8-Year-Old Reviews: Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom Trailer

Here we go again!

The Might of Small Things

We knew then, that we were being changed... and made part of their world. We didn't know for what purpose... but we knew, we would be told.
 - Closing narration, Phase IV

 Watching Ant-Man, you can definitely tell what was Edgar Wright, and what was Marvel. I would have loved to have seen Wright's version, of course, but I enjoyed the final film knowing its convoluted history. It was at its best when it shied away from the standard Only You Can Save The World element, as well as the needlessly extended Call To Heroism/Training for Battle section of the film - it was when the film did the things that you wouldn't see in Thor or Iron Man that made it shine. As Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a '70s spy thriller, Ant-Man is a heist movie, appropriate for the character.

Of course, being a science fiction aficionado, I couldn't help but think of other things...

(All the images in this review are from Phase IV, Saul Bass's only feature-length film: visually striking and very weird in the classic British Science-Fiction style. Well worth a watch.)

8-Year-Old Aly Reviews: Walking With Dinosaurs IN 3D CANCELLED

29-year-old Aly here. A while ago, I saw Walking With Dinosaurs in 3D, figuring it would make for a good 8-year-old review. But unfortunately shortly after returning from the cinema, 8-year-old Aly was suddenly unwell, and is now in his room with a hot toddy.

Please ignore the ominous rumbling, I assure you there is nothing to worry about...

Fan Entitlement vs Fan Passion

(Once again, many apologies for the dearth of posts recently.)

As a fan of many things, one has to wonder at times where the distinction between tasteful understated nerdrage and entitled whining lies. Being a fan means enjoying things, but unfortunately that amount of enjoyment can sometimes lead to an equal and opposite dislike of things when it eclipses, disreputes, or is otherwise perceived to threaten the thing you like.

Scott Mendelson has chosen the somewhat unusual forum of the Forbes website to discuss what he terms Fan Entitlement Syndrome:

Current fandom doesn’t just get upset when their favorite shows get cancelled, their preferred films flop, or casting choices for their favorite projects go awry. They take to the Internet to absolutely demand that they get their way as a matter of moral principle, damn the business logistics or any other logical obstacles in their way. They swear up and down that not only was John Carter a great movie (debatable) but that it absolutely was a financially successful film that absolutely deserves a sequel. Never mind that it earned $282 million on a $250m budget and lost Disney around $200m, it was merely misunderstood and this time will be totally different. They clamor for sequels to MacGruber, an amusing action-film spoof that couldn’t even match its $10m budget at the worldwide box office. They start online petitions demanding Dredd 2 even though distributor Lionsgate and producer Reliance Big Pictures lost out when the $45m Dredd grossed just $35m at the global box office. I adore Speed Racer, but I and others like me don’t run around pretending that it wasn’t a costly flop that doesn’t justify a sequel. Sometimes one is enough and we should be thankful we got that one. 

Despite Mendelson's tone getting my heckles up a bit, I think it's worth examining a few things.

That Star Trek Film Wot Came Out A While Back

 C'est la vie.

"How do we know that your 'correct history' is the right one? The best one?"
"Because, Jim, here in your timeline, billions of people are dead."
 - Star Trek: Phase II, "In Harm's Way" (which you can watch here and here)

Hey, it's May the Fourth! Let's talk about that beloved science fiction franchise which has inspired and delighted a generation since its debut all those decades ago - that's right, Star Trek!

I'm a Trekkie.*  I'm also a fan of Star Trek: Phase II, which is easily the best Trek we've had this entire millennium.  So when I learned that the astoundingly high-quality fan series would continue their tradition of adapting lost Star Trek scripts with Norman Spinrad's "He Walked Among Us," I was over the moon.

But then, CBS put the kibosh on this...

... after news of Spinrad’s discovery spread rapidly around the Internet, CBS set its phasers to “meddling threats of litigation,” sending a cease-and-desist letter to Spinrad that demanded he remove the script from the web and immediately scrap all plans to adapt it, given that it still legally belongs to the studio.

Spinrad complied and has said little on the matter since, other than posting a clearly lawyer-prepared statement noting that he is not allowed to comment further and that CBS is now “considering opportunities to offer licensed copies of the work”—but not, however, considering allowing Phase II to go ahead with producing it, even if it’s had little problem with the group’s not-for-profit homages before. As the New York Times notes, Phase II has even been allowed to adapt another shelved Star Trek screenplay in the past (David Gerrold’s “Blood And Fire”), leaving Spinrad to drop some pretty strong hints that much of CBS’s recent change of heart has to do with pressure from J.J. Abrams to not allow the production of any Star Trek material that could possibly interfere with his own.

It's unclear just why CBS would stamp this out when they've turned the controversial "Blood & Fire" (aka The Gay Episode) into a fully-fledged episode that's better than 75% of official Star Trek episodes considering they also technically claimed copyright, but it seems Abrams may have a part in it:

For what it’s worth, Spinrad only makes this connection indirectly—responding to a fan’s assertion that “maybe J.J. isn’t to blame after all” with “I didn’t say that,” then continuing, “But I am not legally bound not to say that I found J.J. Abrams' first Star Trek film quite inferior to the Phase II videos and his cavalier attitude towards the decades-long legacy of what Star Trek has come to mean to the general culture quite reprehensible, and indeed artistically counterproductive.” So, that definitely seems sort of telling.

Now, I'm aware that lots of people liked 2009's Star Trek.  Other people loved it.  I - horror of horrors! - liked it too.  It was a well-designed, fun action adventure with some phenomenal acting from Karl Urban (who I'm convinced performed a seance prior to filming to summon the spirit of DeForest Kelly, or at least just watched everything the man's ever been in up to and including Night of the Lepus). I had a great time at the cinema oohing and aahing at the explosions and pretty starships. I enjoyed all the little in-jokes and nods that were put in for guys like me. And whatever happened, it worked. It obviously gave Star Trek the shot in the arm Viacom wanted after the massive over saturation of the late '90s/early 2000s, and you could argue the association would have drawn a new generation of fans to the original series. I certainly wonder if we'd be enjoying the super-duper remastered Star Trek: The Next Generation blu-rays without the proof that the Star Trek brand was profitable, because brand equity's all some executives tend to care about.

On the other hand, I had serious problems with the film : most of the complaints were made by others, and I really wasn't in the mood to engage with Strawmen on the issue ("You didn't like it because it wasn't full of pseudo-scientific drivel!" "You didn't like it because it had young actors instead of old fogeys!" "You didn't like it because it's hip and mainstream instead of weird and underground!")  And the Children of the Straw were out in force.  You got sites like The Onion making what seems to pass for biting, insightful satire by making the (entirely jocular and not at all serious) claim that classic Trekkies don't like the film because it's "fun," "action-packed" or all those other things that apparently preclude it from being Trek.  Now, I'm not criticising The Onion for their parody - that's what The Onion is for - but I do criticise those who feel that it's a reflection of the truth. Even reviewers I admire were far more forgiving than I was willing to be, especially the legendarily scathing Red Letter Media and SFDebris. It can be frustrating, since it seems many people cannot understand that you can like a thing and still acknowledge its shortcomings.

So if you liked 2009's Star Trek, then by gumbo that's just dandy, I'm glad you did - so did I. However, I hope you'll note that I'm not legally bound not to punch the air at Mr Spinrad's remarks all the same.

Bite-Sized Blog: Conan, Theosophy, and Expendables

Iggy Pop dressed as Conan, looking about as depressed as I do looking at this cover to Conan the Barbarian #10.

Well, time for another update: times are interesting indeed, as it turns out I have more time for one project when I was under the impression I had a matter of days, while the other project is still in the womb of creation, waiting to be snatched out. How purposefully vague.

In the meantime, quite a few things have happened in the world of adventure.

8-Year-Old Reviews: Thor

Warning: spoilers, gushing and capital locks herein.

Upcoming remakes that aren't actually remakes so can we stop calling them remakes please

Remake madness is starting to irk me. I'm not speaking of Hollywood's predeliction to stay with established intellectual properties: that's been with us since the dawn of cinema itself. No, I'm speaking of the internet's disfavour reaching somewhat excessive proportions, that remake fever has "gone too far," that Hollywood "holds nothing sacred," and "does nobody have any original ideas any more"?

A quick look at cinematic history would bely why Hollywood really isn't any more or less remake-obsessed than it has been in other periods.  Does anyone call Captain America: The First Avenger a remake of the Reb Brown or Matt Salinger films?  Does anyone call Jane Eyre a remake of the many other film adaptations?  Does anyone call The Hobbit a remake of the Rankin-Bass animation?  No, they do not.  So I would dearly appreciate it if people would take this into account before lumping films which are not remakes into those which are.  Fright Night is a remake.  The Mechanic is a remake.  Footloose is a remake.  Hell, you could even argue Black Swan is a remake of La Blue Girl.  The following are not.

Films I saw in 2010, and Films I should probably see in 2011

There are a lot of films I was planning on seeing this year. There were a few I was looking forward to, but for some reason never got around to (Iron Man 2, Tron: Legacy).  Others I may have enjoyed (Shutter Island, Kick-Ass, Splice, Despicable Me, Predators, Inception, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Tamara Drewe, Black Swan).  In some cases, I probably dodged a bullet (Daybreakers, The Book of Eli, The Wolfman, Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Jonah Hex). Despite the plaudits and recommendations, I still do not wish to, nor do I ever see myself wishing to, see The Social Network.  I'm pretty sure I'm going to see The Way Back, being as I'm a massive Peter Weir fanboy (who still thinks he's been robbed countless times at the Academy Awards)

Still, I'll give my thoughts on the few 2010 films I saw this year in order from least enjoyed to most enjoyed, and list the films I'm making a point of seeing in 2011.

Ironclad's looking pretty grim

Yes, it does.

I'm looking forward to Ironclad a lot more than I was looking forward to Robin Hood.  Why?  Brian Cox. This guy is awesome.  Plus James Purefoy, of who I am now quite a fan, Derek Jacobi, Vladimir Goddamn Kulich!  That's in addition to setting it during a Medieval conflict that's not about the Crusades or Robin Hood, which is a plus.

Now, there are a few things I'm a bit iffy about: I really hope Kate Mara - sadly not Kate O'Mara, as I mistakenly thought - the requisite Action Chick is fairly believable (i.e. not an 80lb soaking wet waif), Purefoy is really far too young to play Marshall at this point in time, and I'm not sure about those giant double-bitted axes the besiegers were wielding.  Plus that tagline on the poster is a bit... well, it's a bit something.

THIS.  IS.  SPARTA!

Ah well.  I still want to see it.  There's been a dearth of really good medieval films, especially given the tremendous disappointments of Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood.

"I don't belong here.... I guess everybody says that, don't they? "

Mikey C of the Robert E. Howard Forums and Necronomania has alerted me to the passing of Tony Curtis, and I drink to the shade of another cinematic legend who has passed into the dark worlds unknown of man.

Testosterone Poisoning: The Expendables and what it might mean for Conan

I'm of two minds about The Expendables.  One enjoys it for what it was: another hates it for the same reason.  There are ramifications for further action movies, including Conan - ramifications I'm not enjoying the prospect of.

Had enough of people mining Harryhausen for soulless remakes?

Too bad!



Why.

Just... why.  I mean, there's ripping off Bradbury, and there's outright plagiarism.  "In Dynamation!" it boasts - Harryhausen should sue.  Not to mention this comes hot on the heels of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Mishmash of the Cretins, a truly Asylum-esque marketing ploy.  (I haven't seen Prince of Persia since my last experience with a mythologically-tinted movie was... unpleasant.) About the only good thing about the production - that being they finally have an ethnic Persian as Sinbad - is wasted since for some reason this Sinbad is bald.

Avatar vs Jurassic Park

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.

Or this.

I thought it was just because I'm a dinosaur nut who can tell what film a dinosaur roar originates in (well, apart from a few ubiquitous ones whose origin I've never been able to track down), but it seems I'm not the only one.

A shame, it really took me out of the film. Mostly since it just reminded me of what I could've been watching.

And don't you forget it.