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.
​

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

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

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.
​

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

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.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

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.
​

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

It isn't as if the greater Marvel Universe is suffering from under-exposure.  Now word slips out via the Information Superhighway that Disney+ has even more Marvel in the works by way of a serialized program set in the world of Black Panther's fictional Wakanda.

Those interested in knowing a bit more are encouraged to check out the link right here.

Even though I'm hardly the biggest Marvel fan on the planet (I've always been more of a DC Comics guy myself), I certainly found the first Black Panther film very well made, even if a bit formulaic.  Chadwick Boseman's performance was certainly the heart of the film, and I've been watching the developments within Marvel since the actor's untimely passing.  Despite what anyone says, it's going to be very difficult to step into those shoes as that property continues to evolve.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Ah, life can be cruel, but it's the little moments each of us leads that truly makes the difference; and a critical favorite like Hal Holbrook will not be remembered by most for his contributions to genre entertainment.  In fact, his career was definitely time well spent in much more conventional fare than I tend to highlight in this space on SciFiHistory.Net.  Still, I choose to remember this talented thespian for those 'little moments' when he crossed over into the worlds of Science Fiction and Fantasy giving all of us a taste of what a master of his craft the man truly was.

Truth is Holbrook first caught my eye with his work aboard the incredible late 1970's SciFi/Thriller Capricorn One in which he played one of the medical doctors who broke the word to the astronauts that they weren't going to the Moon, that they couldn't go to the Moon, as it would cause their deaths.  Instead, he convinced all of them to cooperate with the charade of faking a Moon landing because it would be for the good of all mankind.  It was a bit nefarious, true, but it was a solid, memorable performance.

Then, in television's 2010-2011 season, I was thrilled to see the man step back into the world of conspiracy aboard the great and underrated single season SciFi/Thriller The Event for NBC.  Indeed, he was once more cast in the role of a mover and a shaker behind-the-scenes of what was truly going on, and it's sad that the program didn't get out of that season alive.  It could've made for great entertainment.

The actor leaves behind a career spanning seven incredible decades, and that's a feat worth celebrating.

May he rest in peace.

-- EZ

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