I’ve been listening to some of Patton Oswalt’s stand up the past few days and while I have been laughing myself silly I have also learned a thing or two. When I say learned what I really mean is that a truth I already knew has been revealed to me. This, I think, is the true worth of stand-up comedy. A person gets on stage and tells you things you didn’t know you already knew and they make you laugh while doing it.
What I learned from Mr. Oswalt today has to do with the Star Wars prequels. Before I listened to this routine I was sure I did not like any of the prequels and I was fairly sure I knew the reasons why. I missed a few. In his act Mr. Oswalt reveals some of the most convincing reasons I have encountered as to why these movies are absolute garbage. Forget Jar-Jar and terrible acting and a lead that conveys no emotion. Forget also really bad looking digital video that was hyped (there it is again!) as "The Thing That Would Soon Devour Film". Even, and I know this is a big one, forget the fact that Lucas decided to direct these movies himself -- despite the glaring evidence of the first trilogy why this would be a bad idea.
Now that we have forgotten these minor points (and believe me, I have more) let us get to what Mr. Oswalt targets as the problem: Lucas spends a good deal of time in the first two movies telling us about the really tough and evil characters we love, but about when they were sweet, innocent children. It had not occurred to me before listening to this bit but that, without a doubt, is exactly what is wrong with these movies. Let's look at one of the all time villains when he was a sweet and cuddly boy that life kept tromping on. Poor little Vader, don't cry now. The truth of the matter is very simple: I could not care less how Darth Vader came to be what he is. Not one bit. The same goes for any of the other characters in these films.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Tale of Two Cuts
Despite a fairly impressive amount of negative media attention I decided to watch Babylon A.D. this past weekend. I was in the mood for a gritty, rough kind of action film and I was pretty sure that Vin Diesel would deliver. I didn't really get that from Babylon A.D.
Instead, what I ended up with was yet another DVD that decided to try and defeat poor reviews and box office performance by including two versions of the movie on the DVD. This is what we call the "Throw everything we shot at the audience and hope something sticks" technique.
This is not a new practice and, I have to admit, once upon a time I found this concept to be appealing. My thought process ran something like, "You have footage that is not properly edited, scored and lacking digital effects that you have decided to share with me?! I am ready!".
Lately I have found that I lack the interest to watch two different versions of the same film during a rental period (even a Netflix rental period) or even to sit through the deleted scenes which are served up as some rare delicacy. The reason for this is fairly simple, I’d like someone to decide what the movie is and I don’t think that person should be me.
Babylon A.D is a great example of the studio/director not presenting a unified front and giving the world one version of their movie. So instead the audience is given two versions of the film, neither of which is really complete. Now perhaps the two opposing camps did not have access to the same footage, or perhaps there was so much ill will floating around that they intentionally tried not to use the same footage but for some reason critical pieces of dialog and even portions of scenes are missing from both cuts.
What you end up with is one cut which we shall call "The Dark Cut" and the other which we shall call, "The Less Dark Cut". Now the only way that the viewer which we shall call "The Unsatisfied Customer" can actually see this movie and get all of the information they need in order to a) understand the movie's point and b) attempt to enjoy it is by watching both of these versions and mentally editing sections from each together.
I have never seen a case as severe as this, although I am sure there are probably worse. I have seen differences like with Die Hard 4.0 where one is missing a few expletives and the blood splatter is toned down. I have seen differences like with the numerous versions of Blade Runner where a dream sequence or a shot of an origami unicorn is missing.
My long-winded point I am trying to make here is that typically when studios and directors do this nonsense the cuts that are ultimately released differ in such slight ways that it is rather obvious as to why certain scenes, lines or shots were scrapped. The studio wanted a PG-13 rating or felt that shooting the dog would upset the audience too much. What is going on with Babylon A.D. is like being served up three-quarters of a movie in either version and being told "It's not my fault, blame the other guy."
Instead, what I ended up with was yet another DVD that decided to try and defeat poor reviews and box office performance by including two versions of the movie on the DVD. This is what we call the "Throw everything we shot at the audience and hope something sticks" technique.
This is not a new practice and, I have to admit, once upon a time I found this concept to be appealing. My thought process ran something like, "You have footage that is not properly edited, scored and lacking digital effects that you have decided to share with me?! I am ready!".
Lately I have found that I lack the interest to watch two different versions of the same film during a rental period (even a Netflix rental period) or even to sit through the deleted scenes which are served up as some rare delicacy. The reason for this is fairly simple, I’d like someone to decide what the movie is and I don’t think that person should be me.
Babylon A.D is a great example of the studio/director not presenting a unified front and giving the world one version of their movie. So instead the audience is given two versions of the film, neither of which is really complete. Now perhaps the two opposing camps did not have access to the same footage, or perhaps there was so much ill will floating around that they intentionally tried not to use the same footage but for some reason critical pieces of dialog and even portions of scenes are missing from both cuts.
What you end up with is one cut which we shall call "The Dark Cut" and the other which we shall call, "The Less Dark Cut". Now the only way that the viewer which we shall call "The Unsatisfied Customer" can actually see this movie and get all of the information they need in order to a) understand the movie's point and b) attempt to enjoy it is by watching both of these versions and mentally editing sections from each together.
I have never seen a case as severe as this, although I am sure there are probably worse. I have seen differences like with Die Hard 4.0 where one is missing a few expletives and the blood splatter is toned down. I have seen differences like with the numerous versions of Blade Runner where a dream sequence or a shot of an origami unicorn is missing.
My long-winded point I am trying to make here is that typically when studios and directors do this nonsense the cuts that are ultimately released differ in such slight ways that it is rather obvious as to why certain scenes, lines or shots were scrapped. The studio wanted a PG-13 rating or felt that shooting the dog would upset the audience too much. What is going on with Babylon A.D. is like being served up three-quarters of a movie in either version and being told "It's not my fault, blame the other guy."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Odd Post Day
So I just came across another little odd gem on the web and decided to post it here. For those of you not familiar with the site Craig'slist.org it's a free online publication featuring personals classified ad's. This particular ad was in a section called, "Missed Connections". It was posted in 2004.
My foot - your ass missed connections
Being a humanitarian and a friend to all cats, I often let my cat Fredrico outside to do, well, whatever cats do outdoors. Crap in the neighbor’s garden, fornicate, frolic, etc etc. It's 3 am, The bars let out, and I'm now out trying to save my cat’s ass from another kicking. I saw you kick Fredrico last month and if it wasn't for my broken toe, I'd would have run you down and broken another toe off in your ass!
Fredrico is a loving cat and being he's slightly over weight (25 lbs or so), he is not prone to getting out of the way of soccer hooligan style shenanigans. I've thought deeply about how to prevent poor Fredrico's ass from another booting, and that would be to keep him indoors all the time. This will not do; Fredrico needs his exercise. I’ve thought about get him a tread mill and possible send him on a couple of vacations a year, He loves to climbing and believe it or not Fredrico takes to the water like an otter. However, given our financial situation, right now those options are not available. Fredrico is on disability and I'm the only one bringing home a check these days, damn economy.
Now, this leaves me no alternative. To all of you who have not kicked Fredrico's ass, but given the opportunity couldn't resist a puss on boots escapade; please take note. I will be baiting the Wicker Park & Bucktown neighborhoods with Paper Mache look a likes of Fredrico, however, these look a likes will be filled with scrap metal. Please refrain from kicking my decoys, unless you like Musac, emergency rooms, and needles.
And if by chance I get to you before you get off into a cab, ambulance, or whatever; be prepared to answer to an angry Fredrico.
Fredrico is now on a diet and has been working out since this unpleasant incident. I've attached weights to all of his toys and he's been sparing with our neighbor's toy dog. Fredrico's got some moves.... Beware cat kicker, we’re on to you.
Regards,
Fredrico's Roommate & best buddy.
P.S. Fredrico would also like to add; “ FFFFFFFFFFTTT!!!”
I am at a loss for words here
I came across this article today about the organization PETA and a certain Mr. Clooney. There is really not much else I can say, take a gander:
Washington Post article
Washington Post article
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Music Madness
I came across an article the other day that I found rather interesting. I call it an article but really it is just a few lines talking about the music acts that earned the most money last year. I am pasting it below:
Let's ignore the fact that only numbers three and four are worth seeing in concert or listening too, is anyone else noticing something rather odd here?
Madonna Tops Highest Earner List
12 February 2009 8:35 AM, PST
Pop superstar Madonna is the highest earning star in the music business - bringing in a massive $242 million (£167 million) in 2008.
The Holiday hitmaker released her latest album Hard Candy last year and launched her Sticky & Sweet world tour.
And all the hard work has paid off for the singer - she has topped Billboard's Moneymakers list of 2008, earning a grand total of $242,176,466 (£167,018024).
Rockers Bon Jovi came second in the poll, followed by Bruce Springsteen, The Police and Celine Dion, all of whom toured last year.
The top 10 is as follows:
1. Madonna: $242 million (£167 million)
2. Bon Jovi: $157 million (£108 million)
3. Bruce Springsteen: $156, million (£107 million)
4. The Police: $109, million (£75 million)
5. Celine Dion: $99,171,237 (£68 million)
6. Kenny Chesney: $90 (£62 million)
7. Neil Diamond: $82 (£56 million)
8. Rascal Flatts: $63 million (£43 million)
9= Jonas Brothers: $62 million (£42 million)
9= Coldplay: $62 million (£42 million).
Let's ignore the fact that only numbers three and four are worth seeing in concert or listening too, is anyone else noticing something rather odd here?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Defeating Hype
I have been meaning to write here more frequently and I have devised a means that I hope will ensure weekly posts. Starting today I will be posting about movies that have been touched by one of the greatest curses I know of: hype.
For most people hype is part of the marketing package for every film, book or song that is released. Marketing has reached the sad state of claiming everything is bigger, faster and better than everything that came before. For some reason we are still swallowing these lies and forgetting that something cannot be both new and improved.
All that being said I would like to take a little time and talk about films that have suffered from this affliction, films that have been given inordinate sums of praise and have lived to tell the tale.
Film #1
Children of Men
Like every film on this list, when Children of Men was released I was already tired of hearing about it. In additional to the regular fanfare made about movies, the ad banners, splash pages and pop ups I also came across numerous articles and reviews that lauded the film.
The director, Alfonso Cuaron, had already won over many with his previous efforts like Y Tu Mama Tambien, despite having also made films like The Little Princess and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I think that any director who has worked on the Harry Potter series is bound to receive a fair amount of attention when their new films are released (although the present director, David Yates seems somehow to avoid the spotlight) but the amount of press and acclaim Children of Men received seemed disproportionate despite this.
Perhaps it was because Clive Owen, the film's lead, had recently emerged as one of Hollywood's new leading men; or because the subject matter for the film had that bleak, post-apocalyptic feel that signifies an important work. Whatever the reason --everyone was talking about Children of Men.
Needless to say my own hang-ups and short-comings caused me to quickly become disinterested with the film. Imagine my surprise and joy when I finally plucked up the courage and rented the movie. The opening sequence of the film is powerful, engaging and completely engrossing. Everything that I had been expecting of the film was immediately forgotten and the long takes soon had me absorbed in the way that you always hope a movie will.
By the time I grasped what the story was about, what the actual conflict of the movie was, I knew I was watching something that I would never forget. The number of sequences in this film that are unexpected, heartbreaking and visually arresting are too numerous to mention. The story being told is so wonderfully simple, the plot so fantastically clear and straightforward, that the viewer is allowed to sit back and enjoy the show.
Children of Men achieves what all movies should aspire to achieve: it is a compelling piece of art that is as thought-provoking as it is entertaining.
For most people hype is part of the marketing package for every film, book or song that is released. Marketing has reached the sad state of claiming everything is bigger, faster and better than everything that came before. For some reason we are still swallowing these lies and forgetting that something cannot be both new and improved.
All that being said I would like to take a little time and talk about films that have suffered from this affliction, films that have been given inordinate sums of praise and have lived to tell the tale.
Film #1
Children of Men
Like every film on this list, when Children of Men was released I was already tired of hearing about it. In additional to the regular fanfare made about movies, the ad banners, splash pages and pop ups I also came across numerous articles and reviews that lauded the film.
The director, Alfonso Cuaron, had already won over many with his previous efforts like Y Tu Mama Tambien, despite having also made films like The Little Princess and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I think that any director who has worked on the Harry Potter series is bound to receive a fair amount of attention when their new films are released (although the present director, David Yates seems somehow to avoid the spotlight) but the amount of press and acclaim Children of Men received seemed disproportionate despite this.
Perhaps it was because Clive Owen, the film's lead, had recently emerged as one of Hollywood's new leading men; or because the subject matter for the film had that bleak, post-apocalyptic feel that signifies an important work. Whatever the reason --everyone was talking about Children of Men.
Needless to say my own hang-ups and short-comings caused me to quickly become disinterested with the film. Imagine my surprise and joy when I finally plucked up the courage and rented the movie. The opening sequence of the film is powerful, engaging and completely engrossing. Everything that I had been expecting of the film was immediately forgotten and the long takes soon had me absorbed in the way that you always hope a movie will.
By the time I grasped what the story was about, what the actual conflict of the movie was, I knew I was watching something that I would never forget. The number of sequences in this film that are unexpected, heartbreaking and visually arresting are too numerous to mention. The story being told is so wonderfully simple, the plot so fantastically clear and straightforward, that the viewer is allowed to sit back and enjoy the show.
Children of Men achieves what all movies should aspire to achieve: it is a compelling piece of art that is as thought-provoking as it is entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)