trivia citations to tide you over? To whet your whistle? To tickle your fancy? In fact, might I add further that two of the Horror genre's biggest citations happen to fall on the same damn day?! Actress Barbara Crampton and genre legend Charles Band both celebrate their birthdays on this day in Science Fiction History, as do such other illuminaries as Dune's Timothée Chalamet, Lost's Emilie De Raven, and 12 Monkeys' Aaron Stanford ... a great genre line-up if every there were ... so there's plenty to keep one tempted with this date. Please, please, and please: head on over to the link below, and please, please, please do the old 'like & share' thing on social media.
And yes, yes, yes: it's also Hump Day, ladies and gentlemen, so you know what that means.
Alas, not a whole lot to report from the SciFiHistory.Net News Desk this morning. As each of you know, we're still in the midst of the Silly Season, and this means that news doesn't quite travel as fast as it does other times of the new. Plus, I've had to spend more than a few moments this morning playing catch up on some routine matters of the space, having myself been away from the home on a small holiday trip. While it's great to be back in comfortable pursuits, there are always tasks that need to get done once back in the saddle ... and that's taken a bit of focus away from the blog. It is -- as they say -- what it is. Still, I am trying to get up a review later today: I just need to find some extra minutes to hammer the prose into shape and find some pics online to add to it. Keep your eyes peeled, and maybe -- just maybe -- I'll get it done.
In the meantime, might I offer you a hearty -- and heartfelt -- 61 different genre trivia citations to tide you over? To whet your whistle? To tickle your fancy? In fact, might I add further that two of the Horror genre's biggest citations happen to fall on the same damn day?! Actress Barbara Crampton and genre legend Charles Band both celebrate their birthdays on this day in Science Fiction History, as do such other illuminaries as Dune's Timothée Chalamet, Lost's Emilie De Raven, and 12 Monkeys' Aaron Stanford ... a great genre line-up if every there were ... so there's plenty to keep one tempted with this date. Please, please, and please: head on over to the link below, and please, please, please do the old 'like & share' thing on social media.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I mentioned just the other day in my review of Gene Roddenberry’s somewhat ill-fated Genesis II telefilm (available right here for readers) that it’s difficult to have a review of it without some discussion of this feature follow-up, Planet Earth.
For those who don’t know it, the two projects work very much like two sides of the same coin: Genesis II – as a pilot – didn’t quite have the interest of network suits, but – much like Roddenberry was given a second shot with his groundbreaking series Star Trek – Fate smiled on the Science Fiction and Fantasy creator by granting him another chance. Textually, Planet Earth kept a good deal of Genesis’s foundation – basically this was the future, our world had been decimated by global wars, and chief hero Dylan Hunt was tasked with bringing civilization back in style – but it plucked out a great deal of what made the original interesting. Instead of two organizations competing to control what’s left of our people and resources, Planet Earth basically starts with PAX – the peaceniks – pretty much in charge. They’ve put the future of mankind on their capable shoulders, and their ultimate goal would be to, essentially, put things in order once again. That’s what heroes do, after all, and that’s what we expect of them.
And why wouldn’t it work?
Planet Earth began with a feasible premise, but if this pilot film is any indication, then I’m not sure why anyone would have much faith in the project’s future. Mind you: quality was never the universal language of studio executives, and Roddenberry purists might even point out that they tried all of this yet again – under the moniker of Strange New World (1975) – but this time without Gene’s involvement. I’ve not seen that one (yet), so I can’t speak to its efficacy; yet I can assure you that – based entirely on what I’ve read – it undoubtedly dumbed down these concepts even further, possibly to the point wherein it had little in common with groundwork. This future was inevitably shelved after that third attempt but let me shine a little reflection on Earth so that it doesn’t entirely vanish from genre history.
(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 few last paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A man awakens from suspended animation and finds himself in the 22nd century, where women rule the world and men are slaves called Dinks. He is captured and sold as a slave, but escapes and hooks up with a male rebel movement.”
For those who don’t know it, the two projects work very much like two sides of the same coin: Genesis II – as a pilot – didn’t quite have the interest of network suits, but – much like Roddenberry was given a second shot with his groundbreaking series Star Trek – Fate smiled on the Science Fiction and Fantasy creator by granting him another chance. Textually, Planet Earth kept a good deal of Genesis’s foundation – basically this was the future, our world had been decimated by global wars, and chief hero Dylan Hunt was tasked with bringing civilization back in style – but it plucked out a great deal of what made the original interesting. Instead of two organizations competing to control what’s left of our people and resources, Planet Earth basically starts with PAX – the peaceniks – pretty much in charge. They’ve put the future of mankind on their capable shoulders, and their ultimate goal would be to, essentially, put things in order once again. That’s what heroes do, after all, and that’s what we expect of them.
And why wouldn’t it work?
Planet Earth began with a feasible premise, but if this pilot film is any indication, then I’m not sure why anyone would have much faith in the project’s future. Mind you: quality was never the universal language of studio executives, and Roddenberry purists might even point out that they tried all of this yet again – under the moniker of Strange New World (1975) – but this time without Gene’s involvement. I’ve not seen that one (yet), so I can’t speak to its efficacy; yet I can assure you that – based entirely on what I’ve read – it undoubtedly dumbed down these concepts even further, possibly to the point wherein it had little in common with groundwork. This future was inevitably shelved after that third attempt but let me shine a little reflection on Earth so that it doesn’t entirely vanish from genre history.
(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 few last paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A man awakens from suspended animation and finds himself in the 22nd century, where women rule the world and men are slaves called Dinks. He is captured and sold as a slave, but escapes and hooks up with a male rebel movement.”
Sigh.
I’ve mentioned before that IMDB.com’s synopses are sometimes more wrong than they are right, and that’s the case – to a degree – with Planet Earth. The truth is that there’s a much grander backstory to the action here than is the case; in fact, while viewing Genesis II – the previous attempt to introduce this myth into entertainment – isn’t exactly a requirement to understand all that’s happening here, I’d still suggest doing so as the scripted shorthand here just isn’t enough. There’s a good deal of exposition that sets everything in motion; Roddenberry and Juanita Bartlett’s script is more than a bit clunky, leaving the true substance of Hunt’s journey lost in transition.
In this second pilot adventure, Dylan Hunt (played by John Saxon) is nearly as big and bold as was Roddenberry’s previous central figure, Captain James T. Kirk (brought to life by William Shatner). As much as this was arguably necessary to transition Genesis II from a story about ideas in conflict, it’s pretty clear that the requirements of weekly and/or episodic narratives practically required it at the time. Alex Cord played Hunt in Genesis II – a man more of thought and principle than he was of action – but Saxon clearly sinks his teeth into the machismo required of the second coming; and – despite some reservations I had with the story as told here – the actor proved he was more than up to the task. In fact, that’s likely what I missed most from this not being picked up: it could’ve been glorious to watch Saxon lord over a program in the way that Shatner did as he’s always been a favorite of mine.
At 74 minutes, I suspect that Planet Earth was ‘tooled’ to work as a 90-minute television event – something longer than the usual hour-format but notable less than a full theatrical treatment – and that works against the whole affair as there’s just not enough material to make this work. In fact, it sometimes feels as if this story started out as two episodes that were crammed together into one; and the end result is that it’s moderately bottom heavy with a second half that gets a bit scattered and looney. About the time that Hunt must both get drunk and then seduce the villainous Marg (Diana Muldaur), I would imagine audiences were either groaning if not outright reaching to turn the channel to find something else worth watching.
But what about that story?
I’ve mentioned before that IMDB.com’s synopses are sometimes more wrong than they are right, and that’s the case – to a degree – with Planet Earth. The truth is that there’s a much grander backstory to the action here than is the case; in fact, while viewing Genesis II – the previous attempt to introduce this myth into entertainment – isn’t exactly a requirement to understand all that’s happening here, I’d still suggest doing so as the scripted shorthand here just isn’t enough. There’s a good deal of exposition that sets everything in motion; Roddenberry and Juanita Bartlett’s script is more than a bit clunky, leaving the true substance of Hunt’s journey lost in transition.
In this second pilot adventure, Dylan Hunt (played by John Saxon) is nearly as big and bold as was Roddenberry’s previous central figure, Captain James T. Kirk (brought to life by William Shatner). As much as this was arguably necessary to transition Genesis II from a story about ideas in conflict, it’s pretty clear that the requirements of weekly and/or episodic narratives practically required it at the time. Alex Cord played Hunt in Genesis II – a man more of thought and principle than he was of action – but Saxon clearly sinks his teeth into the machismo required of the second coming; and – despite some reservations I had with the story as told here – the actor proved he was more than up to the task. In fact, that’s likely what I missed most from this not being picked up: it could’ve been glorious to watch Saxon lord over a program in the way that Shatner did as he’s always been a favorite of mine.
At 74 minutes, I suspect that Planet Earth was ‘tooled’ to work as a 90-minute television event – something longer than the usual hour-format but notable less than a full theatrical treatment – and that works against the whole affair as there’s just not enough material to make this work. In fact, it sometimes feels as if this story started out as two episodes that were crammed together into one; and the end result is that it’s moderately bottom heavy with a second half that gets a bit scattered and looney. About the time that Hunt must both get drunk and then seduce the villainous Marg (Diana Muldaur), I would imagine audiences were either groaning if not outright reaching to turn the channel to find something else worth watching.
But what about that story?
Well, Hunt and his crack squad are essentially sent out into the wastelands to locate and bring back a Dr. Jonathan Connor (Jim Antonio), a noted specialist who disappeared a year previously but is now needed to save their critically injured leader Pater Kimbridge (Rai Tasco). Lo and behold, it thankfully turns out that Connor didn’t make it all that far away after all, and he’s been living out his days as a kinda/sorta male consort after being purchased at auction by Marg. In the guise of a more suitable mate, Hunt allows himself to sold into servitude, thus allowing him and his partner Harper-Smythe (Janet Margolin) the chance to get inside the compound, recapture Connor, and send him back home so that Kimbridge’s life can be saved. But all of this must happen before some very Klingon-like species known as the Kreeg show up with the purpose of – ahem – putting the patriarchy back in control and reducing the surviving warrior women to, basically, pets … or something a bit more lascivious.
There’s a bit more to the whole shebang – Marg has been supplying a drug that turns adult males into whimpering fools (this is how womankind has been able to topple mankind) – but the point is simple: men are treated no better than livestock, and it’s meant to be a commentary on the social mores of the day (i.e. the 1970’s). Like Kirk would’ve done on Star Trek, Hunt aims to throw this society out of whack with his brazen bravado, ultimately reminding everyone that it takes two genders to tango – well, you know what I mean. Planet Earth was definitely the kind of thing TV audiences expected from SciFi and Fantasy shows of the era. Saxon delivers as does Muldaur but there’s no mistaking the fact that we’ve been here before, and I can’t help but imagine this is what doomed the pilot from any probable pick-up.
Still, Earth did bring along some other familiar faces in small roles who may or may not have been involved had it gone to series. Their contributions here were negligible, at best, and the Kreeg villains are mutants who look like they, too, could’ve been right at home in a weekly serial. Lastly, the telefilm benefits from some modest production design in that cars have been re-introduced on steam technology in lieu of the more traditional gas and oil. It even occasionally as a modest ‘Road Warrior’ feel to its apocalypse, and this was a few years before that Australian franchise would see life on the silver screen. Perhaps Roddenberry – always the technological prognosticator – even saw that world coming in his mind’s eye, eh?
Planet Earth (1974) was produced by Warner Bros. Television. The film is presently available on DVD via Warner Archive.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
It isn’t as if Planet Earth couldn’t have become something had this pilot telefilm – a kinda/sorta do-over of 1973’s Genesis II, which is a touch more thoughtful and interesting – been picked up and ushered to the airwaves, but it’s hard to see where Roddenberry and the creative crew could really have taken it that might’ve given it a measure of freshness it lacked here. Saxon is a capable talent, and I think his participation alone might’ve given an ongoing procedural a modicum of popularity amongst genre fans, but the end result here is some decidedly lowbrow antics that perhaps Science Fiction and Fantasy ought to leave behind.
-- EZ
There’s a bit more to the whole shebang – Marg has been supplying a drug that turns adult males into whimpering fools (this is how womankind has been able to topple mankind) – but the point is simple: men are treated no better than livestock, and it’s meant to be a commentary on the social mores of the day (i.e. the 1970’s). Like Kirk would’ve done on Star Trek, Hunt aims to throw this society out of whack with his brazen bravado, ultimately reminding everyone that it takes two genders to tango – well, you know what I mean. Planet Earth was definitely the kind of thing TV audiences expected from SciFi and Fantasy shows of the era. Saxon delivers as does Muldaur but there’s no mistaking the fact that we’ve been here before, and I can’t help but imagine this is what doomed the pilot from any probable pick-up.
Still, Earth did bring along some other familiar faces in small roles who may or may not have been involved had it gone to series. Their contributions here were negligible, at best, and the Kreeg villains are mutants who look like they, too, could’ve been right at home in a weekly serial. Lastly, the telefilm benefits from some modest production design in that cars have been re-introduced on steam technology in lieu of the more traditional gas and oil. It even occasionally as a modest ‘Road Warrior’ feel to its apocalypse, and this was a few years before that Australian franchise would see life on the silver screen. Perhaps Roddenberry – always the technological prognosticator – even saw that world coming in his mind’s eye, eh?
Planet Earth (1974) was produced by Warner Bros. Television. The film is presently available on DVD via Warner Archive.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
It isn’t as if Planet Earth couldn’t have become something had this pilot telefilm – a kinda/sorta do-over of 1973’s Genesis II, which is a touch more thoughtful and interesting – been picked up and ushered to the airwaves, but it’s hard to see where Roddenberry and the creative crew could really have taken it that might’ve given it a measure of freshness it lacked here. Saxon is a capable talent, and I think his participation alone might’ve given an ongoing procedural a modicum of popularity amongst genre fans, but the end result here is some decidedly lowbrow antics that perhaps Science Fiction and Fantasy ought to leave behind.
-- EZ
- Published on
First Order of Business:
Good morning and continued blessings to you and yours, gentle readers!
Second Order of Business:
No, no, and no: I haven't watched Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon, but thanks for asking. Honestly, I don't know that I will, and I say this specifically because the storyteller is already on record explaining that there will be another cut -- one more adult-themed, or something -- that kinda/sorta recaptures the story in a different way.
Now ... you folks know me: I don't usually do hole 'pile-on' when it comes to storytellers. I do think that the good ones deserve a bit of freedom to step out into the limelight and weave a yarn as distinctly as possible for discriminating audiences. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre did that all the time, and look how well it worked out for them? (No, no, and no: I'm not suggesting that Snyder is the reincarnation or Second Coming of Orson Welles.) Viewers go into a movie or television show with a level of expectation, and Snyder has shown himself capable of both working with what they expect and somehow going a bit more, even when less was what was truly needed. Without getting into any protracted cross examination of his library, I will say that his cut of Justice League is exactly how an epic myth should be told on the screen, and I'll leave it at that.
But with Rebel Moon ... this is a whole new playing field, so why in all that is holy would you start right out of the gate with two cuts? There's no audience established yet -- it's an entirely fresh IP, so far as I know -- and I'm starting to think that perhaps way more was bitten off than anyone could chew. No storyteller should be granted two unique different cuts just because, and when it looks so much like that's what was planned from the beginning then I'm not so sure that the audience's expectations were ever kept in mind. I'm a capitalist, so I can appreciate an obvious 'cash grab' here and there, but I'm really struggling with the corporate logic here with an untried premise.
So, frankly, I'm undecided at this point. I had fully intended to watch it and review it. Now that I know this cut may not even be the one that's intended to establish this story? I'm thinking, "Why bother?"
Third Order of Business:
Okay, okay, and okay. Now that we got that rumination out of the way, let's get down to the brass tacks, as they say.
You're here for the straight skinny, and the straight skinny is that -- sigh -- I still have some work to do in amping up the volume to 11 so far as December 23rd is concerned. Of course, there are some fabulous trivia references in here -- I accept nothing less -- but, presently, it's only a mind-boggling fifty-two different ones ... and my readers deserve more. My archives has quite a bit for addition, but -- this being the holidays -- my time is very limited. The wifey and I are taking off for our destination only a few hours from now, so, yeah, my time is VERY limited.
Without further ado ...
Good morning and continued blessings to you and yours, gentle readers!
Second Order of Business:
No, no, and no: I haven't watched Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon, but thanks for asking. Honestly, I don't know that I will, and I say this specifically because the storyteller is already on record explaining that there will be another cut -- one more adult-themed, or something -- that kinda/sorta recaptures the story in a different way.
Now ... you folks know me: I don't usually do hole 'pile-on' when it comes to storytellers. I do think that the good ones deserve a bit of freedom to step out into the limelight and weave a yarn as distinctly as possible for discriminating audiences. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre did that all the time, and look how well it worked out for them? (No, no, and no: I'm not suggesting that Snyder is the reincarnation or Second Coming of Orson Welles.) Viewers go into a movie or television show with a level of expectation, and Snyder has shown himself capable of both working with what they expect and somehow going a bit more, even when less was what was truly needed. Without getting into any protracted cross examination of his library, I will say that his cut of Justice League is exactly how an epic myth should be told on the screen, and I'll leave it at that.
But with Rebel Moon ... this is a whole new playing field, so why in all that is holy would you start right out of the gate with two cuts? There's no audience established yet -- it's an entirely fresh IP, so far as I know -- and I'm starting to think that perhaps way more was bitten off than anyone could chew. No storyteller should be granted two unique different cuts just because, and when it looks so much like that's what was planned from the beginning then I'm not so sure that the audience's expectations were ever kept in mind. I'm a capitalist, so I can appreciate an obvious 'cash grab' here and there, but I'm really struggling with the corporate logic here with an untried premise.
So, frankly, I'm undecided at this point. I had fully intended to watch it and review it. Now that I know this cut may not even be the one that's intended to establish this story? I'm thinking, "Why bother?"
Third Order of Business:
Okay, okay, and okay. Now that we got that rumination out of the way, let's get down to the brass tacks, as they say.
You're here for the straight skinny, and the straight skinny is that -- sigh -- I still have some work to do in amping up the volume to 11 so far as December 23rd is concerned. Of course, there are some fabulous trivia references in here -- I accept nothing less -- but, presently, it's only a mind-boggling fifty-two different ones ... and my readers deserve more. My archives has quite a bit for addition, but -- this being the holidays -- my time is very limited. The wifey and I are taking off for our destination only a few hours from now, so, yeah, my time is VERY limited.
Without further ado ...
As always, thank you for being a reader ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good afternoon and welcome to your daily announcement of SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror trivia, gentle readers! How is your day going thus far, eh?
Not a whole lot to report other than the usual today. Had to run a few errands this morning, and that's the reason for this lateness of this post. It isn't every December morning that we get some great weather, so you have to get while the getting's good, as they say, but I did want to pop in here for a few moments to give you the daily lowdown. There are a lot of great little blurbs up there in the Daily Citation Page, and I suspect you'll find something worth celebrating all of its own as well. I checked my archives, and I do have quite a bit more to add, but we'll see if I can get around to that this afternoon. Have a few other items I needed to get to, so my time here might be brief.
Perhaps the biggest pure SciFi anniversary today is, likely, that involving the theatrical launch of the 1978 incarnation of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. Now, it may lack some of the nuance of the original, but what it's missing there is definitely recouped in slimy creepiness. I remember rewatching that one last year -- I was provided a great new disc via a distributor -- and it was quite solid. I'd forgotten how many great stars actually made up that cast, so that was a great re-discovery all on its own. Donald Sutherland. Jeff Goldblum. Leonard Nimoy. Wow. Quite a line-up, and it remains an entertaining conspiracy yarn decades later. So, yes, I give that one a thumbs up. While it may not be a holiday classic, it's definitely worth your time.
Still, I'll let all of you get yourselves over to the business of the day. Here's what you're really waiting for, and I aim to please:
Not a whole lot to report other than the usual today. Had to run a few errands this morning, and that's the reason for this lateness of this post. It isn't every December morning that we get some great weather, so you have to get while the getting's good, as they say, but I did want to pop in here for a few moments to give you the daily lowdown. There are a lot of great little blurbs up there in the Daily Citation Page, and I suspect you'll find something worth celebrating all of its own as well. I checked my archives, and I do have quite a bit more to add, but we'll see if I can get around to that this afternoon. Have a few other items I needed to get to, so my time here might be brief.
Perhaps the biggest pure SciFi anniversary today is, likely, that involving the theatrical launch of the 1978 incarnation of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. Now, it may lack some of the nuance of the original, but what it's missing there is definitely recouped in slimy creepiness. I remember rewatching that one last year -- I was provided a great new disc via a distributor -- and it was quite solid. I'd forgotten how many great stars actually made up that cast, so that was a great re-discovery all on its own. Donald Sutherland. Jeff Goldblum. Leonard Nimoy. Wow. Quite a line-up, and it remains an entertaining conspiracy yarn decades later. So, yes, I give that one a thumbs up. While it may not be a holiday classic, it's definitely worth your time.
Still, I'll let all of you get yourselves over to the business of the day. Here's what you're really waiting for, and I aim to please:
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning ... and Happy Hump Day, gentle readers! How is the middle of your week shaping up?
I know, I know, I know. Who cares about Hump Day, am I right? Just wake me up when it's Friday, already! Well, if I did that, folks, then you'd miss all of that creative goodness I keep trying to drop on you each and every fun-filled day, so that's just not in the cards. Ship up, as they say, or shape out! Besides, the middle of the week is the perfect day to get your bearings -- if you haven't already -- as the weekend is right around the corner. It's all downhill from here, so I say you should just buckle up and enjoy what remains of the ride. That's good advice for life, too, generally speaking.
There's no a whole helluva lot to report from the SciFiHistory.Net News Desk this morning otherwise. I'm just puttering away, and I spent a good portion of the morning trying to get all of the particulars for today's Citation Page in order. In case you haven't noticed, there are a handful of formatting issues that have plagued me over the years. For those of you who don't know this, I maintained my trivia on a different web site many years ago -- not a different server, mind you, but a website belonging to a different person -- and the user interface only allowed for certain kinds of graphics, shapes, bells, whistles, and whatnot. It was something that a few of us over there were doing, but after a time it just reached the point wherein traffic was low, the site owner didn't quite show up often enough to keep spammers from infecting the place, and the riffraff started to make my work difficult. That's when I decided to hang it all up and do my own space. You know? Paint my own house. It's a great deal of work, but coming up on ten years in virtual existence there are still some of my graphics not quite up-to-snuff. When time permits, I try to concentrate on altering everything so that I'm in consistent parameters. It ain't easy -- and, yes, it takes a great deal of time -- but it's worth it, I think.
That's just a little bit of 'inside baseball.' I appreciate you peeps allowing me to vent such information from time-to-time as I think it helps us all get on the same page.
So ... seriously ... take a good look at today's page. I hope you can see the effort that goes into trying to treat each and every piece of information with the identical level of care it deserves. Again: it ain't perfect, but I keep pushing in the right direction, and I do hope it shows.
Here's the link:
I know, I know, I know. Who cares about Hump Day, am I right? Just wake me up when it's Friday, already! Well, if I did that, folks, then you'd miss all of that creative goodness I keep trying to drop on you each and every fun-filled day, so that's just not in the cards. Ship up, as they say, or shape out! Besides, the middle of the week is the perfect day to get your bearings -- if you haven't already -- as the weekend is right around the corner. It's all downhill from here, so I say you should just buckle up and enjoy what remains of the ride. That's good advice for life, too, generally speaking.
There's no a whole helluva lot to report from the SciFiHistory.Net News Desk this morning otherwise. I'm just puttering away, and I spent a good portion of the morning trying to get all of the particulars for today's Citation Page in order. In case you haven't noticed, there are a handful of formatting issues that have plagued me over the years. For those of you who don't know this, I maintained my trivia on a different web site many years ago -- not a different server, mind you, but a website belonging to a different person -- and the user interface only allowed for certain kinds of graphics, shapes, bells, whistles, and whatnot. It was something that a few of us over there were doing, but after a time it just reached the point wherein traffic was low, the site owner didn't quite show up often enough to keep spammers from infecting the place, and the riffraff started to make my work difficult. That's when I decided to hang it all up and do my own space. You know? Paint my own house. It's a great deal of work, but coming up on ten years in virtual existence there are still some of my graphics not quite up-to-snuff. When time permits, I try to concentrate on altering everything so that I'm in consistent parameters. It ain't easy -- and, yes, it takes a great deal of time -- but it's worth it, I think.
That's just a little bit of 'inside baseball.' I appreciate you peeps allowing me to vent such information from time-to-time as I think it helps us all get on the same page.
So ... seriously ... take a good look at today's page. I hope you can see the effort that goes into trying to treat each and every piece of information with the identical level of care it deserves. Again: it ain't perfect, but I keep pushing in the right direction, and I do hope it shows.
Here's the link:
I am a stickler for things being done a certain way. As you can guess, this has evolved a bit over the past ten years, so such 'catch-up' work can be very time consuming. Once it's all said and done, I'll most likely be well in the grave ... and, yet, I'll still rest easy knowing it's as close to perfect as I always intended.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I kid you not: I once got into a debate with a reviewer who insisted that the late Gene Roddenberry was little more than a ‘one hit wonder.’
Now, I’m going to bypass going into a full rundown of this person’s argument and supporting logic only to save all of us time. I will say that he didn’t mean it with any disrespect whatsoever, but the gist remained that outside of Star Trek – that space saga that’s stretched well into multiple decades – the writer and creator really hadn’t entered anything else into the entertainment lexicon. I naturally countered his position with some facts and figures he wasn’t as deeply aware of as I was, but – even after establishing the reality that there was a bit more to the award-winning fellow than meets the eye – the gentleman insisted that Roddenberry’s follow-up efforts never matched the grand tapestry of the Captain James T. Kirk original. Of that, there can be no doubt … and yet there fundamentally can be no denying that Gene’s ideas and ruminations about what lay ahead for all of mankind deserves more study. Readers of this piece might consider this just one such effort.
I’d seen bits and pieces of Genesis II (1973) over the years from a variety of outlets, and – quite frankly – several of the sequences were even horribly mislabeled, attributing footage to it that came from not one but two of the potential show’s spin-off attempts. Given how closely these three separate projects resemble one another in setting and characters, it’s easy to understand how that’s happened. But having watched both Genesis II and its direct descendant – 1974’s Planet Earth – in a single setting, I’m hoping to set the record straight with my thoughts on the first adventure, though I might have to clear up some of the confusion with a bit of focus on its somewhat misguided offspring.
Still, let me say categorically that I’ve never ever assumed Gene Roddenberry to be a one hit wonder. With Star Trek, Genesis II, Planet Earth, Spectre, Earth: Final Conflict, and Andromeda as feathers in his proverbial cap, he was anything but.
(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 …)
Now, I’m going to bypass going into a full rundown of this person’s argument and supporting logic only to save all of us time. I will say that he didn’t mean it with any disrespect whatsoever, but the gist remained that outside of Star Trek – that space saga that’s stretched well into multiple decades – the writer and creator really hadn’t entered anything else into the entertainment lexicon. I naturally countered his position with some facts and figures he wasn’t as deeply aware of as I was, but – even after establishing the reality that there was a bit more to the award-winning fellow than meets the eye – the gentleman insisted that Roddenberry’s follow-up efforts never matched the grand tapestry of the Captain James T. Kirk original. Of that, there can be no doubt … and yet there fundamentally can be no denying that Gene’s ideas and ruminations about what lay ahead for all of mankind deserves more study. Readers of this piece might consider this just one such effort.
I’d seen bits and pieces of Genesis II (1973) over the years from a variety of outlets, and – quite frankly – several of the sequences were even horribly mislabeled, attributing footage to it that came from not one but two of the potential show’s spin-off attempts. Given how closely these three separate projects resemble one another in setting and characters, it’s easy to understand how that’s happened. But having watched both Genesis II and its direct descendant – 1974’s Planet Earth – in a single setting, I’m hoping to set the record straight with my thoughts on the first adventure, though I might have to clear up some of the confusion with a bit of focus on its somewhat misguided offspring.
Still, let me say categorically that I’ve never ever assumed Gene Roddenberry to be a one hit wonder. With Star Trek, Genesis II, Planet Earth, Spectre, Earth: Final Conflict, and Andromeda as feathers in his proverbial cap, he was anything but.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A scientist who has been preserved in suspended animation wakes up to find himself in a primitive society in the future.”
As best as I understand my history of Roddenberry’s career, he had taken a much-earned sojourn from writing and producing, spending some time away from the hustle and bustle of the entertainment industry. But inspiration strikes in the least likely places, and – while on vacation – he came up with the idea for an all-new Science Fiction and Fantasy show. He had already proven with Star Trek that audiences liked such trips into tomorrow, and he latched upon the idea of one man awakening from suspended animation only to find that mankind had once again destroyed itself. This man, however, would make it his life’s mission to help put things right once again, and Roddenberry named this creation Dylan Hunt.
Now … buckle up, kids, because this is where it does get a bit confusing.
Any conversation involving Genesis II and its central hero – Dylan Hunt – might necessarily require some discussion surrounding Planet Earth, Roddenberry’s second attempt to harness the ideas of Genesis and turn it into a project befitting a weekly broadcast akin to Star Trek. (In case you missed it, then let me say that the first production didn’t exactly emerge as a barn-burner; and the man stuck to his guns with a loose sequel geared more toward what television executives expected of the day. He’d rather famously been given a second chance with Star Trek’s pilot, so this wasn’t unheard of when it comes to Roddenberry.) Furthermore, some of you true blue genre elites might be scratching your head over the realization that ‘Dylan Hunt’ was a name Roddenberry used yet again – along with similar concepts – in crafting his serialized space saga Andromeda (2000-2005). That incarnation saw star Kevin Sorbo in the role of rebuilding a galaxy-spanning ‘federation of planets’ that went by the name of the Commonwealth. Suffice it to say, these ideas stayed in the forefront of Roddenberry’s fertile imagination, and who could blame the man for sticking with what he had done so uniquely well over the years?
For the purposes of this review, however, I’m going to now disconnect from any significant comparisons between these similar properties. I’ll likely reference Planet Earth again, but I think readers will understand why when I do.
“A scientist who has been preserved in suspended animation wakes up to find himself in a primitive society in the future.”
As best as I understand my history of Roddenberry’s career, he had taken a much-earned sojourn from writing and producing, spending some time away from the hustle and bustle of the entertainment industry. But inspiration strikes in the least likely places, and – while on vacation – he came up with the idea for an all-new Science Fiction and Fantasy show. He had already proven with Star Trek that audiences liked such trips into tomorrow, and he latched upon the idea of one man awakening from suspended animation only to find that mankind had once again destroyed itself. This man, however, would make it his life’s mission to help put things right once again, and Roddenberry named this creation Dylan Hunt.
Now … buckle up, kids, because this is where it does get a bit confusing.
Any conversation involving Genesis II and its central hero – Dylan Hunt – might necessarily require some discussion surrounding Planet Earth, Roddenberry’s second attempt to harness the ideas of Genesis and turn it into a project befitting a weekly broadcast akin to Star Trek. (In case you missed it, then let me say that the first production didn’t exactly emerge as a barn-burner; and the man stuck to his guns with a loose sequel geared more toward what television executives expected of the day. He’d rather famously been given a second chance with Star Trek’s pilot, so this wasn’t unheard of when it comes to Roddenberry.) Furthermore, some of you true blue genre elites might be scratching your head over the realization that ‘Dylan Hunt’ was a name Roddenberry used yet again – along with similar concepts – in crafting his serialized space saga Andromeda (2000-2005). That incarnation saw star Kevin Sorbo in the role of rebuilding a galaxy-spanning ‘federation of planets’ that went by the name of the Commonwealth. Suffice it to say, these ideas stayed in the forefront of Roddenberry’s fertile imagination, and who could blame the man for sticking with what he had done so uniquely well over the years?
For the purposes of this review, however, I’m going to now disconnect from any significant comparisons between these similar properties. I’ll likely reference Planet Earth again, but I think readers will understand why when I do.
Aboard Genesis II, Hunt (played by Alex Cord, whom genre fans might recognize from TV’s Airwolf) spearheaded Project Ganymede, a program originally intended for astronauts to utilize a form of suspended animation for deep space travel. On the day of the first test, the scientist is sealed into a small chamber that, unfortunately, is soon buried under rubble resulting from a sudden earthquake. Two centuries later, explorers of the PAX society unearth the room, and Hunt finds himself awakened in the year 2133.
As tends to happen in Science Fiction television shows, civilization has collapsed; and mankind has splintered into various factions. In the United States, the two major factions – the PAX and the Tyranians – remain in conflict; and – early in the film – Hunt is uncertain as to who has what remains of our planet and its inhabitants’ best wishes in mind. Initially, the scientist sides with the lovely Lyra-a (Mariette Hartley), a Tyranian spy who helped the PAX people by nursing him back to health; but in the second half he discovers that her ulterior motives might inadvertently gives her people a technological superiority meant to end the conflict but could decimate all survivors with a nuclear blast.
There’s a bit more to the story, but as this summarizes the main conflict, I’ll leave it there. Slowly, Hunt realizes that the Tyranians are truly Fascists at heart, he joins with the growing slave rebellion by arming them with pain-dispensing rods (like today’s tazers) and eventually rigging a power plant to destroy their city. So what audiences are treated to with Genesis II – as they had been previously with so many episodes of Star Trek – were discussions of politics and oppression, of justice and compassion, and of personal liberty squared off against the collective good. To fully side with the PAX people in the last reel, Hunt must agree to never take another human life as their code of conduct prohibits murder under any and all circumstances, even in the face of necessity. It’s safe to suggest that, as strongly as morality was put under the microscope by the crew of the Starship Enterprise, Roddenberry planned much the same with Genesis II, and why shouldn’t it? That formula worked so well the first time it was applied that a thematic sequel could work equal wonders.
On its own merits, Genesis looks and feels very much like it could’ve existed in the fictional downtime rarely explored between Earth’s collapse (in Star Trek time) and the foundation of Starfleet and the Federation. Scripts and stories in that big universe often suggested that our planet went through some very dark decades before emerging into the light, and maybe this is the vein Roddenberry was trying to tap with this script. Arguably, Planet Earth – the aforementioned follow-up to the telefilm – even pushes the Trek formula further (it essentially recasts the scientist Hunt into the action figure format emboldened by Captain Kirk himself), but we’ll never know for certain as no subsequent series ever materialized … at least, not in this fashion.
Genesis production standards are quite good. The sets for the telefilm’s subterranean shuttles are wonderfully elaborate for the time – apparently, mankind existed long enough to manufacture a subway-style system spanning the nation, and this remaining technology is what gave the PAX people their strategic advantage over other developing cultures. Once the story moves to the Tyranian city, I could argue that it feels even more like a 1960’s Star Trek spin-off as characters are garbed in tunics, jumpsuits, and the like, many of which look exceedingly similar to those worn by Trek guest stars. What can I say? Even in the future, “it’s a small world after all.”
As tends to happen in Science Fiction television shows, civilization has collapsed; and mankind has splintered into various factions. In the United States, the two major factions – the PAX and the Tyranians – remain in conflict; and – early in the film – Hunt is uncertain as to who has what remains of our planet and its inhabitants’ best wishes in mind. Initially, the scientist sides with the lovely Lyra-a (Mariette Hartley), a Tyranian spy who helped the PAX people by nursing him back to health; but in the second half he discovers that her ulterior motives might inadvertently gives her people a technological superiority meant to end the conflict but could decimate all survivors with a nuclear blast.
There’s a bit more to the story, but as this summarizes the main conflict, I’ll leave it there. Slowly, Hunt realizes that the Tyranians are truly Fascists at heart, he joins with the growing slave rebellion by arming them with pain-dispensing rods (like today’s tazers) and eventually rigging a power plant to destroy their city. So what audiences are treated to with Genesis II – as they had been previously with so many episodes of Star Trek – were discussions of politics and oppression, of justice and compassion, and of personal liberty squared off against the collective good. To fully side with the PAX people in the last reel, Hunt must agree to never take another human life as their code of conduct prohibits murder under any and all circumstances, even in the face of necessity. It’s safe to suggest that, as strongly as morality was put under the microscope by the crew of the Starship Enterprise, Roddenberry planned much the same with Genesis II, and why shouldn’t it? That formula worked so well the first time it was applied that a thematic sequel could work equal wonders.
On its own merits, Genesis looks and feels very much like it could’ve existed in the fictional downtime rarely explored between Earth’s collapse (in Star Trek time) and the foundation of Starfleet and the Federation. Scripts and stories in that big universe often suggested that our planet went through some very dark decades before emerging into the light, and maybe this is the vein Roddenberry was trying to tap with this script. Arguably, Planet Earth – the aforementioned follow-up to the telefilm – even pushes the Trek formula further (it essentially recasts the scientist Hunt into the action figure format emboldened by Captain Kirk himself), but we’ll never know for certain as no subsequent series ever materialized … at least, not in this fashion.
Genesis production standards are quite good. The sets for the telefilm’s subterranean shuttles are wonderfully elaborate for the time – apparently, mankind existed long enough to manufacture a subway-style system spanning the nation, and this remaining technology is what gave the PAX people their strategic advantage over other developing cultures. Once the story moves to the Tyranian city, I could argue that it feels even more like a 1960’s Star Trek spin-off as characters are garbed in tunics, jumpsuits, and the like, many of which look exceedingly similar to those worn by Trek guest stars. What can I say? Even in the future, “it’s a small world after all.”
As for the on-screen talent? Cord is quite good, though he definitely lacks the sometime blustering conviction of the famed Captain Kirk. The truth is that his character is required to be a bit more pensive and thoughtful than a Starfleet officer would, so perhaps that’s the reason for so much difference between the two men. Genre regular Ted Cassidy gets solid screen time as the muscular ‘Isiah,’ one of the rebels pushing back against the Tyranian tyranny. While Hartley is about as fetching as ever – audiences were even treated to her characters not one but two navels (don’t worry, it’s a plot point, not authentically two belly buttons) – her central character never quite congeals. At times, she’s obviously villainous, but Roddenberry’s script suggests that there may’ve been a heart of gold – two of them, apparently – beating beneath her porcelain skin.
Without question, I think the greatest reason any person should take a gander at Genesis II is that there’s so much of what consumed Roddenberry’s ideals on full display. As I’ve mentioned, it isn’t difficult at all to see how closely this story aligns with the intellectual right stuff given amble disclosure in Trek and beyond, so the storyteller’s fingerprints are all over this. Precisely where he could’ve taken this concoction might inevitably be little more than conjecture, but there’s no discounting its lineage. This sprang from the recesses of a mind that had already put great thought into such matters, and I think it deserves to be studied by not only Trek enthusiasts but also by Science Fiction aficionados everywhere. It may not be perfect … but it’s most definitely Roddenberry.
Genesis II (1973) was produced by Norway Productions and Warner Bros. Television. The film is currently available on DVD under the Warner Archive imprint.
Mildly recommended.
While imperfect and extraordinarily similar to several other Science Fiction franchises and stories, Genesis II occasionally looks and sounds interesting, and yet it never quite ‘sticks the landing.’ There’s far too much nebulousness to the whole affair – character alliances, the wider state of the world outside, and just how some technology survives yet much else doesn’t – and a greater cohesive whole might very well have inspired both studio and network suits to carry it forward in whatever fashion they deemed deliverable. Roddenberry purists deserve to give it a spin, as there’s plenty in there that the storyteller has touched upon again and again – even with some familiar faces – and they’ll no doubt delight themselves with thoughts of ‘what could’ve been.’
-- EZ
Without question, I think the greatest reason any person should take a gander at Genesis II is that there’s so much of what consumed Roddenberry’s ideals on full display. As I’ve mentioned, it isn’t difficult at all to see how closely this story aligns with the intellectual right stuff given amble disclosure in Trek and beyond, so the storyteller’s fingerprints are all over this. Precisely where he could’ve taken this concoction might inevitably be little more than conjecture, but there’s no discounting its lineage. This sprang from the recesses of a mind that had already put great thought into such matters, and I think it deserves to be studied by not only Trek enthusiasts but also by Science Fiction aficionados everywhere. It may not be perfect … but it’s most definitely Roddenberry.
Genesis II (1973) was produced by Norway Productions and Warner Bros. Television. The film is currently available on DVD under the Warner Archive imprint.
Mildly recommended.
While imperfect and extraordinarily similar to several other Science Fiction franchises and stories, Genesis II occasionally looks and sounds interesting, and yet it never quite ‘sticks the landing.’ There’s far too much nebulousness to the whole affair – character alliances, the wider state of the world outside, and just how some technology survives yet much else doesn’t – and a greater cohesive whole might very well have inspired both studio and network suits to carry it forward in whatever fashion they deemed deliverable. Roddenberry purists deserve to give it a spin, as there’s plenty in there that the storyteller has touched upon again and again – even with some familiar faces – and they’ll no doubt delight themselves with thoughts of ‘what could’ve been.’
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning and Happy Tuesday, gentle readers! Here's hoping that your new week is off to a grand start!
Me? Well, thanks for asking. I'm doing better today. On the mend -- had a flu bug or something over the weekend that stretched into yesterday -- it would seem, and I'm happily blogging the day away as per usual. Not a whole lot on the docket for the remainder of the day -- have to get some house errands done and maybe a bit more laundry -- but that's really all I can think of right now. It's a cloudy day outside -- a rarity in the other land down under, Arizona, that I call home -- so I'm actually enjoying the view right now. We get so very little rain and/or storms down here that a bit of dreary skies is a welcome sight, I hate to admit.
Yes, yes, and yes: those of you who asked, I did sound off -- albeit briefly -- this morning on the Jonathan Majors issue. (You can find my thoughts right here.) I think there are a few of you who like to taunt me with 'gotcha' style questions, hoping that I'll sound off on whatever subject-of-the-week interests you and say something a bit contradictory to my usual statement on social matters and/or popular events ... but the truth is I do try very hard not to concern myself with things like that, and I think you should to. While I like thinking about it from a broader perspective -- maybe what it means culturally or financially -- I really don't care how the guy lives his life. Each of us gets to make those choices; and -- if it should happen to boil over into the public square -- then each of us suffers the consequences, whatever that may be.
I will add to what I wrote over there that I do think the question of how it impacts Marvel is open for discussion. Yes, it looks as if the Mouse House and Marvel Studios are going to have to alter the course a bit; and I'll always concede that those developments are worthy of discussion. Still, because I've no way of knowing much less predicting how those alterations could possibly metastasize on screens big or small I tend to leave those matters to others. I've no sources who could give me a scoop on what's next, so ... there. It's fascinating ... but I'll see what happens next. That's all I can truly do.
On the news front, I did receive a few new(ish) releases yesterday via a distributor relationship, so I've a few forthcoming flicks to watch. Nothing new and/or singularly impressive -- honestly, I prefer thinking and writing about older productions anyway as opposed to some of the newer overhyped stuff -- so I'll keep you posted in this space as I get around to it. I also spent some time on Sunday -- several hours, in fact -- watching some older Gene Roddenberry yarns. I screened Genesis II, Planet Earth, and The Questor Tapes -- all for the very first time -- and reviews will be forthcoming on the MainPage. It is glorious to see what could've been, and I think you'll all be pleasantly surprised.
In the meantime, what can I offer you? Well, how about an eye-opening 65 different trivia citations on glorious display?
Me? Well, thanks for asking. I'm doing better today. On the mend -- had a flu bug or something over the weekend that stretched into yesterday -- it would seem, and I'm happily blogging the day away as per usual. Not a whole lot on the docket for the remainder of the day -- have to get some house errands done and maybe a bit more laundry -- but that's really all I can think of right now. It's a cloudy day outside -- a rarity in the other land down under, Arizona, that I call home -- so I'm actually enjoying the view right now. We get so very little rain and/or storms down here that a bit of dreary skies is a welcome sight, I hate to admit.
Yes, yes, and yes: those of you who asked, I did sound off -- albeit briefly -- this morning on the Jonathan Majors issue. (You can find my thoughts right here.) I think there are a few of you who like to taunt me with 'gotcha' style questions, hoping that I'll sound off on whatever subject-of-the-week interests you and say something a bit contradictory to my usual statement on social matters and/or popular events ... but the truth is I do try very hard not to concern myself with things like that, and I think you should to. While I like thinking about it from a broader perspective -- maybe what it means culturally or financially -- I really don't care how the guy lives his life. Each of us gets to make those choices; and -- if it should happen to boil over into the public square -- then each of us suffers the consequences, whatever that may be.
I will add to what I wrote over there that I do think the question of how it impacts Marvel is open for discussion. Yes, it looks as if the Mouse House and Marvel Studios are going to have to alter the course a bit; and I'll always concede that those developments are worthy of discussion. Still, because I've no way of knowing much less predicting how those alterations could possibly metastasize on screens big or small I tend to leave those matters to others. I've no sources who could give me a scoop on what's next, so ... there. It's fascinating ... but I'll see what happens next. That's all I can truly do.
On the news front, I did receive a few new(ish) releases yesterday via a distributor relationship, so I've a few forthcoming flicks to watch. Nothing new and/or singularly impressive -- honestly, I prefer thinking and writing about older productions anyway as opposed to some of the newer overhyped stuff -- so I'll keep you posted in this space as I get around to it. I also spent some time on Sunday -- several hours, in fact -- watching some older Gene Roddenberry yarns. I screened Genesis II, Planet Earth, and The Questor Tapes -- all for the very first time -- and reviews will be forthcoming on the MainPage. It is glorious to see what could've been, and I think you'll all be pleasantly surprised.
In the meantime, what can I offer you? Well, how about an eye-opening 65 different trivia citations on glorious display?
Seriously, there's a good deal up there to love today. There are some great projects -- some big and small -- deserving of your attention and affection, and I'll encourage each of you to surf on over and check it out.
As always, THANK YOU for being a reader. It gives me great joy to know that you're here and that you and I share these fascinations. THANK YOU for sharing. (Seriously, my hit count went through the roof yesterday.) THANK YOU for being a fan. And ... live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Stardate 12.19.2023.A: How The Mighty Have Fallen - A Few Words On Marvel's Jonathan Majors Collapse
One of the downsides to being a media pundit -- even a small one like me -- is that readers will occasionally reach out asking for one's particular thoughts on a particular subject ... especially those involving more than a bit of controversy.
Longtime readers of this space will tell you that I rarely -- and I do mean rarely -- comment on such things. Unlike other sites, I'm not a click/bait figurehead, though I probably like to be shared as much as the next bloke. I do tend to avoid subject matter that gets into political arenas, though I'm also very willing to admit at each and every opportunity that I lean a bit more to the Right Side of the aisle than I do the Left. My philosophy about avoiding such matters is that they're essentially transient: they don't last. They're hot button topics -- they're clickworthy for a few days to a few weeks -- and then they disappear into the ether. I'd rather expend physical and mental energies talking about ideas and actors and films and TV shows that endure -- as well as expounding upon why I think they endure -- than get lost in the brouhaha of celebrity news.
Still, sometimes a word here and there is a worthy exercise, especially if I get asked. If nothing else, when I'm asked, then I understand that it's of interest to the readership ... and that's the case today with the whole Jonathan Majors kerfuffle.
Now, I've no interest in reliving the guy's issues. Let's agree to the Starting Point that he had some anger issues that with a certain lady, and those behaviors ultimately boiled over into the public arena. This understandably led to some legal exercises on the part of said "victim" (yes, I'm using the quotes on victim because I'm not a student of this thing and the word has too many positive and negative connotations for me to go into at this time), and the end result of which was that, just yesterday, Majors was found guilty ... and we are where we are.
It wasn't long after the announced conviction that Marvel dropped the actor from his stewardship over the role of Kang in the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Those are the facts -- or, at least, that's the summary of facts that are relevant so far as this writer is concerned -- and I've been asked my thoughts on the matter.
So ... here they are.
I rarely get involved in the lives of these celebrities. I may sound off on them occasionally here and there, but -- as a general practice -- I really don't much give a damn what they do. You see, the way I figure things is you have to sign up for a certain amount of public exposure when you agree to a life on the screen -- big or small -- so when and if your good or bad behaviors get out there in the general atmosphere then there's likely going to be some consequence. That's just the reality of the world and the way crap works in Hollyweird -- you sign on the dotted line for everything that comes your way -- and that Grim Reaper commands stiff price in exchange for your soul.
But ... does this "derail" the whole Marvel entity?
Well ... of course not.
Last I checked, the whole Marvel business wasn't exactly in smooth waters to begin with. The Marvels pretty much tanked, and there was little to no interest in the past few streaming affairs. The web itself has made bank on the rumors of allegedly completed Marvel films going for endless reshoots. And -- in case you missed it -- Marvel's owner is financially and intellectually bankrupt. So this whole thang with Majors is, literally, chump change in the prospects for that studio's future.
I leave questions about "should he or shouldn't he" have lost his job to the studio's lawyers. Really, folks: there's nothing for us in attempting to answer those queries. Ultimately, what I think has no effect on the world-at-large -- there is no authentic Butterfly Effect as it relates to the machinations of a wild blogger ... but the comparisons I've read to the trials and tribulations of Ezra Miller have drawn my attention.
Look ... Miller's public behaviors were pretty bizarre. I'm not sure how they match up to Majors, honestly. (As I said, I just don't follow this stuff all that closely as I find it unimportant on so many levels.) Toxicity -- whether we like it or not -- kinda/sorta falls under that whole "there's no such thing as bad advertising" heading, and perhaps the suits at Warner Bros. and DC Studios decided 'rolling with the punches' was a better strategy. It isn't as if the news of Majors' trouble derailed his work within Marvel Studios; it's just that they decided all of it had a finish line, and that was crossed yesterday.
Others have fallen farther and faster than Majors.
Hollywood is replete with scandal after scandal, and -- only on rare occasions, so far as I can see -- has something like this effectively ended a career. As it's been remarked by those in the know, everyone was well aware of what Harvey Weinstein was doing for years, and it never got in the way of his co-conspirators celebrating his efforts at each and every awards show. I don't think this'll be the last we'll ever see of Jonathan -- I hope this development gives him pause and, if needed, that he seeks out the assistance to make peace in whatever way he can -- but all of that starts with the admission that a problem exists. That's why I don't give a damn about, say, Will Smith's predicament: he refuses to admit that there's a problem, so he can't be helped much less applauded for whatever meager public efforts he presents as 'evidence' that he's improving.
These things, sadly, happen. Life is, unfortunately, sometimes ugly. Solutions, inevitably, come from dark destinations ... so I'll simply wish Majors well on his continued journey.
-- EZ
Longtime readers of this space will tell you that I rarely -- and I do mean rarely -- comment on such things. Unlike other sites, I'm not a click/bait figurehead, though I probably like to be shared as much as the next bloke. I do tend to avoid subject matter that gets into political arenas, though I'm also very willing to admit at each and every opportunity that I lean a bit more to the Right Side of the aisle than I do the Left. My philosophy about avoiding such matters is that they're essentially transient: they don't last. They're hot button topics -- they're clickworthy for a few days to a few weeks -- and then they disappear into the ether. I'd rather expend physical and mental energies talking about ideas and actors and films and TV shows that endure -- as well as expounding upon why I think they endure -- than get lost in the brouhaha of celebrity news.
Still, sometimes a word here and there is a worthy exercise, especially if I get asked. If nothing else, when I'm asked, then I understand that it's of interest to the readership ... and that's the case today with the whole Jonathan Majors kerfuffle.
Now, I've no interest in reliving the guy's issues. Let's agree to the Starting Point that he had some anger issues that with a certain lady, and those behaviors ultimately boiled over into the public arena. This understandably led to some legal exercises on the part of said "victim" (yes, I'm using the quotes on victim because I'm not a student of this thing and the word has too many positive and negative connotations for me to go into at this time), and the end result of which was that, just yesterday, Majors was found guilty ... and we are where we are.
It wasn't long after the announced conviction that Marvel dropped the actor from his stewardship over the role of Kang in the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Those are the facts -- or, at least, that's the summary of facts that are relevant so far as this writer is concerned -- and I've been asked my thoughts on the matter.
So ... here they are.
I rarely get involved in the lives of these celebrities. I may sound off on them occasionally here and there, but -- as a general practice -- I really don't much give a damn what they do. You see, the way I figure things is you have to sign up for a certain amount of public exposure when you agree to a life on the screen -- big or small -- so when and if your good or bad behaviors get out there in the general atmosphere then there's likely going to be some consequence. That's just the reality of the world and the way crap works in Hollyweird -- you sign on the dotted line for everything that comes your way -- and that Grim Reaper commands stiff price in exchange for your soul.
But ... does this "derail" the whole Marvel entity?
Well ... of course not.
Last I checked, the whole Marvel business wasn't exactly in smooth waters to begin with. The Marvels pretty much tanked, and there was little to no interest in the past few streaming affairs. The web itself has made bank on the rumors of allegedly completed Marvel films going for endless reshoots. And -- in case you missed it -- Marvel's owner is financially and intellectually bankrupt. So this whole thang with Majors is, literally, chump change in the prospects for that studio's future.
I leave questions about "should he or shouldn't he" have lost his job to the studio's lawyers. Really, folks: there's nothing for us in attempting to answer those queries. Ultimately, what I think has no effect on the world-at-large -- there is no authentic Butterfly Effect as it relates to the machinations of a wild blogger ... but the comparisons I've read to the trials and tribulations of Ezra Miller have drawn my attention.
Look ... Miller's public behaviors were pretty bizarre. I'm not sure how they match up to Majors, honestly. (As I said, I just don't follow this stuff all that closely as I find it unimportant on so many levels.) Toxicity -- whether we like it or not -- kinda/sorta falls under that whole "there's no such thing as bad advertising" heading, and perhaps the suits at Warner Bros. and DC Studios decided 'rolling with the punches' was a better strategy. It isn't as if the news of Majors' trouble derailed his work within Marvel Studios; it's just that they decided all of it had a finish line, and that was crossed yesterday.
Others have fallen farther and faster than Majors.
Hollywood is replete with scandal after scandal, and -- only on rare occasions, so far as I can see -- has something like this effectively ended a career. As it's been remarked by those in the know, everyone was well aware of what Harvey Weinstein was doing for years, and it never got in the way of his co-conspirators celebrating his efforts at each and every awards show. I don't think this'll be the last we'll ever see of Jonathan -- I hope this development gives him pause and, if needed, that he seeks out the assistance to make peace in whatever way he can -- but all of that starts with the admission that a problem exists. That's why I don't give a damn about, say, Will Smith's predicament: he refuses to admit that there's a problem, so he can't be helped much less applauded for whatever meager public efforts he presents as 'evidence' that he's improving.
These things, sadly, happen. Life is, unfortunately, sometimes ugly. Solutions, inevitably, come from dark destinations ... so I'll simply wish Majors well on his continued journey.
-- EZ
- Published on
In all honesty, the list of my problems with 1979's The Black Hole would be too numerous to mention in this space. Someday, my promise to you is that I'll pen a full review / retrospective, and that'll be like a confession. All of this isn't to say that I don't like the picture, but -- in truth -- I don't like the picture that much.
Now, I have read that like many pictures Black Hole kinda/sorta languished in development for a short time. If I have my facts correct, it actually began as a space disaster movie -- something in the vein of Irwin Allen's popular disaster movies that were big box office for the day -- but several iterations of a shooting script couldn't quite get the central idea right ... and -- also as I understand it -- that whole 'black hole' idea wasn't even part of the first several attempts. Somewhere in the mid-1970's, the writing was dusted off and the whole idea of the collapsed star was inserted; and yet no screenwriter could come up with anything that worked, at least so far as the financiers were concerned. As many of you know, Star Wars arrived in 1977, and the George Lucas property quite literally lit a fire under every major studio: there was a frenzy to tap into Science Fiction and Fantasy, so the Mouse House pulled out the script yet again and fast-tracked it for production.
For what it's worth, I've also thought that Black Hole felt like a story that evolved from something else. I never quite understood how -- twenty years earlier -- Earth had produced a ship the size of the Cygnus for space exploration only to -- twenty years later -- have something like the Palomino tasked with the same duties. It just never quite gelled -- there should've been some greater backstory explaining these differences along with their respective missions -- but, inevitably these things happen when second-tier ideas get bumped up to prime real estate. That and the fact that the project went into production without an ending -- what truly awaited the crew that were going to find themselves inside the Black Hole wasn't decided until the very last minute -- pretty much tells me that I was right all along to question how much of this was 'fixed' in post production ... and that's rarely a good thing.
And another thing?
Tonally, the film just never quite works. It was clear that certain storytelling ideas suggested that the Walt Disney Company was ready, willing, and able to push their cinematic fare into let's say is more adult territory. There are some rather gruesome elements to Black Hole -- including a rather grisly death here and there -- that kinda/sorta defies the studio's usual focus on kiddie adventures. But because this was still a Disney production, I think the producers felt it a prerequisite to include some simpler pieces -- i.e. the exceedingly kid-friendly robots along with a dumbing down of the science of the day that had both discovered and was interested in such ideas of black holes -- and, again, these two worlds never merged effectively.
Still, I don't like dissecting too much any intellectual property on its birthday, so I'll leave it at that for today. Instead, I'll celebrate the fact that The Black Hole did come into being, and it brought with it one of the more talented casts of players for an occasionally thoughtful space yarn. It's also a flick that has been tossed around now and then with suggestions for a reboot; and I, for one, would definitely be interested in seeing this curious oddity get its own thematic do-over.
So ... Happy Birthday, The Black Hole! Who ever knew you'd look so grand at 44 years young!
-- EZ
Now, I have read that like many pictures Black Hole kinda/sorta languished in development for a short time. If I have my facts correct, it actually began as a space disaster movie -- something in the vein of Irwin Allen's popular disaster movies that were big box office for the day -- but several iterations of a shooting script couldn't quite get the central idea right ... and -- also as I understand it -- that whole 'black hole' idea wasn't even part of the first several attempts. Somewhere in the mid-1970's, the writing was dusted off and the whole idea of the collapsed star was inserted; and yet no screenwriter could come up with anything that worked, at least so far as the financiers were concerned. As many of you know, Star Wars arrived in 1977, and the George Lucas property quite literally lit a fire under every major studio: there was a frenzy to tap into Science Fiction and Fantasy, so the Mouse House pulled out the script yet again and fast-tracked it for production.
For what it's worth, I've also thought that Black Hole felt like a story that evolved from something else. I never quite understood how -- twenty years earlier -- Earth had produced a ship the size of the Cygnus for space exploration only to -- twenty years later -- have something like the Palomino tasked with the same duties. It just never quite gelled -- there should've been some greater backstory explaining these differences along with their respective missions -- but, inevitably these things happen when second-tier ideas get bumped up to prime real estate. That and the fact that the project went into production without an ending -- what truly awaited the crew that were going to find themselves inside the Black Hole wasn't decided until the very last minute -- pretty much tells me that I was right all along to question how much of this was 'fixed' in post production ... and that's rarely a good thing.
And another thing?
Tonally, the film just never quite works. It was clear that certain storytelling ideas suggested that the Walt Disney Company was ready, willing, and able to push their cinematic fare into let's say is more adult territory. There are some rather gruesome elements to Black Hole -- including a rather grisly death here and there -- that kinda/sorta defies the studio's usual focus on kiddie adventures. But because this was still a Disney production, I think the producers felt it a prerequisite to include some simpler pieces -- i.e. the exceedingly kid-friendly robots along with a dumbing down of the science of the day that had both discovered and was interested in such ideas of black holes -- and, again, these two worlds never merged effectively.
Still, I don't like dissecting too much any intellectual property on its birthday, so I'll leave it at that for today. Instead, I'll celebrate the fact that The Black Hole did come into being, and it brought with it one of the more talented casts of players for an occasionally thoughtful space yarn. It's also a flick that has been tossed around now and then with suggestions for a reboot; and I, for one, would definitely be interested in seeing this curious oddity get its own thematic do-over.
So ... Happy Birthday, The Black Hole! Who ever knew you'd look so grand at 44 years young!
-- EZ