How's your week going, readers?
If you missed it, then let me remind you that your truly -- your faithful editor -- was a little down in the dumps yesterday for presenting a day that came in a bit under my high expectations. (FYI: the Daily Citation Page for April 3 had only 50 genre trivia tidbits.) Yes, I added a few things, and I researched a few more, but ... only 50? Sigh. Well, lo and behold, just 24 hours later I find myself celebrating an incredible, astonishing, and mind-blowing 103 different genre trivia items.
Wow. Is it a great day to be alive and be a genre fan or what?!
Yes, you're damn right I'm tooting my own horn because horns don't get tooted in a vacuum. These days with the always shifting landscape of entertainment available on the Information Superhighway, sites come and go on a regular basis. I can name a few places I used to visit just five or ten years ago that don't exist; but here I am, still standing, still growing, still evolving, and still celebrating. Now, I'm not saying that I'm going to be around ten years from now -- one never knows what challenges life brings -- but I'm definitely going to showcase when I've had a great ride. That's just how I roll.
But enough about me ... let's get to the brass tacks of history, shall we?
Let it be said that the late Andrei Tarkovsky is revered as one of Russia's greatest directors; and -- cool beans! -- the truth of the matter is a great deal of what he brought to theaters was some Earth-shattering Science Fiction projects. IMDB.com reports that he amassed a mind-boggling 23 different wins for his features playing at film festivals and beyond. His work is renowned for approaching some of life's meatiest ideas, and it has even been suggested that his death was the result of a long-brewing conflict between the storyteller and his own government. Do I know what happened? No I don't, but it's worth mentioning because those rumors persist even to this day. Genius ruffles the feathers of the establishment, so I'll allow room to consider he may've fallen to a dark fate.
Now -- and here's the controversy, peeps -- I'm just not a fan.
This isn't to suggest in any way that his films aren't worth the effort or praise. They're singular visions, and it's easy to accept that his stories speak to some who like, say, long takes, slow-moving plots, and more than enough time to think about everything on the screen while you're taking it all in. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot of his stuff -- mostly because what I have seen I've believed suffered from an incredible amount of bloat -- but all one need do is little research into the man's catalogue to see that my sentiment isn't without some merit. It could be that Tarkovsky emerged from a certain generation of filmmakers -- ones who liked using the craft in experimental ways -- and their pacing didn't leave much to the imagination.
Whatever the case may be, I'm still thrilled to mention the guy on his birthday. Though he's no longer with us, Tarkovsky was born on this day back in 1932.
Also, I've debated with some on the merits (or lack thereof) of the first two Iron Man movies. (I'm kinda/sorta split on Iron Man 3 which has parts I like but feels weirdly uneven.) Honestly, they bored me to tears. Of course, that had nothing to do with the work of Robert Downey Jr. in bringing the projects to life; it's just that I couldn't quite get into the subversive vibe of a multi-billionaire somehow being an anti-establishment guy. You HAVE to be in the establishment in reality in order to go anywhere, so ...?
No, no, and no. I don't bring this up to get into any intellectual throwndown with readers or casual observers alike. I'll always concede that Downey Jr.'s work is nothing short of epic. He truly banked his reputation on those productions, and -- for the most part -- it shows exceedingly well what storytellers and talent can accomplish when they put their noggins together and shoot for the skies. The actor arguably hoisted that entire franchise on his shoulders for a time; and I think he'll probably always deserve the lion's share of the credit for bringing the classic comic book film to the mainstream in much the same way Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton did decades before.
So ... Happy birthday, Mr. Downey Jr. It was a shame you had to check out on that universe (I'm betting Marvel's really kicking themselves now), but it is what it is.
Am I right?
On my side of the pond (aka America), we kinda/sorta took Max for granted, never really knowing just where he came from, how he got here, what he meant, why his sp-sp-sp-speaking cap-cap-captivated so many viewers, etc; and yet we still embraced his kinda/sorta zany presence for what it was. Before you knew it, he was everywhere -- again, this was viral before viral was viral -- and no one ever stopped to truly appreciate his origin.
Well, it was a little telefilm that aired on this day in 1985 in the United Kingdom of all places. Yes, the flick eventually captivated Americans well enough that it got a kinda/sorta loose do-over (of sorts), and then that effort spun off into a remarkably prescient television series for those of us who knew what good and smart and prescient looked like. Sadly, it never quite went mainstream -- viral sensations ebb and flow far too much to be given legitimacy, which is what the show tried to do with an essentially one-off character -- and it fizzled after a mere two seasons.
Yet, what a delightful two seasons they were ...
For those of you who are interested, I strongly encourage you check into the series. As I sad, it's very well written and well-acted. I know I've a DVD copy (still a physical media junkie) but perhaps it's out there for streaming if you're so inclined.
Oh, I know, I know, I know ... "But, editor, it was published in novel format until some time in 1922!" Yes, I hear you purists complaining now; yet back in those days a great many tomes were first introduced to the masses-at-large in serialized format, thus giving them a chapter-by-chapter exploration of a wider work in progress. Eventually true, it was all collected under one seamless cover and retailed at an affordable price (unlike today's press), but it all first began on this day back in 1914.
From what I've read, there were seven books in the greater Pellucidar saga ... and, unless I miss my guess, I think I've read three of them. I believe there were three collected in one massive book, and I raced through them. (Again, I'll leaving room for error here because I don't recall all of the specifics as it was a long, long time ago.) Over the years, I've picked up a good handful of reprints of these pulp novels from yesterday; while I haven't exactly been thrilled with all of them, I do believe ERB's stuff what quite interesting.
Need I remind you that -- with over 100 different trivia items to behold -- there's a vast array of more for you to absorb. It isn't always about what I like at SciFiHistory.Net; rather, it's about what we like -- each of us. That's why I do what I do ... all in the hopes that we can be brought just a bit closer together for a few moments every day to celebrate what unites us in fandom as opposed to those who would divide and conquer us with their sorcerer's ways!
Anyway ... here's the link ...
As always, peeps, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ