Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Ideas...?
Anybody have any ideas for topics for posts? Anything I can do here I haven't done of late? I'm feeling a bit tapped out.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
ACL Fest 2008 - seriously ACL Fest?
The ACL Fest has already released their schedule for this year's Festival. And... its looking a little bleak for The League.
Last year there were some conflicts on the schedule. This year, it seems like more than half of the bands I was planning to see are playing at the same time, which means half the money I spent on a ticket is going to waste.
I just saw Austin Super Music Geek Andy Langer on News8 essentially making fun of anybody who would take exception to the schedule, and... well... suck it Andy Langer. Not all of us get paid to go to shows, and some of us have to take days off work to go to this thing.
Andy Langer also fails to note that unless you get to the good shows early, you're way in the back, and... bleah. So even when, say, Jenny Lewis starts a little before David Byrne, and, technically you can see both... you're going to miss a good part of David Byrne AND you're going to wind up closer to the beer booths than the stage.
Day 1
Jenny Lewis plays at the same time as David Byrne
And the headliner that night is somebody I've literally never heard of.
Day 2
Black Joe Louis, Robert Earl Keen and Erykah Badu play at the same time
Duffy and Spiritualized play at the same time
But... really... Beck and Robert Plant/ Allison Krause play at the same time. Seriously... wtf?
Day 3
Heartless Bastards, Raconteurs, and Gnarls Barkley at the same time. 3 of the big reasons for me to show up, and... seriously? Does the ACL Fest staff really think there's no conflict for the audience here? When there are so many holes in the schedule for hours at a time?
And the big closing act? The Foo Fighters. A pop band for frat dudes. Well done, ACL Fest. Didn't you guys land Dylan last year?
I am deeply disappointed. There are a few points of minimal conflict in the schedule, such as Gillian Welch and Vampire Weekend playing against nobody else I'd care to see. But, honestly, this is putting a pretty big cloud over the whole thing for me.
I don't really care if it costs more. Next year, I'm not buying tickets until I've seen the line-up and schedule. I've already spent the money for this year, so I'm locked in. But that Raconteurs/ Heartless Bastards/ Gnarls Barkley trifecta is particularly bothersome. As is the lack of big, headlining shows this year (that I care about). And while I'm glad I saw so many new acts last year (and subsequently picked up albums), those were interspersed with bands that I was already happy to see. Less so this year.
I know, I know... I'm old. I may not even be in the right demographic anymore to be who the festival is aimed at. And I don't want to spoil it for Jason before we've even shown up, so I'm going to quit complaining. And I'm not sure I wouldn't have gone to the festival with this info. But I will say I'm not even half as excited about this year's schedule than I was about last year's...
Last year there were some conflicts on the schedule. This year, it seems like more than half of the bands I was planning to see are playing at the same time, which means half the money I spent on a ticket is going to waste.
I just saw Austin Super Music Geek Andy Langer on News8 essentially making fun of anybody who would take exception to the schedule, and... well... suck it Andy Langer. Not all of us get paid to go to shows, and some of us have to take days off work to go to this thing.
Andy Langer also fails to note that unless you get to the good shows early, you're way in the back, and... bleah. So even when, say, Jenny Lewis starts a little before David Byrne, and, technically you can see both... you're going to miss a good part of David Byrne AND you're going to wind up closer to the beer booths than the stage.
Day 1
Jenny Lewis plays at the same time as David Byrne
And the headliner that night is somebody I've literally never heard of.
Day 2
Black Joe Louis, Robert Earl Keen and Erykah Badu play at the same time
Duffy and Spiritualized play at the same time
But... really... Beck and Robert Plant/ Allison Krause play at the same time. Seriously... wtf?
Day 3
Heartless Bastards, Raconteurs, and Gnarls Barkley at the same time. 3 of the big reasons for me to show up, and... seriously? Does the ACL Fest staff really think there's no conflict for the audience here? When there are so many holes in the schedule for hours at a time?
And the big closing act? The Foo Fighters. A pop band for frat dudes. Well done, ACL Fest. Didn't you guys land Dylan last year?
I am deeply disappointed. There are a few points of minimal conflict in the schedule, such as Gillian Welch and Vampire Weekend playing against nobody else I'd care to see. But, honestly, this is putting a pretty big cloud over the whole thing for me.
I don't really care if it costs more. Next year, I'm not buying tickets until I've seen the line-up and schedule. I've already spent the money for this year, so I'm locked in. But that Raconteurs/ Heartless Bastards/ Gnarls Barkley trifecta is particularly bothersome. As is the lack of big, headlining shows this year (that I care about). And while I'm glad I saw so many new acts last year (and subsequently picked up albums), those were interspersed with bands that I was already happy to see. Less so this year.
I know, I know... I'm old. I may not even be in the right demographic anymore to be who the festival is aimed at. And I don't want to spoil it for Jason before we've even shown up, so I'm going to quit complaining. And I'm not sure I wouldn't have gone to the festival with this info. But I will say I'm not even half as excited about this year's schedule than I was about last year's...
Monday, June 02, 2008
Movie Rewind: Bad Movies
Despite trying to cram in as much fun as possible while in Costa Rica, I did wind up watching the last 3/4's of the first Fantastic Four movie in my hotel room (in English with Spanish subtitles). And its funny, because I remembered being dissatisfied with the movie when it was released, and I believe I grumbled a bit about it here at LoM.
On a second viewing, its worse than I thought. It's typical of the 90's-era takes on superheroes in that the creative team diverted from the formula enough (in this case, primarily with Doom) that it sort of detracts from the whole.
It doesn't help that the movie is really broad and really stupid.
The creative team played the charatcers and situations almost entirely for wackiness and laughs, which would be fine, if the gags were funny. It all sort of feels like someone explained the basics of the FF to a group of amateur night comedians, and let them riff as to the possibilities of each character for slapstick, rather than "what can we do that's new or interesting". And, typical, of 90's era movies, the final act makes no sense what-so-ever.
I place the blame at the feet of director Tim Story, who clearly wanted to exercise his comedic muscles (he directed Barbershop) rather than try to bring the movie up to Spider-Man levels. And, in aiming low, Story achieved his goals.
I also watched Transformers again synched up with Rifftrax (the web-project from the guys who used to do MST3K). And, as displeased as I recall feeling at the time of the initial viewing (I almost walked out), its amazing to see how god-awful the movie is on a second viewing when you aren't sort of dazzled by the gigantic, shiny robots and the promise of Robosaurus. Also, its a bit stunning how terribly Shia LeBouf's character is handled by both Shia and the writers. They seem to be challenging the audience to dislike "Spike" with every scene. All line delivery set to "wacky stammering", and a character who can best be described as a stalker and, worse, eBay re-seller.
Mostly, the script is just dumb. The Transformers take a long, long time to actually appear. There's a complete and unnecessary storyline involving some random Australian girl and Anthony Anderson (never a good sign for your movie when you've involved Anderson). And John Turturro in a career-crippling appearance as some sort of a-hole G-man. Add in the 70's-funktastic (read: black is funny!) stylings of the Autobot known as Jazz, and robots peeing on John Tutturro, and... man.
It seems almost as if no plotline or idea was ever completely scrapped as the movie was assembled. The story of the damn MacGuffin Cube (or whatever its called) is complicated enough. I don't need for Megan Fox to have a backstory (Spike never gets one). Nothing really comes out of the story of the soldiers in Qatar who are moved to the US. And the hackers' storyline ends about 1/3rd of the way into the movie, but they still stick around. Meanwhile, the titular Transformers are given nothing to do.
Its supposed to feel, I think, like an epic disaster movie with all the moving parts coming together in the final reel (think ID4. Wait. Don't do that, either.), but, instead, the mashing of pieces feels like a 2.5 hour trainwreck.
But, worry not, they're filming a sequel. Bumblebee will be back in action soon enough.
I don't often revisit the really bad flicks. I saw them once. That seems to be enough (enough being able to say "yeah, I saw that" when a particularly awful movie is mentioned at work or in a social setting.) But once you begin watching one of these flicks again, its tough not to sit and begin cataloging all of the problems with a movie, and wonder where, exactly, did things go so far off track? How did they decide that Doom, a well defined, Vader-like character, should be redesigned from the ground up into a guy who delivers each line with the bombast of Jerry Seinfeld? Why did they make Jazz the Autobot sort of offensive, and how did that make it to the final cut? Who writes like that? Who, at the studio, green lights something so... dumb?
I also, just FYI, watched part of "Basic Instinct 2", which scored a 7% on Rottentomatoes.com. Which is still 50% better than I would have guessed, but the polling of top critics does, actually, land it squarely at 3%. The movie seems constructed solely to stroke the ego of Sharon Stone, assuring her that she is good enough, smart enough and sexy enough to get everyone around her to behave in the kowtowing manner of personal assistants and the Hollywood press corps' deferential treatment she somehow still receives despite the fact that nobody really cares about Sharon Stone.
But within the context of the movie, Stone's "mysterious sexiness" is hilarious.
The character of Catherine once again has the personality of a bullying DMV employee mixed with that girl in the dorms who needed attention, so she'd use lots of four-letter words for shock value. And, seriously... Stone just isn't that physically attractive. She sort of falls into that realm of Nicole Kidman, where I just don't get the appeal. It's like going to the mall and hanging out a bit too much around the mannequins.
The movie would probably be laughably bad with the right audience, or if they actually pushed it to the next level with unnecessary nudity and/ or violence. That would be something, at least. Sadly, the proceedings feel plodding and dull, and I didn't see either enough mayhem nor premium-cable worthy nudiness to keep my attention. Characters seem entranced by Catherine Tremmel for no particular reason other than the dictates of the script, and rather than sensibly avoiding someone accused of multiple murders, seem eager to hang out with her. Because, we're told, Sharon Stone is SEXY. and MYSTERIOUS.
Also, the protagonist who falls into Catherine's web-of-deceit is some pale British dude who seems like little more than a walking plot device so Stone can all but twirl a mustache and wring her hands while cackling.
Anyhow, I coudn't finish watching it. Maybe the end vastly improved the whole package?
I like to watch some bad movies. I've seen R.O.T.O.R. twice. But something about big budget, low delivery movies is particularly irksome. It seems with that mush riding on a movie, why not run the scripts and idea past some folks whose careers don't depend on agreeing that Sharon Stone is still red hot, or that jive-talkin' robots (seen in both Transformers and R.O.T.O.R.) aren't full of comedic value. Nor is that "characterization".
On a second viewing, its worse than I thought. It's typical of the 90's-era takes on superheroes in that the creative team diverted from the formula enough (in this case, primarily with Doom) that it sort of detracts from the whole.
It doesn't help that the movie is really broad and really stupid.
The creative team played the charatcers and situations almost entirely for wackiness and laughs, which would be fine, if the gags were funny. It all sort of feels like someone explained the basics of the FF to a group of amateur night comedians, and let them riff as to the possibilities of each character for slapstick, rather than "what can we do that's new or interesting". And, typical, of 90's era movies, the final act makes no sense what-so-ever.
I place the blame at the feet of director Tim Story, who clearly wanted to exercise his comedic muscles (he directed Barbershop) rather than try to bring the movie up to Spider-Man levels. And, in aiming low, Story achieved his goals.
I also watched Transformers again synched up with Rifftrax (the web-project from the guys who used to do MST3K). And, as displeased as I recall feeling at the time of the initial viewing (I almost walked out), its amazing to see how god-awful the movie is on a second viewing when you aren't sort of dazzled by the gigantic, shiny robots and the promise of Robosaurus. Also, its a bit stunning how terribly Shia LeBouf's character is handled by both Shia and the writers. They seem to be challenging the audience to dislike "Spike" with every scene. All line delivery set to "wacky stammering", and a character who can best be described as a stalker and, worse, eBay re-seller.
Mostly, the script is just dumb. The Transformers take a long, long time to actually appear. There's a complete and unnecessary storyline involving some random Australian girl and Anthony Anderson (never a good sign for your movie when you've involved Anderson). And John Turturro in a career-crippling appearance as some sort of a-hole G-man. Add in the 70's-funktastic (read: black is funny!) stylings of the Autobot known as Jazz, and robots peeing on John Tutturro, and... man.
It seems almost as if no plotline or idea was ever completely scrapped as the movie was assembled. The story of the damn MacGuffin Cube (or whatever its called) is complicated enough. I don't need for Megan Fox to have a backstory (Spike never gets one). Nothing really comes out of the story of the soldiers in Qatar who are moved to the US. And the hackers' storyline ends about 1/3rd of the way into the movie, but they still stick around. Meanwhile, the titular Transformers are given nothing to do.
Its supposed to feel, I think, like an epic disaster movie with all the moving parts coming together in the final reel (think ID4. Wait. Don't do that, either.), but, instead, the mashing of pieces feels like a 2.5 hour trainwreck.
But, worry not, they're filming a sequel. Bumblebee will be back in action soon enough.
I don't often revisit the really bad flicks. I saw them once. That seems to be enough (enough being able to say "yeah, I saw that" when a particularly awful movie is mentioned at work or in a social setting.) But once you begin watching one of these flicks again, its tough not to sit and begin cataloging all of the problems with a movie, and wonder where, exactly, did things go so far off track? How did they decide that Doom, a well defined, Vader-like character, should be redesigned from the ground up into a guy who delivers each line with the bombast of Jerry Seinfeld? Why did they make Jazz the Autobot sort of offensive, and how did that make it to the final cut? Who writes like that? Who, at the studio, green lights something so... dumb?
I also, just FYI, watched part of "Basic Instinct 2", which scored a 7% on Rottentomatoes.com. Which is still 50% better than I would have guessed, but the polling of top critics does, actually, land it squarely at 3%. The movie seems constructed solely to stroke the ego of Sharon Stone, assuring her that she is good enough, smart enough and sexy enough to get everyone around her to behave in the kowtowing manner of personal assistants and the Hollywood press corps' deferential treatment she somehow still receives despite the fact that nobody really cares about Sharon Stone.
But within the context of the movie, Stone's "mysterious sexiness" is hilarious.
The character of Catherine once again has the personality of a bullying DMV employee mixed with that girl in the dorms who needed attention, so she'd use lots of four-letter words for shock value. And, seriously... Stone just isn't that physically attractive. She sort of falls into that realm of Nicole Kidman, where I just don't get the appeal. It's like going to the mall and hanging out a bit too much around the mannequins.
The movie would probably be laughably bad with the right audience, or if they actually pushed it to the next level with unnecessary nudity and/ or violence. That would be something, at least. Sadly, the proceedings feel plodding and dull, and I didn't see either enough mayhem nor premium-cable worthy nudiness to keep my attention. Characters seem entranced by Catherine Tremmel for no particular reason other than the dictates of the script, and rather than sensibly avoiding someone accused of multiple murders, seem eager to hang out with her. Because, we're told, Sharon Stone is SEXY. and MYSTERIOUS.
Also, the protagonist who falls into Catherine's web-of-deceit is some pale British dude who seems like little more than a walking plot device so Stone can all but twirl a mustache and wring her hands while cackling.
Anyhow, I coudn't finish watching it. Maybe the end vastly improved the whole package?
I like to watch some bad movies. I've seen R.O.T.O.R. twice. But something about big budget, low delivery movies is particularly irksome. It seems with that mush riding on a movie, why not run the scripts and idea past some folks whose careers don't depend on agreeing that Sharon Stone is still red hot, or that jive-talkin' robots (seen in both Transformers and R.O.T.O.R.) aren't full of comedic value. Nor is that "characterization".
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Final Crisis #1
DC Comics' mega-event of 2008 is the Grant Morrison penned "Final Crisis". The first issue hit the stands Thursday, and I picked up the issue Friday.
From what I read, I would never recommend that the issue be taken as an entry-level comic to the DCU. The story is mired in DCU characters and continuity, and asks that readers have been paying attention to recent output from DC, but also picking up key collections as they've been released of late.
None of that is intended as a criticism. At some point, you're either allowed to tell stories for people who have been following along (see: Lost, BSG), or you're stuck in the perpetual cycle of episodic storytelling, where the reader can pop in and it doesn't matter if they're familiar with the concepts and characters before tuning in (see: Law & Order, most police procedurals).
The story actually seems to make events such as the abysmal "Countdown" make some sense, as well as the uncompleted, unnecessary "Salvation Run". It embraces characters from Kirby's 70's run on New Gods, Anthro and Kamandi, while seamlessly embracing recent events in the DCU, such as Johns' introduction of the Alpha Lanterns in Green Lantern. Morrison also plays with some of the toys he created during his mega-series "Seven Soldiers of Victory", and its probably worth returning to your issues or collections of that series to get an idea where he might be headed.
But what I've always enjoyed about Morrison's stories is that, despite the need for our heroes to win, his set-ups don't tell me how the story will unfold in a neat pattern I can consume with the predictability of a McDonald's meal.
Unlike Marvel's competing event "Secret Invasion", "Final Crisis" isn't telegraphing the ending before the story has started. I am picking up both series, and, honestly, compared to last year's "Civil War", I've been a bit let down with Secret Invasion since sometime last fall when Elektra was revealed as a Skrull in "New Avengers".*
I've already read considerable negative noise in the blogosphere on "Final Crisis", and much of it is a reminder of the grim state of the monthly comic. A lot of it seems to bemoan that the reader isn't able to jump into the story with page 1, which seems a bit unfair. Morrison does what he can to provide exposition without recounting 40 years of DCU history.
As I mentioned, I don't think this would be a great first comic to hand to someone, but I also don't think that asking readers to pick up on contextual clues or have the slightest bit of knowledge of the DCU as a comic reader is that tough of a request.
But to address some particular resurfacing internet complaints:
(a) If you have to ask who Dan Turpin is, well, bone up on your Kirby and New Gods reading, or just check Wikipedia. (b) Maybe if the reader continues to follow the series, s/he will be rewarded with knowledge of who characters are and what is going on.
(League special nerdy snark: If some are confused by "new characters"/ obscure characters (gasp!), you might want to note that DC is telegraphing to readers what MIGHT be important in upcoming storylines by what its including in its re-release of older material.)
The art of the issue, by JG Jones, is phenomenal. He seems to have a tremendous ability to meld the mundane and the fantastic, and portray them side by side without either seeming silly (and did you see his Metron?). The coloring is excellent, the rendering and composition top drawer. I've mostly known Jones as a cover artist, but I'll need to do some research and see what titles he's previously handled. It's not the same hyper-realistic style we'd see out of Ross's watercolors, but there's always room at the table for terribly talented artist.
This issue included a lot of what I've found exciting about the DCU. The New Gods, The Question, Green Lanterns... and a history that extends back to the cavemen with Anthro and Vandal Savage, all the way to the 31st Century and beyond. This issue only plants the seeds of what could be a great series, but the pieces are in place. Fallen Gods, Red Skies... Color me intrigued.
I guess the watchword I'd share on Final Crisis is: Patience. Comic nerds can be such an impatient lot, insisting on instant gratification, plotting and pacing be damned. Just get to the fights, and don't ask the reader to work.
It seems the same lack of patience which has marred many reader's experience during the current, phenomenal run on Morrison's Batman (which is taking the better part of two years to come to a head) may also rain on the parade for Final Crisis.
What readers seem to forget is that super-hero comics are often plagued by writers and story lines that start promisingly, but end with a whimper. Look at virtually any 90's era DC cross-over, from "Final Night" to "The Death of Superman", and you'll see potential squandered as the big ideas come out of the gate first, and its all about the writer trying to scramble once they've got the reader's attention. And, honestly, I kind of felt that way about issues 3-6 of Marvel's Civil War (for this reader, the outcome that seemed most logical won out).
So give Final Crisis some time. Give Morrison's Batman some time. And, for God's sake, give All Star Superman its due. We're getting great comics from the guy, and it feels like we're headed to a point where DC has trimmed the excesses of the post-Infinite Crisis DCU and is finding out what really works.
And I think Final Crisis, given time, will define what that will mean for DC Comics for the next few years.
*Really, the story of Secret Invasion, to anyone who'se ever watched TV, should play out as a big superhero slugfest which will involve super-heroes realizing their teams have been infiltated by spies, go through unease that comrades have been aliens/ bodysnatchers/ commies/ what-have-you, and it will all end in a big fight where the heroes team up and push the enemy out into space. It's all very "They Live". With superheroes instead of Rowdy Roddy Piper.
If anyone is interested
Hey, I think I'm going to the Paramount to see "Laura" and maybe "Out of the Past".
The show starts at 7:00. If you're coming, give me a holler. I plan to get there around 6:30 to see what they have for a pre-show.
The show starts at 7:00. If you're coming, give me a holler. I plan to get there around 6:30 to see what they have for a pre-show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)