I kid you not: back in the days of my high school literature class, I actually scoffed at the mysteries involving Sherlock Holmes.
 
Realizing that the readership might think less of me, let me clarify that even at that point in my youth I was a long-established fan of written mysteries.  While I didn’t exactly have access to a vast library of such literary puzzles, I was still hungry for adventures predicated on locked boxes, whodunnits, and the like.  My issue with Holmes as his investigations were orchestrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rather fabulously in print was that these enigmas weren’t exactly solvable by those partaking the tales.  In most cases, the clues were entirely hidden from readers, meaning that the only one aware of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth was only captured in Holmes’ brilliantly deductive mind.  While, hey, it was somewhat fascinating to watch him work, I – as a reader – couldn’t match wits with the master detective because Doyle’s presentation concealed details required … and I felt somewhat cheated in the process.
 
When my tastes in entertainment transformed from the written page to the silver or television screens, I did invest some time in a great many adaptations of the various adventures Holmes and his reliable sidekick – Dr. John Watson – and, yes, many were quite good.  Some of them followed the Doyle construction – that is, they cloaked some elements and left them solely the province of the chief investigator – but I think I found greater enjoyment with those that allowed me to follow closely, absorb the right bits and pieces, and maybe relish in reaching the proper conclusion alongside the big lead.  Though I realize this isn’t how most brains are wired, I assure you that I know what I like, and I do tend to stick with what I know.
 
Regardless, I leapt at the chance to check out Severin Films’ latest Baker Street product: the distributor has released the surviving episodes of the BBC’s second season of Sherlock Holmes – properly titled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes – on home video.  I’d been aware of the serial chiefly owed to Peter Cushing’s involvement – he took over the center seat vacated by actor Douglas Wilmer (who allegedly struggled with the program’s written script quality and bowed out for other pursuits).  Over the next few days, I’ll be reviewing several episodes for posterity’s sake, giving you some of the highs and lows of these various whodunits.
 
First up: “A Study In Scarlet,” the third episode of the show’s second season.
 
(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 episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a man is found poisoned in an abandoned building with the word "RACHE" written in blood on the wall. LaStrade confidently declares, ‘Cherchez la femme!’”
 
Aye begorrah …
 
One of the problems with relying on plot synopses as I do from IMDB.com to kinda/sorta ‘set the stage’ for my own reviews is that, occasionally, the database either gets the premise stunningly wrong or reveals a bit too many specifics, thus spoiling a surprise or two.  Such is the case with their summary of “A Study In Scarlet” wherein not one but two elements that don’t get unearthed until somewhat late in the action come front-and-center a bit too soon.
 
Allow me …
​

The body of travelling American capitalist Enoch Drebber (played by Craig Hunter) is discovered in an abandoned building – true – but there really is no significant indication initially as to what caused his demise; and this is the chief reason why inspectors Gregson (George A. Cooper) and Lestrade (William Lucas) call upon the renowned Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cushing) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Stock).  Despite the fact that Holmes provides them with information sufficient to put them onto a new course of action, the inspectors instead proceed on their original assumptions, neither of which bear fruit except to say that Drebber’s activity over his final days brings new information to light.  Still, only Holmes’ ability to stay the course and follow his keen intellectual insights unmasks the true culprit … a man with the unique ability to both be well within sight but equally above suspicion due to his unquestionable anonymity.
 
Now, what I liked about “A Study In Scarlet” was that those of us watching closely were delivered an all-too-brief vignette involving a deceased woman.  The hand of an unseen person – most likely a male – reaches into the frame to remove a ring from her cold fingers, only then to clutch it tightly in his own grasp.  A quick dissolve to the program’s opening credits might very well have left most in the audience to forget this impressionable little nugget of information, mostly because it never gets explained and resolved until the final reel.  But my being a fan of mysteries served me well as I kept wondering how this quick snippet might possibly have figured into the whole affair: even though the script by Hugh Leonard (adapted on Doyle’s original yarn) provides plenty of redirects, I encourage watchers to keep it in mind throughout Scarlet’s 50-minute run-time, and you might stay one step ahead … just like Holmes does.
 
And the nature of just how these procedurals unfold provides plenty of room for misdirects, which are consistently spread throughout the case.  This has always been my chief bugaboo with Doyle’s prose – far too many clues are hidden away where only the detective sees them – and, yes, it reduces some aspects of the entertainment factor here.  However, Cushing’s portrayal of this epic solver of problems is interesting enough to set aside some modest quibbles with the script as he rather effortlessly dismantles competing theories while equally vexing those around him to try a bit harder (especially Watson).  Not every twist and turn makes perfect sense in the moment, but by the time the caper is suitably wrapped up by the lead it all adds up in only the way that Sherlock could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve seen it coming.
 
That said, production details are fairly solid.  Scarlet includes some exterior shooting as well as studio sequences; and, yes, it’s quite obvious when the narrative is shifting between the film stock choices.  Because some of the developments are a bit elusive, I’d argue that what matters more is that the screen talents all hit their marks effectively, and I’m pleased to conclude that’s the case here.  Cushing makes for a winning lead, and even a few small(ish) bits with supporting players – Edina Ronay as a kinda/sorta romantic interest, Joe Melia as a stage actor exploring his male and female appeal, and Dorothy Edwards as a domineering house madame – are given something to do and make the most of it … all of it accomplished in under 50 minutes.
 
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Season 02 was produced by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC).  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure you that the provided sights-and-sounds are occasionally very underwhelming here: as I understand it, these surviving masters are the best available – some episodes are even completely lost to history – and there’s an incredible amount of grain and decided loss of clarity in sections apparently switching between film stocks.  Yes, it’s often somewhat distracting, but I suspect fans of either Cushing or Holmes aficionados will celebrate either way.  Lastly, as for the special features?  Authors Kim Newman and David Stuart Davies provide a lively commentary track, but they do irregularly drift into minutiae that’s a bit ancillary for my tastes, being what it is.  It’s good, but I found some of it a bit irrelevant.
 
Recommended.
 
Though the truth is – in typical Doyle fashion – audiences may not see the ending coming, “A Study In Scarlet” is still a surprisingly engaging event.  There’s this hidden vastness to the central story – again, it gets revealed mostly in the final monologue, so it’s equally elusive – that gives watchers more to chew on than contemporary C.S.I. puzzles, all of which harkens back to a time when characters and motivations were crafted with a scale occasionally bigger than life.  Though modern audiences might remain a bit hard-pressed to stick with something requiring greater cognitive participation, I find this one amiable enough to give it a recommendation.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Season 02 by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ
​

I’m old enough to remember a time when sequels needed to go the extra mile to prove the need for their own existence.
 
While an argument could be made that follow-ups featuring ‘the son of’ or ‘the return of’ any central property – i.e. Son Of Kong, The Return Of The Invisible Man, etc. – didn’t work so hard, I think storytellers did for a time try to bring something fresh and/or original to sequels and prequels.  For example, the Godfather Saga grew exponentially between Parts 1 and 2 – 3, not so much – and audiences were rewarded with new characters and new circumstances for sticking with the franchise.  The Star Wars films – Chapters 1 through 6 – organically took viewers both into the parallel tracks of family and politics, expanding the parameters with each outing in ways that strengthened the journey’s core ideas.  Heck, even the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World iterations tweaked what we knew about their movie science and expended screen time minimally in amping up the threats, making each successive thrill ride a respectable variation on the original formula.  This isn’t to say that these sequels were good; rather, it’s only indicating that there was a recognizable attempt at trying something brand new if even to a small degree.
 
Alas, the Ghostbusters Saga hasn’t quite been on the receiving end of what I’d say is great mythmaking.  It’s a franchise that’s always been a bit more about moxie and attitude – nerdy scientists taking on the occult with plenty of good-hearted laughs thrown in – where things like logic, special effects, and narrative cohesiveness are important but not as meaningful as how the quirky cast of characters deal with them.  And that isn’t a bad thing, honestly.  When these screen people are as intoxicating and inviting as Dr. Peter Venkman, Dr. Ray Stantz, and others, then you go with what works; and comic charm along with excellent timing sells the sizzle when acceptable imagery doesn’t.  Still, at some point, one would hope that the powers that be would recognize a property needs to evolve in ways more than adding new clowns to the mix … but Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) kinda/sorta lazily unspools to remind you that creativity is dead in Hollywood, and the best fans might hope for – at this point – is nostalgia-fueled ‘memberberries.’
 
(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:
“When the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must join forces to protect their home and save the world from a second ice age.”
 
As I get older, I think I’ve grown to enjoy franchises less and less.
 
What these wizened old eyes see is that stories just don’t work all that hard anymore, especially those that are part of an ongoing entity.  It isn’t so much intellectual laziness I see creeping in so much as it is corporate greed: we’ve already built it, so let’s just serve up more of the same because it worked last time, meaning it’ll work again if we can separate the same fools from their monies like we did last time.  JJ Abrams – as the worst example possible – quite figuratively defecated all over both Star Trek and Star Wars audiences, never once trying to concoct anything worthy of being called a franchise entry and, instead, delivering hokum that many suggest would be better off left to fan fiction attempts.  Who am I to argue with such winning cynicism?
 
I will, however, stop a bit short of declaring everything in Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire a failure.
 
Mind you: it isn’t a great film.
 
In fact, it’s reasonably entertaining here and there, the kind of forgettable fluff one shouldn’t watch too closely.  Let it unfurl.  Watch it twist and turn, forcing a bit of comic cringe into the discourse.  A few of the surviving principal players – Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, William Atherton, and the delightful Annie Potts – show up more so to remind you that they’re still around more than they have any authentic reason to be in this in the first place, but that’s an easily forgivable sin.  The setting is transported from rural America back into the familiar confines of the Ghostbusters fire station; and – to a small degree – it feels like we’ve come back home.  Yes, Frozen Empire is chocked full of memberberries – some work, some don’t – but it’s also curiously light on the same level of heart that elevated 2021’s Afterlife with an emotional core.
 
Essentially, young Phoebe Spengler (Mckenna Grace) is back in action as the lead ‘buster in this film, but as her ‘busting takes place well within the confines of New York City she’s suddenly the source of great controversy.  Mayor Peck (Atherton) points out that not only is what she is doing dangerous but also she’s a child; and – labor laws being what they are – he demands she be benched if the Spengler family insists on doing commercial business in the Big Apple.  Begrudgingly, mother Callie (Carrie Coon) and stepfather Gary (Paul Rudd) concur, and Phoebe is stripped of her uniform and proton pack, giving her time to experience what life as a normal teenager is.
​

Well, naturally a mind as precocious as hers is doesn’t take kindly to be sidelined; and – before you know it – the script concocts not one but two winning distractions.  The first: Phoebe finds herself befriended by the chess-playing ghost Melody (Emily Alyn Lind), a spirit who can’t ‘cross over’ to be with her family for reasons unknown.  The second: Ray Stantz has stumbled across an object of incredible supernatural significance, leaving the youngest Ghostbuster – with plenty of free time on her hands – the chance to join him in investigating the emerging threat behind an ancient spirit named Garraka, an incarcerated malevolence who threatens to cover our world in ice if released.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that, yes, Garraka will get lose, things will start to freeze, and our young hero will represent the last line of defense to save mankind as we know it.
 
So, yes, it’s always easy to accept some small amount of predictability so long as the script is well-intentioned and equally well delivered.  Frozen Empire works best when it’s in young Grace’s hands: she’s developed into a solid talent in this spooky universe – likeable, knowledgeable, and impressionable ain’t an easy combination, but she makes it look effortless – and the script by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman should’ve respected that and given her a bit more to do.  Some of their best quips and observations are handed off to the familiar faces around her, including a few that came over from Afterlife, and – sorry – they’re just not as appealing.  Another draft – one that focused a bit more on Phoebe’s ascent to picking up the mantle raised by her departed grandfather Egan Spengler (the late Harold Ramis) – might’ve raised her up front-and-center properly instead of leaving her journey feeling so much like it was tacked on in order to give her something to do.  It isn’t so much a creative miss as it feels like a miscalculation here, but that’s just my own two cents on that front.
 
Instead, Frozen Empire gives an inordinate amount of screen time to introducing the character of Nadeem (Kumail Nanjiani), a “talent” who never quite finds the comic rhythm necessary to be part and parcel of the Ghostbusters galaxy.  While I mean no disrespect, I’ll concede I’ve yet to see the actor effective in any role he’s been cast.  He certainly gravitates toward comic relief; and, yet, he displays no adequate sense of timing here much less the purpose needed to fulfill his secret life’s mission.  In fact, he almost uncomfortably gropes and lurches his way through lines that might’ve been delivered with greater effect by someone else; and Nanjiani winds up feeling more like an anchor holding scenes in place instead of advancing the ideas albeit with uncharacteristic wit.  Sometimes, there’s just no easy way to say it other than to point out his casting was a mistake.
 
Furthermore, the film suffers to an appreciable degree by incorporating a villain entirely the product of special effects. 
​

Garraka isn’t some ‘Gollum’ like character – meaning the demon doesn’t deliver a substantial number of lines nor create much presence greater than just being a shadowy monster – and his depiction in the film feels more cartoonish than it ever does authentically scary.  Of course, Ghostbusters isn’t necessarily predicated on exploring sources of evil like TV procedurals The X-Files or The Night Stalker did; but there’s a lack of authenticity to villainy when its invested solely in something essentially crafted in post-production.  The original film was better for casting human actors and actresses in roles because, this way, there could be a degree of the ordinary to encounters with the extraordinary.  It’s more effective, and it helps audiences accept such spectral confines because they still have a human face.  Garraka never worked for me because I knew he was fully animated in the studio, never present on the set, so the big finish felt a bit empty as a result.
 
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) was produced by Columbia Pictures, Ghostcorps, TSG Entertainment, BRON Studios, and Right Of Way Films.  (A full accounting of all partners can be found on IMDB.com.)  The film is presently available for digital and/or physical purchase from a variety of platforms and ventures.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish, pretty much the way one would expect from the Ghostbusters franchise.  As for the special features?  Given the fact that I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
 
Recommended.
 
Seriously, about the best thing that I can say in defense of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) is that it not only feels like it exists in the same universe as the original but also does so in a way that it won’t offend the delicate sensibilities of modern moviegoers.  It’s more of the same – some familiar faces, some dubious effects, and suitable wrap-up to a rather unengaging affair, putting it on par with Ghostbusters 2 (1989) and Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) – and it goes down as a suitable distraction so long as there’s nothing else more interesting on television or playing on the next screen.  But when a property begins poking fun at itself so openly as this one does, would it be too much to ask that we reward the audience for showing up next time?  Give them something worth the effort?  No sense of impending catastrophe left this one kinda/sorta empty in the last reel, and I think viewers deserve a bit more.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) as I viewed the release via my very own Netflix subscription.

-- EZ
​

Folks, I've had the great pleasure of partaking of quite a few exceptional chillers compliments of the good people at Shudder.

I know, I know, I know ... not everybody gets scared by the same things, and that's true.  My particular taste in Horror is most definitely not what mainstream audiences gravitate toward; and that's because as I've often opined I just don't find a great deal of what gets trafficked to be all that horrific.  For me, there has to be some great, scary idea at the core of whatever story is being spun in front of me, and that's why I do find so few thrills to be truly original.  They're out there, peeps, and I'm always happy to keep searching for them.

Lo and behold, I was recently offered up the press release for Hell Hole, a Shudder original, that's getting released to the masses-at-large this upcoming August 23rd.  While I'll admit that the trailer is a bit heavy on predictability here, I'll also saw that the modest creature effects do promise that there might be a bit more to this one than what first meets the eye.  I do like flicks that set their characters out away from civilization -- setting them off with very few resources at their fingertips to resolve the bloody central conflict -- and that certainly looks to be the case here.

I'll do the noble copy-and-paste below; and I'll going to keep my eyes peeled for more on this one in the weeks ahead.  You might want to put this one on your calendars, though, as it looks to deliver some requisite flesh and bones for those of you who like that sort of thing.

-- EZ 
​

I think everyone has suspected that the copyright expiring on 'Steamboat Willie' -- the inspiration behind Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse -- would lead to some interesting consequences.

It goes without saying that this beloved animated character has been front-and-center behind the happiness of children around the world for the better part of the last century.  Created in 1928 (according to Google.com), the Mick has inspired others to laugh in ways only a true pioneer could; thus, that copyright issue -- one would think -- might've been a bigger deal than the Mouse House ever anticipated it would, could, and should be.  Whatever the case may be, I think we're resting on the perch of something completely different in entertainment now that its in public domain ... and one of the very first mutations looks to be coming to screens near you very, very, very soon.

​Why, it was just today that I received the press release from Gravitas Ventures promoting their forthcoming The Mouse Trap (aka Mickey's Mouse Trap) for video and physical release this next month in August.  In lieu of any further commentary on part, I'm going to do the noble copy-and-paste from their materials, this way preserving exactly what the powers that be want you to know about their impending Horror flick entirely.

Read up, kids!  Mickey's taking a rather dark turn!
​
-- EZ 
​

Into Frame Productions partners Jamie Bailey and Simon Phillips are pleased to announce several multi-region partnerships for The Mouse Trap. The film garnered huge press attention when their teaser trailer dropped on January 1st on Simon Phillips' personal YouTube account and has since been seen by millions of people worldwide. 

The film producers inked deals with Gravitas Ventures, An Anthem Sports & Entertainment Company, for the United States and Canada. The Horror feature The Mouse Trap releasing on VOD on August 6th, and DVD and Blu-Ray on August 13th 2024.  

Steamboat Willie is the earliest version of Disney’s Mickey Mouse character, which entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2024. 

The film's Director Jamie Bailey states "The Mouse Trap film is famously the first horror film to use the Mickey Mouse character from Steamboat Willie. We just wanted to have fun with it all. I mean it's Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse murdering people. It's ridiculous. We ran with it and had fun doing it and I think it shows." 

The film stars Simon Phillips (THE WITCHER, FUBAR) as the titular villain, said of the film "We have a childlike excitement to show the world the film! We love the amazing work Walt Disney created here and we love the creative freedom the character coming into public domain provided. Fun. That's what we had making it and what you will get watching it." 

It was produced by Paul Whitney, Mark Popejoy, Alexander Gausman and Andrew Agopsowicz and the Co Producer is Filmcore's Mem Ferda.

About Gravitas Ventures
Gravitas Ventures is a leading all  rights  distributor  of independent  feature  films  and  documentaries.  Founded in 2006, Gravitas connects independent filmmakers and producers with distribution opportunities across the globe. Working with talented directors and producers,  Gravitas  Ventures  has  distributed thousands of films into over a hundred million homes in North America - over one billion homes worldwide. Recent Gravitas Venture releases include Deep Fear, Slotherhouse, Padre Pio, Gringa, The Pez Outlaw, Downwind, Mack & Rita, The King’s Daughter, Queen Bees, Our Friend, Vanguard, and The Secret: Dare to Dream. For more information, please visit  www.gravitasventures.com, and follow @GravitasVOD on X and @gravitasventures on Instagram.

About Anthem Sports & Entertainment, Inc.
Anthem Sports & Entertainment Inc. is a global multi-platform media company with offices and studios in Toronto, Los Angeles, Denver, Nashville, New York, Kansas City, and Cleveland. Anthem's portfolio includes AXS TV, a leading music, entertainment, and lifestyle television channel and digital media company; global film distribution companyGravitas Ventures; Fight Network, the world's premier combat sports channel with broadcast distribution across 10+ countries and available globally through multiple OTT platforms; IMPACT Wrestling, one of the world's leading wrestling organizations; Invicta Fighting Championships, the world’s premier all-women mixed martial arts promotion;  Game+, the leader in sports wagering, Esports and gaming content; GameTV, the home of game shows and competition-based reality series; and HDNet Movies, which features theatrically released films anddocumentaries. Anthem also has a significant ownership interest in Pursuit Channel, one of the top outdoor channels in the U.S. For more information, visit www.anthemse.com.

Simon Phillips Bio: Simon Phillips is an award-winning British actor, probably best-known for the Netflix show FUBAR with Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Witcher Season 3. He has also cited and won awards for his gruesome portrayal of Santa Claus in Christmas Horror features Once Upon A Time At Christmas and The Nights Before Christmas. His Feature film - Butchers, garnered high praise from The Guardian newspaper stating "It's Phillips' performance that keeps the film's pulse going. His Owen is exhilarating unpredictable, alternating between moments of meticulous villainy and sheer lunacy - one moment he will be refitting a spooky music box while eyeing his oblivious prey, next he will be whacking his victim bloodily, channeling a kind of biblical righteousness that makes him slippery, fascinating and, most importantly, terrifying to watch." He has appeared in feature films with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Mark Hamill, Robert Englund, Rutger Hauer, Richard E. Grant, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, John Malkovich, and Mel Gibson.
​

Once again, folks, I don't exist to 'hate on' franchises.

(Deja vu, am I right?)

To be perfectly honest, Star Trek has always been very sacred to me.  While I was too young to fully appreciate seeing the show when it first aired on television in the late 1960's, I distinctly recall being exposed to it in my youth via TV syndication.  I just devoured those original stories of Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy as they spoke to me in a way that I fully understood and appreciated even though their lessons were occasionally just out of my rational reach.  I was glad that Paramount eventually returned us to that world -- what with the motion pictures of the original crew and even the Star Trek: The Next Generation spin-off -- and still at some point I began wondering if too much was going to spoil the tapestry.

You see, I struggled with a good deal of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  Mind you: I loved its characters, but I wasn't always intrigued by the stories the writers delivered.  The same thing could be said for Star Trek: Voyager -- though a few characters were, quite frankly, unnecessary -- and I just couldn't even begin to tolerate Star Trek: Enterprise.  (I think I made it two seasons, and then I've watched bits and pieces of Seasons 3 and 4, never being surprised it was inevitably cancelled.)  Star Trek: Discovery?  Good grief.  I've seen two seasons of that, and I've no interest in completing it whatsoever.  Star Trek: Lower Decks?  No.  Not for me.  Star Trek: Prodigy?  Took in the pilot and couldn't find any appeal.

​Well ... Star Trek: Strange New Worlds had some promise.  Not a lot.  But it occasionally feels good.  Its first season was interesting; and -- ahem -- then its second season went totally off the rails into 'WTF am I watching' territory.  Yes, it sticks largely to the original Trek formula -- each episode functions as its own entity, and it tries very hard to deliver reasonable commentary for those watching -- but I think it fails more than it truly succeeds.  Season 2 ended on a cliffhanger that -- again -- I didn't much care for, so I'll likely not tune in for Season 3 unless it's offered freebie somewheres where I consume my entertainment.

This past weekend, Paramount offered up some footage at the San Diego Comic Con in hopes of spurring our collective interest in the next season ... and -- ahem -- color me underwhelmed.  I do appreciate that they've finally dropped all pretense of claiming Strange New Worlds is a 'space Drama' and they're digging deep solely for Comedy.  Maybe that's the best they have to offer at this point in the franchise's once storied history.

In any event, the footage is below.  Watch it if you will.  Cry if you must.
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

Folks, I don't mean to 'hate on' any franchise.

Sometimes, the truth hurts.  Doctor Who isn't as healthy as he's once been.  Star Wars best days look like they, too, were a long time ago.  Marvel at present is experiencing a relatively resurgence thanks in no small part to the team-up of Deadpool and Wolverine, but otherwise?  Well, the MouseHouse has really hurt that intellectuall property as well.  And ... Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek?  Argh.  I really don't wanna commit ink to my honest thoughts, so let's just leave it this way: few are going where many used to go before.

Again, that isn't hating exactly because it's my opinion backed up by ratings.  Since chucking the Final Frontier behind the paywall that is now Paramount+ -- after several name changes and rebrandings, I might add -- Star Trek has largely returned culturally to what it really was in the late 1960's when it first aired on television: a niche show.  It really didn't ignite the following that it enjoyed in the 1970's and 1980's until man landed on the moon -- for those unaware, the original series was absolute gangbusters in TV syndication (ask your parents, kids) -- and both the classic cast and the Next Generation crew rode that wave as long as was possible.  But today?  Well, no one really watches it any more -- really, there's no need to debate this, people -- and it's returned to the state wherein Roddenberry launched it for the few, the proud, the space marines.  How fitting, am I right?

Well, Alex Kurtzman has done just about everything humanly possible to -- ahem -- recreate Star Trek for a modern audience.  If by 'modern audience' one means 'no audience,' then he's an unqualified success!  Gone is Trek's ability to spin yarns meant to teach everyone about morality and the like; and I really don't think it'll return to that prowess ever.  I really don't.  It's dead, Jim, and it ain't coming back.  At best, Strange New Worlds occasionally looks like its writers understood that original formula, but that incarnation's second season was -- ahem -- just God awful.  At this juncture, I'm fine with re-runs and the like; and if you like it then more power to you.  It just ain't for me, and that's perfectly okay.  Sad.  But okay.

In any event ...

Kurtzman tried for quite some time to bring an even darker iteration to the masses: his fascination with the Federation's once super-secret Section 31 -- a dark ops division -- had the man promising what he felt would be an interesting counterpoint to the United Federation Of Planets enduring grace and goodness in the galaxy.  After several years of using whatever clout he has, it looks like the suits at Paramount+ finally gave him a check: this past weekend, a teaser trailer for a solo movie event -- appropriately named Section 31 -- was dumped at San Diego's Comic Con.  While I've watched it, I can assure you that I have absolutely no idea what it'll be about: the trailer truly reveals nothing but some snappy totalitarian and narcissistic dialogue, meaning that -- once again -- this is most likely no Trek I'd possibly recognize.

The trailer is below.  You know what to do.
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ 
​

Where oh where does our collective fear of spiders come from?
 
A quick Google.com search suggests that an average of 24% of Americans live with arachnophobia – the fear of spiders – and that’s only eclipsed by the fear of public speaking.  An article published by the British Psychological Society suggests that not only is that 24% high – their research pits it around a negligible 6% (although qualified by ‘extreme arachnophobia,’ as if that makes it any more impressive) – but also it’s a highly irrational anxiety: spiders are our friends, only a scant 0.5% are deadly to humans, and they actually dine on other insects that likely terrify us as much if not more.  The article goes on to suggest that, chiefly, scholars believe spiders get psychologically associated with the more deadly scorpion – they’re also arachnids – making any attempt to convince sufferers otherwise a bit of an uphill battle at best.
 
Indeed, this irrational fear of spiders has been exploited by a great many storytellers, so much so that perhaps filmmakers should be sued by any ‘arachnid society’ for contributing to their noxious reputation.  The 1950’s not only saw The Incredible Shrinking Man taking it on-the-lam inside his own house to escape the clutches of a common house pest but also studios put out three silver screen releases – Tarantula (1955) and The Spider (1958) – that supersized their arachnids and put them rampaging in giant-style across the American countryside.  Roughly two decades later, Hollywood rekindled their love affair with the creeping crawlies with such outings as The Giant Spider Invasion (1975) and Kingdom Of The Spiders (1977).  Then – in 1990 – director Frank Marshall really went for broke in delivering the aptly titled Arachnophobia to theaters, a tale that saw a lethal South American spider terrorizing small-town America as a starting point for its global domination.
 
Now, there have been more – many more, in fact – so it should go without saying that this particular paranoia isn’t going away any time soon: earlier this year, writer/director Kiah Roache-Turner ventured back into the dark with Sting (2024), a yarn that aesthetically has a great deal in common with those aforementioned 50’s flicks.  This protagonist arrives from Outer Space, and it crashes down unseen into a big city side-street apartment building where unsuspecting occupants slowly comes to grips with this extraordinarily intelligent mutation of the species.  Before all is over, blood will be let, lives will be lost, and a little girl will come to love the surrogate father she nearly lost in the process.
 
(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:
“After raising an unnervingly talented spider in secret, 12-year-old Charlotte must face the facts about her pet-and fight for her family's survival-when the once-charming creature rapidly transforms into a giant, flesh-eating monster.”
​

It’s been suggested over the years that writer/director Steven Spielberg truly invigorated Hollywood’s best efforts to focus on storytelling for the young and the young-at-heart.  While I’ll concede that’s a valid argument, I’ve always insisted that he was far from the first to do so; still, given the fact that I think his films were among those big studio efforts largely embraced for this emphasis, he winds up getting a great deal of credit.  Thankfully, many other auteurs have followed in those footsteps – Chris Columbus, Robert Zemeckis, JJ Abrams, etc. – and even a good deal more have tapped into the Spielberg vision while pushing their adventures in decidedly different directions.
 
Given that cinematic Fantasy borders very, very closely to topics and subject matter obsessed with things that go bump in the night, the Horror genre has benefitted as well from what I’ll call a bit of bleedover effect.  For example, Netflix’s widely popular Stranger Things has amassed a huge fan following by picking up on such Spielbergian magic but infesting its various plotlines with some adult trappings of conspiracy and – more importantly – authentic screen Horror.  The Duffer Brothers – the siblings largely credited with a great deal of what’s evolved from the streaming show – have certainly proven that screen magic and mystery need not ignore that there are things both children and adults should be afraid of; and the franchise continues to be a juggernaut by mixing the good, the bad, and the terrifying with each season.
 
For what it’s worth, Sting – even with its faults – fits within this same construct.  While it’s functionally the story of young Charlotte (Alyla Browne), an artistic misfit struggling to fit in at home in much the same way screen children rather commonly get portrayed, director Roache-Turner never shies away from the chance to remind us that Char’s still a kid within an adult world … and maybe even they’re not enough to protect her from the monster she inadvertently releases.
 
We’re first introduced to Sting – the film’s central baddie – when it cracks open from the small meteor(ish) egg which crashes down into an elaborate dollhouse.  Much like those facehuggers from Ridley Scott’s spectacular Alien (1979), Sting stretches its legs and crawls out into the faux domicile, slowly making its way from room to room whilst credits roll in the set-up.  In short order, we meet Charlotte – a bit of a benign cat burglar using the apartment building’s HVAC ducts to explore her neighbors – who finds the tiny arachnid, captures it in a matchbox (do those things exist anymore?), and takes it back to her room as a newfound pet.
 
Where there are children, it naturally follows there will be parents (or some other figures of authority); and Char is very soon confronted by her step-father Ethan (Ryan Corr), a hopeful comic book illustrator whose day job it is to manage the building’s many, many, many maintenance issues for his abusive aunt-in-law, landlord, and fellow tenant Gunter (Robyn Nevin).  With a name like ‘Gunter,’ she’s every bit the full-blooded German matriarch the Third Reich would’ve produced, leaving Ethan with a never-ending list of jobs needing his immediate, undivided attention.  His wife – Char’s mother – Heather (Penelope Mitchell) spends her days toiling in her work-from-home career and her nights caring for her Alzheimer’s afflicted mother Helga (Noni Hazlehurst).  Torn between an endless list of responsibilities, Ethan has begun to show cracks of frustration between managing the needs of so many while watching his personal dreams slowly slip away.

Similarly, Roache-Turner’s script suffers under the weight of trying to keep the expected suspense moving forward while balancing out screen time between this rather slim cast of characters.  Gunter and Helga are the first obvious casualties here, reduced from the onset to being little more than stereotypical old codgers – one somewhat debilitated and the other little more than a Nazi(ish) shrew – so they wind up serving more as comic fodder whenever they appear.  Upstairs neighbor Erik (Danny Kim) gets portrayed as the – ahem – brainy foreigner with no social skills and a penchant for knowing whatever science fact is required to effectively more the plot forward when needed.  The building’s only other resident – Maria (a luminous Silvia Colloca) – has apparently suffered some dire tragedy – it’s implied that she lost her husband and children to some grim affair – but none of that really matters as (you guessed it) she’ll wind up as one of the earliest victims to Sting’s growing hunger.
 
Still, it helps that both Browne and Corr are well cast in their respective roles.  Their father-daughter dynamic works almost whenever it’s relied upon (there are a few rough spots, but given Browne’s young age it’s easy to overlook), even though the man winds up acting a bit cowardly in a few small spots.  I could be wrong (I have been before), but I’m apt to wonder if Roache-Turner felt responsible to – ahem – defang any appearance of a strong male lead – an ongoing problem inside Hollywood and beyond, from what I’ve seen – in favor of handing more heroics to the women and children.  While I can appreciate just how put upon the father felt at times, I still couldn’t wonder what his motivation was for cracking so much as he does late in the picture.  Charlotte does have the answers necessary to guarantee everyone’s survival up to a point; but it’s Ethan’s handyman(esque) moxie that comes into play in the final reel.  Though the kid gets to ultimately vanquish her mortal enemy – Sting has now grown to man-sized proportions, wouldn’t you know – I’d argue that she deserved the honor of delivering the coup de grace given the way the story was crafted.
 
Horrors of this particular variety – like those mentioned above from the 1950’s and 1970’s – operate on a slim efficiency.  Basically, there isn’t much to know, nor much need to know, and you’re just here to observe.  Audiences aren’t required to wade through a great deal scientific meandering to grasp what’s transpiring – basically, there’s a spider, it has an insatiable appetite and some cosmic talents, and it’s getting larger and larger with each passing meal – and, from there, you roll with the changes.  What, how, and why the creature does what it does matters not.  What, why, and how the monster varies its killing style isn’t meant to be a distraction so much as it is the main attraction; and that’s all you need to know.  Sting is the kind of circus sideshow – the bearded lady, the intelligent donkey, the fire-breathing man, etc. – that exists entirely on one level.  You’re not given a lot of time to mull things over for fear that you’d change from a believer to a skeptic.  It’s disposable entertainment, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
 
To the film’s credit, Roache-Turner’s script stays pretty lean.  As I said, it’s a thin cast of characters, and this allows for the efforts of crafting tension with some excellent camera trickery – accomplished largely in such a way to minimize the need for too many intrusive special effects – to remain always at the forefront.  While it might’ve been nice to have a bit more scientific explanation for how and why Sting – the spider – is able to exist, grow, and feed, it isn’t all that important because what’s assembled here is a (collective) house haunted by an aggressive monster.  One spill is little more than the set-up for the next chill, and viewers are constantly encouraged to do nothing more than sit back and enjoy the ride.
​

I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that Roache-Turner and cinematographer Brad Shield do an amazing job infecting almost each and every visual with something to watch.  Like that Spielbergian magic I mentioned above, the camera captures every sheen and every glimmer; and it bobs, weaves, and – dare I say – crawls from point to point with an irrepressibly whimsical style, much like a spider creeping exactly where it always intended to go.  Rarely is such a technique as laudable as it is here – I’ve seen it done in Dramas and Comedies, and it’s felt like stylistic overload – elevating what they’ve captured on film to have been possibly plucked from nightmares in the best way possible … if such a thing were ever desired, that is.
 
Simply put, Sting emerges as a project that’s fun to watch and watch closely.  There’s often more going on in there that meets the eye, and such creativity should be celebrated when caught in such an subversive web.
 
And … yes … I say this as one who is very, very, very afraid of spiders.
 
Sting (2024) was produced by Align, Pictures In Paradise, and See Pictures.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the project’s sights and sounds to be pretty damn exceptional from start-to-finish.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Well, sadly, there isn’t much.  You get a trailer and a brief making-of – one that serves more as a bloated promotional short – to digest; and that just wasn’t enough for this viewer.  Never is.
 
Recommended.
 
What I like about Sting (2024) is that – most of the time – it functions very much like a late 1950’s oversized monster movie, complete with the trappings of the fateful spider possibly coming from outer space and sticking all of the action very close to a slim cast of characters.  What I didn’t like was that – with such a small cast – the script really should’ve invested a bit more time in actually developing these players other than being stock additions.  Sadly, they end up being little more than victims (to a degree), and we only got to know them passingly.  A bit more effort could’ve had this one being worth a repeat visit … if not the rather obviously promised sequel.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sting (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ
​

Folks, without blowing my own horn, I do like to point out when I diverge from fandom's opinions in general.

Today's exhibit: 2008's The X-Files: I Want To Believe.

​Released on this day back then, the film was a vastly lower-budgeted affair than was its predecessor (1998's The X-Files aka The X-Files: Fight The Future) with a vastly less mythology-driven caper that brought former FBI Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully back into the government circle for a very specific and grisly abduction.  According to a Google.com search, the project grossed under $70 million from the global box office -- on a budget reportedly of $30 million -- but it mostly failed in its mission to re-ignite the franchise by whetting the appetite of fans to demand more X.

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

"Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) worked at the F.B.I. as partners, a bond between them that led to them becoming lovers. But now they're out of the F.B.I. and have begun new careers. Scully works as a staff physician at a Catholic hospital. Her focus these days is on a young boy with an incurable brain disease. Administration wants to give up on him. Scully, who feels a special bond with the boy, does not. Meanwhile, Mulder's focus is on clipping newspaper articles, throwing pencils into his ceiling and writing about the paranormal. Scully and Mulder are brought together as partners again when a special case requires Mulder's expertise, and Scully is prevailed upon to convince him to help. The case involves a pedophile priest who claims he is having psychic visions regarding the whereabouts of a missing F.B.I. Agent."

While a case could be made that the series which ran from 1993 through 2013 (with ample time-off in between those dates) earned the largest percentage of its reputation exploring the idea of life out there interacting in some way with life down here (on Earth), I still insist to those who listen that the procedural was still at its very best when it stuck to the 'Monster Of The Week' format.  Be it vampires, werewolves, psychics, clones, or any number of fringe antagonists, X very uniquely presented real world people who found themselves in extraordinary circumstances; and -- in this structure -- Agents Mulder and Scully were allowed to do their thing, mainly chatting through any number of possibilities to confirm or deny the existence of something ... something ... well ... freaky.  Yes, it's equally acceptable to champion those countless hours exploring the show's central mythology; but -- for me -- I was usually more invested with tales that colored outside of those somewhat predictable lines.

After all, they were never going to prove we weren't alone ... were they?

​That's why I'll always defend 2008's I Want To Believe.  It turned left when audiences and fans probably expected it to turn right, showing us the eventual strain on our beloved duo's relationship might eventually produce the resulting fracture.  As much as some always wanted the pair to 'get together' (and they did), the 2008 feature showed that true love within their unique circumstances might not be enough to lead to any 'happily ever after' construct.  While they may've reached a personal and professional compromise, threads were forever destined to pull them in other directions.
​

Furthermore, what really excited me was that -- yes -- they were back together -- back in the business of confronting a wonderful puzzle -- even though they weren't exactly part of the usual suspects.  Their usual camaraderie was missing from the film's earlier moments -- that strain I spoke of briefly above -- and they had to find it again, not one-on-one but with a small(ish) cast of characters watching.  It introduced a new dynamic into their relationship, testing these characters and the patience of their fans in ways that produced some solid dramatic moments.  No, it wasn't anything bit -- like their first screen kiss or anything on that level -- but it gave these talented actors something new to confront; and I think it made for a better picture.

Also, I think Believe really set the stage for what could've, would've, and should've been a soft reboot for the franchise.

Instead of doing what the agents had done before on screens big and small, the X franchise was really at a crossroads.  Their relationship had kinda/sorta run its course -- both as a couple and as government employees -- so spinning them off into new waters gave them a measure of independence they hadn't quite known before.  Gone was the Higher Authority that either cooperated with them or secretly placed obstacles in their path; and in its place there was this almost macho sense of 'you came to us for us so stay out of our way' attitude.  It kinda/sorta cast them in the mold of experts -- independent contractors, if you will, available as contract-for-hire to those with enough cash -- and that's what I think was an inspiration for an all-new direction.
​

Imagine that the franchise at that point could've continued in a string of modestly budgeted adventures.  Each story could've had its own premise, never being tied to anything that had been done before; and this could've allowed both Mulder and Scully to be -- as I said -- agents for hire.  No, I'm not suggesting in any way that they should set up shop, formed their own LLC, and put up advertising on late-night television; but what I was (at the time) in favor of was seeing more of the intrepid couple being sought out as experts by any number of organizations, both foreign and domestic.

This newfound relationship might have even occasionally put them at odds with the Federal government in ways the show handled mostly with kid gloves.  As an example, suppose a UFO crashed in South America, and foreign powers came to Mulder asking for him to assist in its recovery.  He could've gone on his own -- leaving Scully behind -- and then, perhaps, something goes horribly awry in the other nation.  After being warning by the U.S. government not to intervene, Scully then goes rogue (or a sort), hopping the next plane to the foreign land to find her lost partner.  All of this inevitably could bring the reunited pair in conflict once again with the U.S. on foreign soil; and that, too, could've pushed the door open for some other curious event.

My point is -- ahem -- not to suggest that I should be penning these stories.  (I do write, I have written, but that is far from the point.)  Rather, it's that I think Believe introduced a great springboard from which X could've truly re-invented itself for the cineplexes; and I'm sad that never quite happened.
​

As a standalone feature, the 2008 film works adequately.  Mulder and Scully are given a tension they explore.  While it's certainly never intrinsic to the main plot, the actors made the most of this smaller, quieter, even gentler affair; and they did so with some new faces added to the mix along with a familiar one popping in here and there.  The central scope stayed relatively small -- I say that compared to their previous theatrical outing as well as what the show accomplished in its popular serial format -- and the downside was that -- ahem -- one might suggest this didn't even need to be a Mulder/Scully production.  While it was great to see them together again, the narrow scope seemed to leave fans a bit -- ahem -- disenfranchised; and this title has all but disappeared as a talking point.

X did return to the small screen a few years later; and that, too, was occasionally good but sparingly in my estimation.  Putting the wheels back for a weekly go-round -- even though these were vastly shorter seasons -- made the experience feel a bit like a cash grab more than it was an authentic attempt to spin new yarns in the conspiratorial network.  A once tentpole genre franchise is now mostly dark, and that's sad ... especially given the modest promise Believe offered when it had a slim chance.
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks even more for sharing ... thanks even more for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

It goes without saying that no one likes to be the bearer of bad news.
 
What’s worse?
 
Well, the only thing I can think of immediately is being the recipient of some bad news; but when you get in the business of trying to both talk about entertainment and critique it against the backdrop of history, you have to be willing to ‘man up’ and deliver the good, the bad, and the ugly.
 
In part, that’s all I was trying to do yesterday when I talked about the death of good storytelling in the greater Star Wars Universe.  Looking back, I didn’t think then – nor do I think now – that I said anything remotely controversial.  In fact, I’ve always tried to approach presenting my perspective with a whole lot of common sense woven in there between the nouns, verbs, and adjectives.  Like it or not, it might’ve stirred to the pot a bit too heartily for some, mostly because I received some feedback suggesting that I said “Star Wars is dead.”
 
Again, I never said that exactly, but let me take a moment to clear up any confusion I may’ve inadvertently created:
 
“Star Wars – as we once knew it – is dead.”
 
 In fact, I think that’s an accepted consensus amongst the hardest of the hard-core Star Wars fans: it wasn’t but just last week that Film Threat’s Chris Gore and his merry band of collaborators hosted the online event titled “Funeral For A Franchise.”  For those of you who missed it – shame on you – it was largely a long wake coordinated by Gore that highlighted a great many reasons why that galaxy far, far away has slipped further and further from our cultural collective consciousness.  Unlike other online content creators, Film Threat delivered an event that was as thoughtful as it was satirically tinged.  While one could’ve come away feeling differently about the State of The Empire, I thought that there was still no denying that what Star Wars has become under Lucasfilm’s Second Reich is a far cry from the whimsical, fantastical fairy tale that inspired a generation (or two) of consumers in ways the Walt Disney Company can (arguably) never recapture.
 
Now, I’m surprised that this is something I’d ever find myself clarifying, frankly.
 
While what I wrote yesterday was never intended to insult anyone who still invests time and money in the Outer Rim territories, I’m astonished how audiences can look at Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope and find legitimate thematic comparisons to Andor, Ahsoka, or The Acolyte.
 
Andor – a good Fantasy/Drama in its own right – hinges very heavily on understanding the political structure of the franchise George Lucas created.  It coopted some of the original’s ideas and gave them new life by introducing political comparisons to our modern era.  So, yes, it’s an adult excursion within this intergalactic fairy tale; and, yes, I get why some like it.  But … for me?  It feels more like that newfangled Battlestar Galactica than it does something Luke, Han, and Leia would fit easily into, and I’ve no plans to watch its second season at this point.
 
In minor ways, Ahsoka hinted strongly in small pieces like it wanted to be something very much ‘in the tradition of’ what Lucas did.  Sadly, the show’s pacing was horrific, gravitating between painful instances of characters standing around waiting for something to spur them into action instead of the plot organically doing that all on its own.  I guess those who dabble in the Expanded Universe may’ve found more to like in it than I did, but – again – the narrative inconsistency bored me to tears.
 
Basically, this brings us to The Acolyte, a program that – if ratings data is accurate – quite possibly lost more of its audience than the franchise ever really gained.  For clarity’s sake, no, I didn’t watch it – had no interest, honestly – but I followed the plot points via online blogging and vlogging.  I don’t feel I missed anything; and I’m quite certain that – given what I’ve heard about it – it wouldn’t have changed my mind about the current dire predicament some Star Wars fans find themselves in today.
​

If you’re wondering, then, why I felt it necessary to offer up today’s clarification, it’s only because I heard from a few in the readership suggesting that I was a bit harsh on the franchise.  I don’t think I was – not even in the slightest – but responders did ask what I would do to fix the problem?
 
Well … how do you bring anything back from the dead, folks?
 
Okay, okay, okay … yeah, maybe that was harsh.  Forgive me for that – no, I’m not deleting the line because it’s relevant – and let me offer up something perhaps a tad more constructive.
 
Part of the challenge, I think, that Lucasfilm – under the Walt Disney Company – has is that they’re in the business of turning out products and not stories.  Yes, yes, and yes: the corporation has given us some wonderful films over the years – and they may yet again one day – but if the powers that be cannot see how ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Disney Stars Wars’ differ even only on the thematic level then what good is expending any effort trying to concoct a plan?  I could be wrong here, but if The Acolyte had massive ratings even with its storytelling flaws do you honestly believe they’d think twice about doing anything differently?  George Lucas – by contrast – always said he was telling the stories he wanted to tell; Kathleen Kennedy – Lucasfilm’s current head – appears to have no interest in telling stories so much as she does pushing propaganda.  Those are two vastly dissimilar starting points, and I’m not certain they can exist in the same creation of mythologies.
 
So the only problem they see is that (A) the films are underperforming financially and (B) the television series are underperforming as selling points for Disney+.  What this tells me is that the company is okay spending, say, $1 billion to make a new flick so long as it grosses, say, $3 or $5 or $7 billion at the box office.  Things like story, characters, plot, etc. don’t factor into that equation, not in any negligible way.  Similarly, I suspect they’d be happy to spend $1 billion on a new Star Wars streaming show so long as it netted them 3 or 5 or 7 billion new subscribers.  Once more, the things I want to know more about – story, characters, plot, etc. – are inconsequential.  Because apparently only profit matters in their corner of existence, how do I fix corrupted narratives?  In short, there is no fix if you don’t acknowledge the core deficiency, something few executives are ever interested in exploring.
 
All I can offer again is my query: “How do you bring back the dead?”
 
Now, I hold out hope that the circumstances might change.
 
In our hearts, I do think we’ve an optimistic people; and it’s in our nature to wish for things to be as good as they are green.  No one wants to feel down and out when talking about any of our entertainment experiences, but even we need to be better about not giving swindlers more of what’s in our wallet when they care so little about the quality of the slop they dump in the trough.  The best that Iger and Kennedy could do for now would be to shelve every Star Wars project in the pipeline and let the waters clear.  Put some space between what they’ve done and what they could do, even if that means ultimately finding other intellectual properties to do something with in the meantime.  If nothing else, a bit of a recess might help develop a greater hunger for whatever comes out next, and that alone might help lift even a middling effort out of the red and into the black.
 
I know, I know, I know … but what would you do?
 
There is no simple answer.  If there were, then I suspect Disney or Lucasfilm would’ve already exploited it.
 
But … what I would do would be something a bit different, that’s for sure.
 
I’m an O.G. guy, and for me Star Wars has always been Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, R2, and C-3PO.  I’d bring them back in animated form with either a television show or smaller movie set after the events of Return Of The Jedi.  It doesn’t have to be anything big and grand – though I’d not turn that down – but it does have to be a story worth watching, a chord they haven’t quite since acquiring the franchise from Lucas.  Give us the further adventures of Luke Skywalker – a tagline that even the Jedi Master has used here and there – and put the band back together again.  It was an opportunity that Lucasfilm deliberately avoided, and that single mistake told me everything about ‘Disney Star Wars’ that I needed to know in one fell swoop.
 
If you wanna recover from that?
 
Put the band back together.
 
And let them play.

-- EZ
​

Hollywood used to be the place where ideas flourished.
 
Again, folks, it pains me to – ahem – “sound old.”  Yes, like many, I’ve grown a bit long in the tooth over the past few decades writing about entertainment – mostly from the point of view of an online and self-styled critic but also as one who kinda/sorta respects cultural history – but that old axiom about there only being seven original stories gets proven true with each passing year.  While creativity once was king, it’s increasingly difficult to see any inspiration in just about anything on screens big or small these days; and it’s indeed a dark day when even our beloved Star Wars franchise appears to have lost the luster that propelled audiences to that galaxy far, far away for so long.
 
“Is Star Wars dead?” many wonder.
 
Well …
 
Reality suggests that, yes, “It’s dead, Jim.”
 
Toys are not selling.  Movies are underperforming.  Disney+ streaming shows show alarming trends as viewers abandon ship for other pursuits.  Franchise stars like Ewan McGregor and Temuera Morrison are begging fans to demand Lucasfilm write them blank checks for more seasons of digital programming audiences seem to have shunned.  Storytellers like Rian Johnson and Patty Jenkins can’t seem to get stories off the ground … and, yet, there are those who would have you believe that all is good and green in the Outer Rim territories.  You don’t have to be an industry analyst to see that the opposite is more likely true … that is unless you’ve been convinced otherwise by the mainstream media’s outright propaganda proclaiming that The Acolyte – the latest Disney+ attempt to redefine Star Wars for a new generation of devotees – is the best thing ever.
 
No, no, and no: this is not going to be a review of The Acolyte.
 
In fact, I cancelled my subscription to Disney+ the day after Star Wars: The Bad Batch finished.  That Dave Filoni program started out interesting in its first season, developed modestly in its second, and I wanted solely to see how it all wrapped up in its finale.  Its third and finale season was uneven, at best, feeling rushed in some places and vastly too predictable in others.  Like some fans, I long ago believed that Filoni had, at least, good intentions with his perceived stewardship of the George Lucas creation, only then to be horrifically disappointed when he introduced covens, time travel, and intersectional feminism to the timeline.  Gone was the sense of wonder; and – in its place – gender politics took root.  I had hoped for a great finish to the Bad Batch, but it, too, let me down.  Enough was enough, and I bowed out.
 
So, no, I’m not reviewing The Acolyte.
 
As an interested party, I did follow a good deal of the show’s reception and criticism, and I read assessments that were both positive and negative just so I could kinda/sorta keep up with what was going on.  Without getting into specifics, I will say that I saw far more cogent arguments made by The Acolyte’s critics than I did by its supporters: when celebration appears predicated largely on whether or not we’ve seen something before, followers rather plainly ignore assessing whether or not a new character, planet, circumstance, or device was authentically needed in the first place.  Starting from a supposition of “let’s make The Jedi the bad guys” might seem a novel concept to some, but it rather deliriously ignores the reality that The Jedi were canonically established by the previous owner as the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy.  None of this seemed to matter to Star Wars’ new fan contingent, and they embraced The Acolyte with Sith-like glee.
 
So … ?  Ignoring a franchise’s tenets is now a good idea?  A marketable brainstorm?  Even a solid plan?
 
Folks, I’ve met people like this; and I’ve debated thinkers like this – as have many of you – for years.  They’ve existed on the fringes of fandom, often times committing serious ink to their latest, greatest fantasies in hopes of landing a book deal or, at least, their own place in pantheon of fanfic gods.  They’re the same people who once insisted that what Star Trek’s Starfleet needed was a Vic Mackey type, the fictional antihero of FX’s popular Crime/Drama The Shield.  Mackey made being bad look good, and he did it for seven victim-filled seasons.  (Important note: Mackey left victims wherever he tread, not survivors.)  Well, these people finally got their way with 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness; and how did that work out for the franchise?  The script by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtman, and Damon Lindelof upended the vastly superior treatment of similar material – namely Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards’ Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan (1982) – by making Starfleet complicit with the bad guys and turning some of the franchise’s best original moments into little more than winks, nods, and groans.  Into Darkness was a Bizarro creation where Spock yelled ‘Khan’ instead of Kirk, Kirk died instead of Spock, and the villainous Khan had the Federation’s blessing (of a sort) instead of its disdain.
​

Taking what works and inverting it thematically isn’t original writing.  At best, it’s gimmicky.  At worst, it’s outright creative laziness.  It really takes no freshness and very little effort to flip a switch.  Indeed, anyone can do it – that’s why switches were invented, for Pete’s sake – so while some might suggest that the idea of making The Jedi Order into a clan of secretly shady men and women privately covering up their own corruption while simultaneously maintaining law and order is innovative I’m telling you here and now it’s just a rather obvious attempt to talk politics instead of spin fairy tales.
 
Ultimately, Star Wars is for kids.  That’s something I truly believe each of us should accept.  And, yes, I mean that it’s even for the kid inside each of us who are older.  Kids excel with fairy tales.  Have you ever tried telling them a bedtime story about the Clinton impeachment?  The Mueller Report?  The Warren Commission?  If you have, shame on you!  If you haven’t, then you’re my kinda people.
 
Star Wars a grand mythology of an imaginative type that feeds something in the recesses of our brains where we’re always – always – hungry for inspiration.  Spaceships fly – even those that look like a hunks of junk – and warriors clash in battles of good versus evil.  Droids are real, and they can talk with us, guide us, aid us, and even antagonize us with their own robotic quirks.  Blasters ping, sizzle, and zap.  Lightsabers hum.  Landspeeders soar on clouds of air, and twin suns blot every horizon.  Even magic exists, and we’re constantly reminded that it can be used by forces of any philosophy.
 
However, knowing that these stories are essentially products for the young (or the young-at-heart) tells me that Lucasfilm has lost its way in greenlighting something that was so obviously opinionated and controversial as The Acolyte.  This isn’t to suggest in any way that Star Wars cannot have a political message because even the Grand Master himself – George Lucas – has stated that is far from the truth.  While Lucas has alluded to his views on American policy and the Vietnam War influencing his scripts for the Original Trilogy, one would be hard pressed to identify just when and where these messages were ‘dialed up to eleven’ on the screen.  Instead, they were woven delicately into the fabric of the story, perhaps making them inseparable on even a cosmic level.  Also, if George ever spoke about it in interviews of the day, I can assure you that – having lived through that era and hungrily watched any coverage I could find – his politics were never a sticking point.  Think what he may have at the time, Lucas never spiked the football in the endzone because he believed he scored a Progressive, Libertarian, or Conservative talking point.  It just never happened.
 
Now … flashforward to Kathleen Kennedy parading her willing conspirators around with their infamous “The Force Is Female” t-shirts, and I think might understand why the art of subtlety has been lost for the modern generation.
 
In today’s radically charged climate, narrative ideas come second; and what matters most is politics.  Ideology is incorporated all too often, leaving things like characters, journeys, and themes acceptable only if they support the agenda.  In fact, I’ve even read and shared stories wherein directors and screenwriters are privately rewarded for their D.E.I. contributions to entertainment, meaning that they can earn industry bonuses for including whatever contemporary social justice theories to indoctrinate audiences on systemic racism, gender fluidity, and climate change.  Why, I’m old enough to remember a time wherein a boy unknowingly kissing his sister (i.e. Luke and Leia) might’ve produced a few good-natured laughs; by contrast, today’s revered creators might possibly celebrate including such incestuous couplings in hopes that they’d be branded ‘revolutionary’ if not just ‘brazenly taboo’ by a fawning media.
 
This is how far we’ve come.
 
Correction: this is how far we’ve fallen.
 
We need a return to those days wherein ideas – not politics or ideology – flourish again, but – sadly – I don’t see that happening within the worlds of Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, or even Doctor Who.  As we’ve seen, these franchises have embraced a creative lifestyle embraced by a small percentage of the viewing audience, and their dismal ratings and box office show their efforts aren’t bearing fruit.  These charlatans have left the business of entertainment behind, now openly favoring whatever pet cause these niche groups are pushing for time being.
 
What we need is a cultural renaissance … one that is presently long overdue.

-- EZ
​