Many moons ago, I was approached by someone who offered to write movie news for SciFiHistory.Net.

We went back and forth over several emails regarding what it was this person actually wanted to write.  'Movie news' is a pretty vague premise, so I wanted to pick his mind about what exactly he was defining as legitimately newsworthy.  Was it forthcoming releases?  Was it combining reviews about major pictures and creating his own column?  Was this actor and actress bios?  Was this box office performance?  As you can guess, there are a lot of blurbs that could be considered part and parcel of 'movie news,' so I was seeking a bit of direction.

Well, what it boiled down to was he wanted to kinda/sorta create his own space regarding projects in development; and I think that's a noble goal.  At the time, I stated that it just wasn't something I was all that interested in for one single reason: there are an awful lot of projects that start and stop in the Hollywood movie mill.  All one need do is research the number of times, say, John Carpenter's Escape From New York (1981) has been thrown around for rebooting.  I know of, at least, three times in the past thirty years, and none of them have ever seen the light of day.  So while I have no qualms with the reportage involving said projects, I'm more inclined to cover them once I know that they're actually late in production and heading into post.  That way, I'm hedging my bets that it's something we're all going to eventually see and respond to, instead of committing space around here to things that ... well ... simply vanish.

Things are a bit different now.  As SciFiHistory.Net has grown over the past decade (or so), I've stretched my wings a bit and now I risk reporting some of what looks to be on the cusp of becoming a real thing.

In this spirit, I noticed in an article over on The Wrap that 'Black Adam' screenwriter Adam Sztykiel has been tapped to bring a version of -- ahem -- DC Comics' Wonder Twins to life for HBO Max.

Why share this?

In all honesty, are the Wonder Twins really that popular in the DC pantheon of characters that they warrant to TV show before some of the others?  It just seems like a bizarre choice in my mind.  As best I know, they weren't even created in the books: I believe they were first seen aboard the Hanna-Barbera show The All-New Super Friends Hour ... so aren't they a weird choice?  In fact, I jumped over to Wikipedia.org just to check if they had been in print (looks like they have), but ... do they really have that large a fan base to justify giving them their own show?

Meh.  What do I know?  Stranger things have happened, I guess.

Just thought I'd sound off as I'm still waiting for that live action Green Lantern show that would totally kill.

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

​-- EZ

Sigh.  Some folks just don't understand English.

Ahem.

When I say openly as I have so many times on SciFiHistory.Net that I'm just not a Marvel guy, that doesn't mean I wish the Mouse House or Marvel Entertainment or any of their projects to languish or never be seen.  I've always said much to the contrary, in fact: I wish every genre project could do as well as Marvel's that way we'd only be getting more, more, and more.  Walt Disney and Marvel have the money to put some serious energy in to their films and series; and while I'm not convinced that'll always be the case -- nor do I think it's been great for the overall film industry -- I'd never wish failure on anyone, anything, or any franchise.

Just because it ain't for me doesn't mean I hate it.  I hate nothing ... except having to show up in the space each time a Marvel film reaches a benchmark so that I can give it suitable props.

In that regard, CONGRATULATIONS to Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) for dethroning James Cameron's Avatar at the top of the box office list.  Think what any of us will about any film: you have to have serious magic at your command to do that, and it's no small feat for a franchise film to sling webs at the stars.

Kids, money isn't everything ... but it speaks every possible language in corners controlled by Hollywood.  Look for more Spidey films in the years ahead as his future is most decidedly bright.

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

-- EZ

Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone certainly made the small screen’s best use of the whole fantastical, magical endings.
 
Running for five years on network television, the Zone played host to any number of great performances, and every one of them were trapped smack in the middle of the great ‘what if’ story.  What if man went to another planet only to find he wasn’t alone?  What if there’s a way to change history without travelling through time?  What if you can return from the afterlife but only to serve one certain purpose?  These were the yarns that captivated audiences when they originally aired, and the show continues to delight audiences who rediscover it from time-to-time either in syndicated airings or on home video.  It’s even had a reinvention or two for posterity’s sake, and I suspect we’ll likely see another one in the years ahead.  The stories are just that timeless that they lend themselves to remakes and reboots.
 
Well … what if I told you that The Twilight Zone wasn’t the first property to explore the whole idea of what if?  What if an earlier motion picture – one called cleverly Repeat Performance – toyed with the idea more than a decade before?
 
That brings us to today’s exploration of a recently explored cinematic gem: Alfred L. Werker’s directs this black-and-white potboiler that’s probably a bit more melodrama than it needed to be.  The film boasts a great central performance from the late Joan Leslie as well as a solid supporting one from the late Richard Basehart.  While it may not be an entirely perfect theatrical affair, it certainly explores a few behind-the-scenes affairs but rendering this dark tale under the rubric of Fantasy might require audiences to suspend a bit more disbelief than was probably intended.
 
You be the judge.

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging:
“An amazingly original hybrid of film noir, supernatural fantasy, and backstage melodrama, Repeat Performance stars Joan Leslie as a Broadway actress who magically relives the previous year of her life, but can she alter the fateful mistakes and misjudgments that led to a New Year’s Eve tragedy?”
 
Which of us hasn’t wanted a do-over?
 
That central idea is essentially most of what this Repeat Performance is all about: Sheila Page (played by Joan Leslie) ends her year in the worst way possible – shooting dead her philandering husband in their posh apartment on New Year’s Eve.  (FYI: we’re not given a lot of specifics on this event, but we do learn a few specifics as the story unfolds, so be patient.)  Realizing this’ll likely be the end to her very own life, she makes a wish and voila!  The universe magically responds!  In the blink of an eye, she’s transported back in time twelve months with the opportunity to do it all over again and maybe – maybe – just get things right this time.
 
Therein lies the rub, as anyone can imagine: are the events of our life fated, or can we truly institute lasting changes and achieve some more storied existence?
 
As this story evolves, it becomes increasingly clear that perhaps Page isn’t as powerful a figure in her own universe as the set-up implies, nor does she appear to be a person of particularly good judgment.  So far as this reviewer is concerned, she’s made a series of – ahem – truly bad choices in her life, including falling in love with and marrying Barney Page, a failed screenwriter turned alcoholic who can’t keep his eyes or his hands to himself.  Why she would want to save this relationship never quite gets explained nor explored in the script from Walter Bullock (adapted from a novel by William O’Farrell); there are never any moments of true love shared between the husband and wife, though the man occasionally flirts with his significant other when not carousing with her friends.
​

However, the construct of melodrama is that we, the audience, are provided characters a bit larger than life so that we can study and perhaps learn from their respective predicaments.  On that level, I suppose Sheila may not be all that different from the average Broadway actress; though I’ve no way to know for certain, I have followed enough trade publications to know that marriages for creatives can be hit or miss (probably more misses than hits).  Whatever the case, it’s very clear that these two people were on separate career trajectories, so much so that Barney’s death may’ve been his only release from the self-inflicted torture he shacked himself with.
 
Still, the remainder of Repeat Performance’s players don’t offer much hope for decent folk, either.
 
Paula Costello (Virginia Field) plays another self-centered playwright, one who isn’t above stealing another’s husband, casting him out when she’s finished with him, and misdirecting him with murderous intent back to the little lady waiting at home.  Bess Michaels (Benay Venuta) steals every scene she’s in but can’t bring herself to lacing her observations with insulting barbs directed at everyone but herself.  And Eloise Shaw (Natalie Schafer) throws away her untold millions by financing the various creatives she hopes will give her the attention her ego so desperately craves, even at the cost of destroying a man or two.  Yes, this is a dark, noirish world audiences are shown … and yet somehow we’re encouraged to care for one of them?  Sheila?
 
Because all of this is Fantasy, it might be easy to dismiss such an increasing display of inhumanity (or, at least, incivility amongst the talented and powerful), but I thought the juxtaposition of noir and goodness (i.e. Barney versus Sheila) a bit hard to swallow.
 
While the players do make the most of the experience, I just couldn’t accept Leslie’s ‘jilted wife’ as being so damn naïve.  She spent a year getting to the point of realizing she had to defend herself against Barney (to the death), so why would she think a do-over could possibly fix anything?  The man never appears worth saving in the first place!  Had we been given, say, a different reason that she shot him in the original timeline, then perhaps we might have achieved a greater appreciation of her murderous intent?  Sadly, the way this is scripted there’s just no way to know.  When Sheila finally raises her hand to defend her honor from the conniving Costello with a firm slap across the face, I was ready to cheer … not so much because it was good to see the character stand up for itself but entirely because there was a moment that actually made narrative sense.
 
If actors are this self-absorbed that they can’t see evil when it’s staring them in the face, then let’s just all be glad we’re not all actors.
​

Repeat Performance (1947) was produced by Bryan Foy Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Flicker Alley.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  This release looks and sounds spectacular in this restoration sponsored by the Film Noir Foundation.  As for the special features?  It’s a solid collection, listed as follow:

• Introduction by Eddie Muller – The noir historian only appears briefly.  He’s great to listen to, and I wish he’d appeared in more supplements on this disc.
• Profile of Joan Leslie – It’s a short documentary-style piece, really more fluff than anything else.  It’s narrated by author and historian Farran Smith Nehme.
• “Eagle-Lion: A Noir-Stained Legacy” – This 30-minute documentary detailing the short but solid history of the Eagle-Lion film production company is (honestly) the best thing in here.  It’s narrated by historian Alan K. Rode, and the big plus is that he cites some other films worth looking into.  Fabulous job.
• Audio Commentary – Film historian Nora Fiore provides what’s more of a conversational track, occasionally distracting from the flick as she delves into an awful lot of ancillary material as well as her own light comic observations about the performances.  As commentaries go, I found it above average but not by a lot.
• Promotional Pressbook – The motion picture’s press materials for its original release are recreated digitally.  It’s an interesting item to view.
• Souvenir Booklet – This is another big plus for fans who like this sort of thing: the package’s interior booklet contains an essay that deals a bit more with the screenplay’s source material (it’s based on a 1942 novel by William O’Farrell) more than it does the film, highlighting the differences between the two and providing some commentary regarding the changes.  The booklet also contains some photos as well as reproductions of its lobby cards and posters.  A nice touch.

 
Recommended.  As older films go, Repeat Performance (1947) may not have the rewatch potential of other classics, but it does boast some solid talent, the requisite period melodrama, and an interesting premise … though audiences have seen these cinematic ‘do-overs’ quite a bit.  Think It’s A Wonderful Life done with murders, and you get the idea.  Star Joan Leslie does a great job carrying her weight, and Richard Basehart makes the most of his smaller role as her confidante and best friend.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Flicker Alley provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Repeat Performance by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ

Huh.

Did you ever wonder, by chance, what the Steven Spielberg SciFi Classic E.T. - The Extraterrestrial would've been like had it been directed by, say, Roger Corman?  Likely, the little space critter would've been a bit hungrier -- and maybe even a bit more sensual -- and he'd say a bit more around the house than "phone home."  He probably would've devoured little Gertie, tried to do the nasty with Elliot's mom, and we'd definitely seen a lot more of Dee Wallace, maybe even a nip slip here and there.

Well, if you ever had that singular thought (I doubt many of you did), then maybe this little something something called The Seed might be more your speed.  Written and directed by Sam Walker (I believe this may be his big screen debut), the SciFi/Horror film screened in 2021 for audiences in attendance of the Beyond Fest.  There are a few reviews from that screening available on the Information Superhighway (for those interested in knowing a bit more), but I wouldn't make too much of those rundowns as it's clearly a fairly small sample.

Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:

"What starts out as girls weekend away in the Mojave desert becomes a tale of horror, death and alien invasion."

It would appear that this one is screening exclusively on Shudder in March (I'm copying and pasting the press materials below after the trailer), so it's going to be a bit difficult to get a look at it if you're interested.  Hopefully it'll expand to other platforms thereafter so that the rest of us can take a look into it as it does appear to pose some interesting scenery for those of us who like that sort of thing.

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

-- EZ
​

That gloriously depraved bit of 1980's animation -- Heavy Metal -- is getting a makeover.

Sony Pictures has announced that they're going back into that well for not one updating but they'll also be giving its curious sequel, Heavy Metal 2000, a restoration.  While the original promises to be a 4K workout, the specs on its follow-up are unclear.  (My guess would be that it's likely just a relative clean-up for paired distribution as a 'franchise.')

For all of its merits and drawbacks, I've always thought that Heavy Metal was a product of its time.  The animation wasn't groundbreaking in any respect -- it was, in most places, just above Saturday morning fare of the era -- but pairing its stories up as more adult programming certainly brought out fans wanting something a bit different.  I do recall loving the voice work -- Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty, and John Candy were SCTV staples of my youth, and I love much of what they did -- and I guess that's something worth mentioning in any retrospective about the finished product.

Also, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the feature has one of the better soundtracks of its day in the sun.  Some of the stuff is a bit forgettable, but I've always Don Felder's 'Heavy Metal' over Sammy Hagar's.  Just my two cents.

Here are the specifics (below) regarding the package that'll hit stores on April 19th.  Or -- if you're so inclined -- head on over to Amazon.com and pre-order your copy today.

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

-- EZ 
​

Unlike others who blog aboard genre projects, I've generally been supportive of remakes ... but that's only when the new versions look to either correct some inferior treatment of the original or the updating brings something new to the table creatively.  While there's no way to make that determination based solely on a coming attraction, I'm inclined at this juncture to think that 2022's Firestarter really looks an awful lot like 1984's undercooked version with young'un Drew Barrymore in the lead.

Yes, yes, yes: I wasn't all that thrilled with that version.  I read part of the book -- a buddy of mine back in the day thought it was Stephen King's best, so he pointed out some passages that he thought might elevate my opinion of the movie after we saw it -- and the 1984 incarnation felt like a servicable attempt to capture some of the author's vision.  There's no doubt that a modern attempt will likely correct a lot of effects sequences limited by the technology of the time, so maybe that'll help serve as a game changer when the new version in May, 2022.

Still, I do give the young Barrymore a lot of credit for what I liked about that flick.  She had the right look and certainly did what she could with the material provided.  I'm usually a fan of the oft-overlooked David Keith, but I vaguely recall not feeling he was right for the role of dear ol' dad.  I honestly couldn't put my finger on what it was I didn't like; it's been decades since I've seen it, and I'm working entirely off reflections this morning.  With the new one opening up in a few months, maybe I'll seek out and destroy the original if I can squeeze it in sometime between now and then.

I'll be copying and pasting the studio's press release below (after the trailer).

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

-- EZ 
​

​In a new adaptation of Stephen King’s classic thriller from the producers of The Invisible Man, a girl with extraordinary pyrokinetic powers fights to protect her family and herself from sinister forces that seek to capture and control her. 
 
For more than a decade, parents Andy (Zac Efron; Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile; The Greatest Showman) and Vicky (Sydney Lemmon; Fear the Walking Dead, Succession) have been on the run, desperate to hide their daughter Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong; American Horror Story: Double Feature, The Tomorrow War) from a shadowy federal agency that wants to harness her unprecedented gift for creating fire into a weapon of mass destruction. 
 
Andy has taught Charlie how to defuse her power, which is triggered by anger or pain. But as Charlie turns 11, the fire becomes harder and harder to control. After an incident reveals the family’s location, a mysterious operative (Michael Greyeyes; Wild Indian, Rutherford Falls) is deployed to hunt down the family and seize Charlie once and for all. Charlie has other plans.  
 
The film also stars Kurtwood Smith (Amityville: The Awakening, Hitchcock), John Beasley (The Purge: Anarchy, The Sum of All Fears) and Gloria Reuben (Lincoln, Mr. Robot). The Firestarter score is composed by the legendary John Carpenter (Halloween, Christine, The Fog) and his fellow Halloween franchise composers Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies.  
 
Directed by Keith Thomas (The Vigil), from a screenplay by Scott Teems (Halloween Kills) based on the novel by Stephen King, Firestarter is produced by Jason Blum (Halloween, The Invisible Man) for Blumhouse and Oscar® winner Akiva Goldsman (I Am Legend, Constantine) for Weed Road Pictures. The film’s executive producers are Ryan Turek, Gregory Lessans, Scott Teems, Martha De Laurentiis, J.D. Lifshitz and Raphael Margules.

Again: if you're keeping score, I'm not a Superbowl fanatic.  Nor do I get jazzed by watching commercials.  I can appreciate a good coming attractions trailer as much as the next Tom, Dick, or Harry ... but I found some of the behind-the-scenes drama involving Walt Disney's latest announcement involving its Kenobi series to be pretty damn funny.

For those of you unaware, here's a bit of a summary.

Some time last week, the Mouse House made the formal statement involving the slimmest of particulars for the Kenobi series to air on Disney+.  In all honesty, you probably couldn't say less about the popular property if you tried; and the press release's sole intent was basically just to broadcast the show's air date.  FYI: it's set to blast off into hyperspace on May 25th.

Anyway ...

Someone somewhere sometime last week also made the statement that, lo and behold, Disney would be releasing a super-secret trailer for the new show during the world's biggest marketing blitz ever -- the Superbowl.  Naturally, such an announcement had legions of fans around the world tuning in ... and all of this was based on a rumor.

​For those of you too young to know this, George Lucas's Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace made history when, in November 1998, Lucasfilm itself announced that the film's trailer would be released on November 17th attached to the films The Waterboy, Meet Joe Black, and The Siege.  As this film would be Lucas's return to the saga that both made him famous and built a veritable screen empire, fans raced to buy tickets to these films for the day in question ... and ticket sales went through the roof.  This is how hungry fandom was for a return to the galaxy far, far away; and the box office definitely benefitted from letting them know how, when, and where to capture that first look.

So it's natural that a trailer for Kenobi might draw similar results, and I suspect that's exactly what our rumor monger thought he (or she) would create by making the suggestion on the Information Superhighway that it was going to be aired during the Superbowl.

Can you imagine mankind's disappointment?

I popped onto 'The Twitter' a few times during the night to see if the trailer had aired.  What kept me going back, however, were the infinite number of posts waxing on about their continued disappointment that it hadn't aired yet, it didn't look like it would be airing, now it's too late for Disney to air it, what was Disney thinking in not airing it during the game, who in the Hell started the damn rumor anyway, WHY DO I ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CRAP I READ ON THE INTERNET?!?!  It was like an old comedy skit: as the night wore on, these peoples' frustration was clearly through the roof.

Sorry, but those of us on the cultural sidelines really got a laugh at your expense.

In any event, here's the text from Disney's announcement last week.  Enjoy!

“Obi-Wan Kenobi,” the new Disney+ limited series from Lucasfilm, will debut exclusively on Disney+ May 25. The series stars Ewan McGregor, reprising his role as the iconic Jedi Master. 
 
The story begins 10 years after the dramatic events of “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” where Obi-Wan Kenobi faced his greatest defeat—the downfall and corruption of his best friend and Jedi apprentice, Anakin Skywalker, who turned to the dark side as evil Sith Lord Darth Vader. 
 
The series also marks the return of Hayden Christensen in the role of Darth Vader. Joining the cast are Moses Ingram, Joel Edgerton, Bonnie Piesse, Kumail Nanjiani, Indira Varma, Rupert Friend, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Sung Kang, Simone Kessell and Benny Safdie. 
 
“Obi-Wan Kenobi” is executive-produced by Kathleen Kennedy, Michelle Rejwan, Deborah Chow, Ewan McGregor and Joby Harold."

As best as I've been able to deduce, it looks like the latest from critical darling Alex Garland won't hit theaters in the U.S. until late May, but the studio released a trailer recently to kinda/sorta hype up the potential for its box office performance.  I thought I'd give it a share with a few comments this morning ... so buckle up.

I say that Garland's a 'critical darling' not out of any disdain for his work.  I think he's done some great flicks, but I'd also argue that he's coasting a bit on that solid (and earned) reputation while not exactly adding anything new to the genre other than slick visuals.  I thought his script for the Zombie Apocalypse that was 28 Days Later ... (2002) was brilliant.  (FYI: he had nothing to do with its sequel, 28 Weeks Later.)  His screenplay for Dredd (2012) -- an adaptation of the comic book property -- was equally engaging, finally giving that character a well deserved big screen incarnation.

But then it wasn't long before people were tripping over themselves silly to line up to praise him for his Ex Machina (2014) and Annihilation (2018) efforts.  While I found both films to be rendering with some fascinating visuals, I was torn by the quality of the scripts.  Ex Machina -- performed exquisitely by a gifted cast -- was entirely predictable; and if you say otherwise then you clearly weren't watching the same film.  Annihilation?  Meh.  I just found the thing a bit messy so far as the story unrolled; I wasn't as won over by the cast as were others, and again I found the effort weighed down with a fairly uninspired ending.

Yes, yes, yes.  I realize that's just me, folks, but if you learn one thing about me today then let it be this: I don't care that I'm often left on an island.  I try to be true to me, and that's all I really have to say about that.

None of this eliminates the fact that Garland's clearly a gifted storyteller.  I just haven't been as inspired by his latest works as I were his earlier stuff.  Such is life.

In any event, Men looks to be a bit more scare than smarts.  There's really no way to tell from the trailer as it's all atmosphere and no story whatsoever.  While that may not bode well, it's far too soon to know anything for certain.  Here's the premise as provided by IMDB.com:

"A young woman goes on a solo vacation to the English countryside after the death of her ex-husband."

Trailer is below.  You know what to do.

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

-- EZ
​

Well, I guess I've avoided wading into this controversy long enough.  Now that a trailer has slipped to mankind via its airing at the Stuporbowl, I guess I'll finally say something about it.

Sigh.

Not all that long ago, the producers behind Amazon Studios' massive Middle-Earth prequel -- The Rings Of Power -- let it slip that their visit to the worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien would "massively" involve POC (Persons Of Color).  The way this news broke at the time ... well, it almost seemed to me like it was more of a strategic marketing blitz, you know what I mean?  It was almost as if some suit said, "Hey, you know how we could ratchet up the interest in our Rings project?  Well, let's let it be known that we're going 'all in' with having persons of color finally turn up in Middle-Earth!"  Lo and behold, there was a controversy as some folks sounded off on it -- some of it curious, some of it actually well thought out and articulate, and -- sigh -- some other stuff, too.

Like so many, I don't see color.  I see characters.  If a character is created with intelligence and grace, then I really don't a damn what his or her skin color happens to be.  Honestly, it's incidental; and -- in most cases -- skin color isn't even relevant to the story.  Now, that isn't always the case with comedies and dramas -- there are times when a cultural class practically relies on audiences noticing these differences -- but when it comes to Science Fiction and Fantasy?  Sorry, folks, but I just don't see why it matters ... except for those trying to virtue signal.

This is different from the current controversy involving, say, James Bond.  Virtue signallers are all over that franchise demanding that the next Bond be a black man, maybe even a trans, maybe even differently-abled.  (You can't believe the garbage some folks post.)  Again, James Bond isn't a real person, so on one level I've no vested interest in his skin color.  But on another point ... why not create your own British secret service franchise and cast a black actor?  Why must it be Bond?  Bond has a screen legacy as well as a print one that might seriously question the legitimacy of making him black or any other Person Of Color, but I guess it's the franchise those spinning the arguments really want control over (think "the money") and not the character.  Always follow the money.  Always.

But with Tolkien's world?

Meh.

I just don't see any logical reason to expend any emotional energy over this debate.  Cast TALENTED PEOPLE and give them GOOD STORIES to tell, and I guarantee you an audience will show up whether it's the lands of the Shire, Narnia, or Bajor.  Otherwise, all these producers are trying to do is take your money, and that's something I'm less inclined to fork over.

That's my point, too: what message are you sending Persons Of Color when you have to give them something already established in order to be cinematically legitimate?  Are you suggesting that Persons Of Color can't build their own legacy and must co-opt something that's already existing in order to find box office glory?  It's a slippery slope, one that rarely takes audiences somewhere that they deserve to go, and I'd rather we as a culture spend more time on crafted interesting characters than jumping aboard the bandwagon while there's money to be made.

In any event, the trailer dropped last night; and I wanted to share it for those of you who may not have seen it.  Apologies if anything I've written above offends anyone as that's never my intent.  I try to always be true to thine own self ... and this is an argument I just don't see merits much attention.

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

​-- EZ
​

Sorry, folks, no: I don't watch Superbowls.  Nor do I tune in for the commercials.  Honestly, I've got better things to do with my time.  The NFL is largely an anti-USA organization, and I choose to give it none of my attention.  Again, I don't fault folks who do enjoy it: it just isn't for me.

But I did see some of the squeaks and squees online last night regarding some of the coming attractions for 2022's potential blockbusters, one of the most anticipated being Jurassic World: Dominion ... but for the life of me I can't see why.  (Well, except for its inclusion of dinosaurs, I guess.)  After the first one back in 1993, the film's have grown increasingly dumber; and dare I suggest that 2018's Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom barely made a wit (whit?) of sense?

I understand perfectly that films of this sort are made entirely for their escapism; and, sure, on that level each of them have had moments worth the price of admission.  From a narrative standpoint, the flicks are largely throwbacks to earlier times when stories rarely included the pretense of commenting on our civilization at large, instead choosing to scare viewers silly.  I love the classic Universal Monsters Universe for that very reason: scoring ideological points was secondary, and what mattered most was looking at the monsters.  Whatever subtext there was most folks in attendance could agree upon.  Think what you will but I've always found that refreshing about 'simpler times.'

​I, for one, am hoping that Dominion kinda/sorta just sticks with what it does best: classic monster moments.  Leave the politics at the door and just keep us riveted with suspense.  I don't need to know what Jeff Goldblum thinks about the Ozone Layer.

In any event, yes, a new trailer was dropped during the Stuporbowl, and it'll be below.  Those of you reading?  You know what to do.

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

-- EZ
​