I originally watched the pilot to Amazon's adaptation of Man in the High Castle, an alternate history based on Philip K Dick's novel about a world where the US lost WWII and Germany and Japan have divided the US between them. I was glad it got picked up for a full series that was released a couple of months ago. You might remember the PR stunt that backfired where they wrapped New York subway cars in Nazi and Japanese empire symbols. Yeah, that didn't go well but any publicity is good publicity, right?
Anyway, the show takes place in an alternate 1962 where Hitler is on his last legs (seemingly) and his lieutenants are jockeying for power and to take down their ally in Japan. Since Germany has nukes and Japan doesn't, they would seem to have an advantage.
Meanwhile, a young guy in New York named Joe Blake joins up with "the resistance" and is tasked to carry a very special film called Heavy Lies the Grasshopper to "the Man in the High Castle" somewhere in the Rockies. At the same time, a woman in San Francisco named Juliana is contacted by her sister and also given a copy of Heavy Lies the Grasshopper. Then her sister is gunned down and Juliana decided to take the copy to the Man in the High Castle in the Rockies. The pilot has Joe and Juliana meeting but then duh-duh-duh we find out Joe is an undercover Nazi agent!
The scope of the show begins to widen after that. The Japanese Trade Minister in America is working with a disgruntled Nazi to sneak nuclear secrets to the Japanese Empire during the visit of the Crown Prince. And Juliana's boyfriend Frank goes nuts and brings a gun to assassinate the Crown Prince, but someone beats him to the punch. Not before he's identified and becomes a fugitive. At the same time the head of the SS in America (Obergrubbenfuhrer Smith--easy for you to say) is nearly assassinated--possibly by those closest to him.
Besides the alternate history there's some sci-fi involved with the films. The first ones that are shown depict the history we all know from textbooks, the one where the US and its allies won the war and Germany and Japan were defeated. So you have to wonder where those came from and what they mean. Of course we don't really find that out. And then at the end the show throws a curveball when the Japanese Trade Minister goes to a park bench and in sort of Somewhere in Time fashion concentrates real hard while holding a heart-shaped locket and wakes up in our 1962. Obviously then that brings up a lot of questions. Are there parallel Earths like The Flash or Sliders? Or is it something crazier than that, like maybe the whole world of the show is a dream or mass delusion and the films by "the Man in the High Castle" are subconscious reminders of how things are supposed to be, sort of like cues trying to alert people.
Just who is the Man in the High Castle? It could be none other than the Fuhrer himself, Adolf Hitler! In the last episode an assassin goes to the castle where Hitler is staying (which is a real thing, BTW) and Hitler has a whole library of these films that he watches every day. So maybe he's using "the resistance" to gather and turn over these films to some intermediary who back-channels them to him. And if the SS catches the resistance with them, they come to him anyway. It's kind of an Emperor Palpatine thing to do. (Seriously the plot of the Star Wars Force Unleashed video game had Palpatine essentially creating the Rebellion to flush out traitors, though then it kind of backfired on him.)
The thing is, I've read the book and I'm not sure it's much help. I read it a few years ago but after watching the show I went back and looked up the end. Basically in the book instead of film canisters there's a book that Juliana finds. She takes it to Wyoming, where "the Man in the High Castle" turns out to be some ordinary guy who used sort of a Magic 8 Ball to create this "alternate universe," aka ours. Juliana tries to convince him that maybe if they all believe hard enough that universe will become reality, but even that guy doesn't buy it. That's where my dream/mass hypnosis sorta-4th wall theory comes from.
Just to throw a spanner into the works a bit more, near the end there's another film that instead of showing our universe seems to show the future, where Germany has obliterated San Francisco (governed by Japan) with a nuclear bomb and Joe Blake is a Nazi agent who executes Juliana's boyfriend and some others. So how does all that fit into it?
Anyway, I know you probably haven't seen the show yet. You can watch it through Amazon Instant Video, which is free with Amazon Prime. I really liked the show. It's kind of slow compared to network shows as they don't just wrap things up in 45 minutes. In a way it's like Game of Thrones in that you have a bunch of characters and plotlines, though unlike that show they aren't spread so far apart and most of contact with each other during the course of the season. That's better than Game of Thrones where after five seasons Khaleesi still hasn't got to King's Landing and that the Stark kids have been running around in the wastelands for like four years. Of course it helps when you have a more contemporary setting where characters can use telephones or hop on rocket planes (basically Concordes) to travel the globe.
Something else I liked is it doesn't fall into the pitfalls of some alternate history in that we don't really see any political figures or celebrities from our timeline in the alternate universe. It's not like they go to a filling station and Elvis is pumping the gas or something inane like that. And you don't have Nixon working for the Nazi government or Reagan for the Japanese government or anything like that. Which really I think is for the best because if it is an alternate timeline then things should be alternate, you know? Not like say CSA: The Confederate States of America where somehow in 1960 JFK was elected leader of the Confederacy. That part of the movie never made sense to me. I mean, a New England liberal running the Confederacy? I couldn't buy into it. I know it was a mockumentary, but really. It just seems lazy when they do stuff like that.
The stand-out character for me was Obergrubbenfuhrer Smith, who's played by Rufus Sewell, whom you might remember from movies like the underrated Dark City. He's kind of a combination of Christoph Waltz from Inglorious Bastards and Don Draper of Mad Men in that his day job is basically torturing and killing people but then at the end of the day he goes home to this totally normal house with this totally normal Leave It To Beaver-type family. It's definitely kind of creepy. His perfect bliss actually gets shattered when he finds out his son has some terminal disease, which in Nazi America means instant death. So far he has covered that up but eventually he'll have to do something about the problem.
The Trade Minister is pretty interesting as well, especially now that he has this whole Sliders thing going on. He tries to be all traditional and Zen and engineers the scheme to steal nuclear bomb plans in the hope that it'll even the playing field and create nuclear deterrence. Only to his horror he realizes too late that it's actually just starting up a Cold War between the two superpowers.
Anyway, I'd definitely be interested in a season 2 and hope it's being worked on right now.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Friday, February 26, 2016
Divide and Conquer
A couple of years ago, Electronic Arts created their own little online portal thing called Origin that's sort of like Steam only for EA games. I really had no interest in it but you have to have it to play with the Sims 3 and Sims 4 so I eventually had to adopt it.
Sometimes they give away old games for free for a limited time. I got one called Zulu's Revenge where you play as a frog that shoots colored balls to destroyed chains of other colored balls. That was better than those Candy Crush type games because you didn't need any in-game purchases. Recently I got Need for Speed: Most Wanted free, which has been kind of fun driving all the different cars--including a Ford Focus! I already beat all the other "most wanted" drivers to be the #1 driver. Bwahahahahaha.
Another one they offered was Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2. I vaguely remembered the game when it came out about 15 years ago but I'd never played it. So I thought I might as well download it since it was free.
The game takes place in some kind of alternate universe where I guess the USSR never broke up. You can play either as the Soviets and their allies or the Americans and their allies. The idea is you build a base and an army and try to destroy the other player(s). For me it was like playing Age of Empires or Star Wars Rebellion, a couple of my favorite strategy games from the late 90s. The expansion pack was included, so over a couple of months I played the various campaigns and just "skirmished" against the computer in different scenarios.
Around Black Friday Origin had a package with all 17 Command and Conquer games on sale for like $10, which seemed like a good deal. I mean that's less than $1 a game! Although about half of the 17 are expansion packs, which don't have as long of campaigns as the full games. Still, it has provided plenty of entertainment--and anguish.
As fun as the games can be, sometimes they're just really, really frustrating too. A lot of the campaign missions are the same thing: here's no troops and hardly any money; go build an army and destroy the other side--oh, and build your army in about two minutes before the enemy shows up to start beating the shit out of you. How freaking implausible is that? I mean it's not like in real life a general has to actually build his fucking army in the field on a shoestring budget. It makes a lot more sense in Age of Empires when you're dealing with primitive cultures, but it's not like you can build advanced war machines in the field. So it seems kind of ridiculous at times. And makes me cuss and swear a lot.
The other thing is that no matter which version of the game you play, your units are so fucking stupid. It's like your army is made of a bunch of special ed students. What drives me crazy is I'll have a bunch of tanks and stuff just sitting around as the enemy blows up our base. Or they'll just sit there as one unit gets blown up. Like they're on their fucking coffee break or something. "It's not my job!" Or you tell them to go somewhere and they won't bother to defend themselves even when enemy units start shooting at them, because you told them to go to a particular spot, not to defend themselves! So you end up doing a lot of micromanaging. It gets to be annoying. And in the 15 years or so that these games span, you think they might have figured out how to fix some of these problems to make your guys just a little bit smarter. Nah.
I have played most of the games by now, though the older ones not as much. The first few are from the 90s and the graphics look like something from the Atari 2600. They got better around 2000. They also started using professional actors in their cut scenes like George Takei, Billy Dee Williams, Tim Curry, Michael Ironside, Malcolm McDowell, Ray Wise, and so forth. So that's kind of fun and maybe it was a good paycheck for them.
Command & Conquer: Renegade is the only one that's not a strategy game. It's a first-person shooter set in the same universe. That was kind of a nice departure from the other games. There was one point in a level where I got so stuck I had to watch someone's walkthrough on YouTube to find this stupid elevator leading to a hidden lab where I had to kill a bunch of bad guys.
Besides Red Alert 2, I really liked the Command & Conquer: Generals game. In that one you get to play the USA, China, or "GLA" which is like al-Qaeda or ISIS or something. You get more realistic units like Hummers and M1 tanks and stuff, which was a little more fun. One mission for the Chinese campaign I was really stuck until I found out China has "hackers" who can literally sit around and download money from the Internet. They get like $5-$10 per second which isn't a lot but if you have a bunch of them it starts to add up. If only I could get them working for me in real life.
One problem with all these games is EA doesn't really give you the manuals or anything so unless you want to go find them yourself online, you kind of have to learn by trial-and-error. Which leads to moments like above where I find out by accident how to use a particular unit to my advantage. And then I usually lament how I wish I'd known that from the start.
Anyway, I know you have no interest in such games, but I just wanted to get all that off my chest. Happy Friday.
Sometimes they give away old games for free for a limited time. I got one called Zulu's Revenge where you play as a frog that shoots colored balls to destroyed chains of other colored balls. That was better than those Candy Crush type games because you didn't need any in-game purchases. Recently I got Need for Speed: Most Wanted free, which has been kind of fun driving all the different cars--including a Ford Focus! I already beat all the other "most wanted" drivers to be the #1 driver. Bwahahahahaha.
Another one they offered was Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2. I vaguely remembered the game when it came out about 15 years ago but I'd never played it. So I thought I might as well download it since it was free.
The game takes place in some kind of alternate universe where I guess the USSR never broke up. You can play either as the Soviets and their allies or the Americans and their allies. The idea is you build a base and an army and try to destroy the other player(s). For me it was like playing Age of Empires or Star Wars Rebellion, a couple of my favorite strategy games from the late 90s. The expansion pack was included, so over a couple of months I played the various campaigns and just "skirmished" against the computer in different scenarios.
Around Black Friday Origin had a package with all 17 Command and Conquer games on sale for like $10, which seemed like a good deal. I mean that's less than $1 a game! Although about half of the 17 are expansion packs, which don't have as long of campaigns as the full games. Still, it has provided plenty of entertainment--and anguish.
As fun as the games can be, sometimes they're just really, really frustrating too. A lot of the campaign missions are the same thing: here's no troops and hardly any money; go build an army and destroy the other side--oh, and build your army in about two minutes before the enemy shows up to start beating the shit out of you. How freaking implausible is that? I mean it's not like in real life a general has to actually build his fucking army in the field on a shoestring budget. It makes a lot more sense in Age of Empires when you're dealing with primitive cultures, but it's not like you can build advanced war machines in the field. So it seems kind of ridiculous at times. And makes me cuss and swear a lot.
The other thing is that no matter which version of the game you play, your units are so fucking stupid. It's like your army is made of a bunch of special ed students. What drives me crazy is I'll have a bunch of tanks and stuff just sitting around as the enemy blows up our base. Or they'll just sit there as one unit gets blown up. Like they're on their fucking coffee break or something. "It's not my job!" Or you tell them to go somewhere and they won't bother to defend themselves even when enemy units start shooting at them, because you told them to go to a particular spot, not to defend themselves! So you end up doing a lot of micromanaging. It gets to be annoying. And in the 15 years or so that these games span, you think they might have figured out how to fix some of these problems to make your guys just a little bit smarter. Nah.
I have played most of the games by now, though the older ones not as much. The first few are from the 90s and the graphics look like something from the Atari 2600. They got better around 2000. They also started using professional actors in their cut scenes like George Takei, Billy Dee Williams, Tim Curry, Michael Ironside, Malcolm McDowell, Ray Wise, and so forth. So that's kind of fun and maybe it was a good paycheck for them.
Command & Conquer: Renegade is the only one that's not a strategy game. It's a first-person shooter set in the same universe. That was kind of a nice departure from the other games. There was one point in a level where I got so stuck I had to watch someone's walkthrough on YouTube to find this stupid elevator leading to a hidden lab where I had to kill a bunch of bad guys.
Besides Red Alert 2, I really liked the Command & Conquer: Generals game. In that one you get to play the USA, China, or "GLA" which is like al-Qaeda or ISIS or something. You get more realistic units like Hummers and M1 tanks and stuff, which was a little more fun. One mission for the Chinese campaign I was really stuck until I found out China has "hackers" who can literally sit around and download money from the Internet. They get like $5-$10 per second which isn't a lot but if you have a bunch of them it starts to add up. If only I could get them working for me in real life.
One problem with all these games is EA doesn't really give you the manuals or anything so unless you want to go find them yourself online, you kind of have to learn by trial-and-error. Which leads to moments like above where I find out by accident how to use a particular unit to my advantage. And then I usually lament how I wish I'd known that from the start.
Anyway, I know you have no interest in such games, but I just wanted to get all that off my chest. Happy Friday.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
All Apologists: Gods of Egypt and Hollywood's Continued Casting Laziness
It was a week or two ago when on Facebook Comic Book Resources posted something about Gods of Egypt and asked if you were excited about it and I replied something like, "Why would I be excited to see another whitewashed piece of crap?" I mean look at the cast list on IMDB: you have Chadwick Boseman who's black and Elodie Yung who's half-Asian but other than that it's all white people in the starring roles. The freaking movie is Gods of EGYPT and there's no one even vaguely Egyptian or even Middle Eastern/African. How fucking lame is that?
Maybe because I had the first comment I got all these apologists popping up to defend the casting of the movie. One guy thought he was really clever by saying, "Oh yeah, well name an Egyptian actor!" Well OK, here's a page from Wikipedia. That literally took me 30 seconds. Second, I'm not a Hollywood casting agent.
The subtext here seemed to be that "Gosh, there's just no way we can find actors from Egypt (or the surrounding region) so let's just cast a Scottish guy and a Dane and have them get a suntan." Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? It's 2016! We're 16% into the 21st Century with all this social media and instant communication and you want me to believe that casting agents just can't find actors from that part of the world? Hey pull the other one, it has bells on it.
No the real problem is kind of a Catch-22: you can't find KNOWN actors from that area and yet if you never cast anyone from that region, how can they ever get known? Despite that star power consistently has proven to be all but useless in this century (Hail Caesar being the most recent example of a star-studded film falling pretty flat) Hollywood still clings to this notion that you have to have known quantities in the leading roles. That makes it difficult for non-white actors to get roles unless the film specifically calls for it like a movie about slavery or Jesse Owens or Black Panther, though there's probably still some dumb studio exec who'd want to cast Matt Damon as Black Panther.
The sports world has long had this same problem too. When a big NFL, NBA, MLB, or college team goes to hire a coach, they usually want someone known to the public so they can "make a splash." That's why you get dipshit coaches who have failed 2 or even 3 times as head coaches get another chance while non-white/non-male candidates get left behind. The NFL had to actually create the "Rooney Rule" to require teams to interview minority candidates, but teams have often circumvented this rule by giving a token interview to a minority assistant.
There has been a lot of controversy over the Oscars this year because the leading candidates are all white. I think a lot of that is just a function of what I'm talking about. There's also the myopia of the selection process. I mean if you think about it scientifically, do you really think there wasn't a single black, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latino, Indian (both kinds) actor or actress in the whole freaking world who was worthy of a nomination? But the selection process is mostly focused on movies from the US/UK where because of what I've been talking about it's so hard for non-whites to get decent roles. If the Academy included "foreign" movies, then I'm sure you'd see more minorities nominated. But part of that's probably laziness. I mean if you're an Academy judge do you want to sit through 300 movies, probably half of those subtitled? It's so much easier to just nominate Leonardo DiCaprio or Meryl Streep again and be done with it.
So what's the solution? Well in a perfect world we wouldn't need a solution because it would all be based on merit. But we're not in a perfect world--obviously. I really don't want any kind of affirmative action for the Oscars where we have to force at least one candidate to be black. I honestly don't think that's doing anyone any favors because even if that person wins it will seem a hollow victory, like he or she is only winning so the Academy can do some damage control.
What we need is some common freaking sense. If you're making a movie called Gods of EGYPT, find some freaking Egyptians! Or at least people from that area. When The Mummy cast Arnold Vosloo as the mummy they still had a white guy but as a South African at least he was from the right freaking continent. So that was somewhat closer. If you're making a Biblical movie like Exodus, again, hire some people who are from that freaking area! If you're going to care so little for verisimilitude, why not just have Set or Moses whip out an iPhone?
Another apologist said, "Well Charlton Heston played Moses." That was back in the goddamned 1950s! You might as well bring up Birth of a Nation or any of those old movies where white guys went around in blackface. Again I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting some freaking progress in 60 years. Which it's funny isn't it because Hollywood likes to act all liberal and yet it's still like a country club with a good-old-boys network hard at work.
Just as a final point, there was another apologist who really got silly. He raved that if I wasn't against casting Michael B Jordan as Human Torch too then I was a HYPOCRITE and a RACIST! (I'm sure he has a Trump bumper sticker on his pick-up truck.) Sure Johnny Storm had traditionally been a white, blond guy but so what? It's a freaking comic book character! You know, the comic books where characters get killed, replaced, and resurrected every other month. They play so fast-and-loose with reality that having a black guy play the character seems like a pretty minor change. Plus, there's nothing tying Johnny Storm to any particular race or nationality. Now if Johnny Storm were the Egyptian god of fire or whatever then there'd be a problem.
That does help to show another big part of the problem, which is all these idiots out there who want to make excuses for being racist. They're all pretty flimsy excuses too. We really all need to just try harder to do the right thing.
(I wrote this and then like the next night on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver there was a segment on this titled, "This Shit Still Happens in 2016?!" It echoed a lot of what I said. There was even a quote from Ridley Scott about Exodus where he said he couldn't get the movie financed unless he had a known actor in the lead. Because I guess Joel Edgerton is really well known?)
Maybe because I had the first comment I got all these apologists popping up to defend the casting of the movie. One guy thought he was really clever by saying, "Oh yeah, well name an Egyptian actor!" Well OK, here's a page from Wikipedia. That literally took me 30 seconds. Second, I'm not a Hollywood casting agent.
The subtext here seemed to be that "Gosh, there's just no way we can find actors from Egypt (or the surrounding region) so let's just cast a Scottish guy and a Dane and have them get a suntan." Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? It's 2016! We're 16% into the 21st Century with all this social media and instant communication and you want me to believe that casting agents just can't find actors from that part of the world? Hey pull the other one, it has bells on it.
No the real problem is kind of a Catch-22: you can't find KNOWN actors from that area and yet if you never cast anyone from that region, how can they ever get known? Despite that star power consistently has proven to be all but useless in this century (Hail Caesar being the most recent example of a star-studded film falling pretty flat) Hollywood still clings to this notion that you have to have known quantities in the leading roles. That makes it difficult for non-white actors to get roles unless the film specifically calls for it like a movie about slavery or Jesse Owens or Black Panther, though there's probably still some dumb studio exec who'd want to cast Matt Damon as Black Panther.
The sports world has long had this same problem too. When a big NFL, NBA, MLB, or college team goes to hire a coach, they usually want someone known to the public so they can "make a splash." That's why you get dipshit coaches who have failed 2 or even 3 times as head coaches get another chance while non-white/non-male candidates get left behind. The NFL had to actually create the "Rooney Rule" to require teams to interview minority candidates, but teams have often circumvented this rule by giving a token interview to a minority assistant.
There has been a lot of controversy over the Oscars this year because the leading candidates are all white. I think a lot of that is just a function of what I'm talking about. There's also the myopia of the selection process. I mean if you think about it scientifically, do you really think there wasn't a single black, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latino, Indian (both kinds) actor or actress in the whole freaking world who was worthy of a nomination? But the selection process is mostly focused on movies from the US/UK where because of what I've been talking about it's so hard for non-whites to get decent roles. If the Academy included "foreign" movies, then I'm sure you'd see more minorities nominated. But part of that's probably laziness. I mean if you're an Academy judge do you want to sit through 300 movies, probably half of those subtitled? It's so much easier to just nominate Leonardo DiCaprio or Meryl Streep again and be done with it.
So what's the solution? Well in a perfect world we wouldn't need a solution because it would all be based on merit. But we're not in a perfect world--obviously. I really don't want any kind of affirmative action for the Oscars where we have to force at least one candidate to be black. I honestly don't think that's doing anyone any favors because even if that person wins it will seem a hollow victory, like he or she is only winning so the Academy can do some damage control.
What we need is some common freaking sense. If you're making a movie called Gods of EGYPT, find some freaking Egyptians! Or at least people from that area. When The Mummy cast Arnold Vosloo as the mummy they still had a white guy but as a South African at least he was from the right freaking continent. So that was somewhat closer. If you're making a Biblical movie like Exodus, again, hire some people who are from that freaking area! If you're going to care so little for verisimilitude, why not just have Set or Moses whip out an iPhone?
Another apologist said, "Well Charlton Heston played Moses." That was back in the goddamned 1950s! You might as well bring up Birth of a Nation or any of those old movies where white guys went around in blackface. Again I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting some freaking progress in 60 years. Which it's funny isn't it because Hollywood likes to act all liberal and yet it's still like a country club with a good-old-boys network hard at work.
Just as a final point, there was another apologist who really got silly. He raved that if I wasn't against casting Michael B Jordan as Human Torch too then I was a HYPOCRITE and a RACIST! (I'm sure he has a Trump bumper sticker on his pick-up truck.) Sure Johnny Storm had traditionally been a white, blond guy but so what? It's a freaking comic book character! You know, the comic books where characters get killed, replaced, and resurrected every other month. They play so fast-and-loose with reality that having a black guy play the character seems like a pretty minor change. Plus, there's nothing tying Johnny Storm to any particular race or nationality. Now if Johnny Storm were the Egyptian god of fire or whatever then there'd be a problem.
That does help to show another big part of the problem, which is all these idiots out there who want to make excuses for being racist. They're all pretty flimsy excuses too. We really all need to just try harder to do the right thing.
(I wrote this and then like the next night on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver there was a segment on this titled, "This Shit Still Happens in 2016?!" It echoed a lot of what I said. There was even a quote from Ridley Scott about Exodus where he said he couldn't get the movie financed unless he had a known actor in the lead. Because I guess Joel Edgerton is really well known?)
Monday, February 22, 2016
The Not-So-Secret Identity Trope
Something I didn't like about both series of Spider-Man movies was how Peter Parker always seemed to let anyone and everyone know he was Spider-Man. Sometimes I'd shake my head and say, "Why don't you just hand out business cards reading, 'Peter Parker, Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man?!'" I mean it got to be pretty ridiculous when he reveals himself to a whole train full of people.
The superhero TV shows I've seen aren't much better. When "Arrow" started it was just Oliver Queen. Then it was Oliver and his bodyguard Diggle. Then it was Oliver, Diggle, and computer nerd Felicity. And now it's Oliver, Diggle, Felicity, Oliver's sister, his ex-girlfriend Laurel, her police captain father, Ra's al Guhl Malcom Merlin, and probably a few other people. "The Flash" is the same way. The first episode of "Supergirl" I think a half-dozen people knew her "secret" identity and then they've added a few more since then.
The thing is, the whole "someone learning the hero's true identity" is not only trite and cliche, but it loses impact each time you do it. Until like the Spider-Man movies it's just tedious and unbelievable that the whole freaking city doesn't know who he is.
I got trying to think how many people Emma Earl told her identity to in the Scarlet Knight books. In the first book she tells her best friend Becky; "tell" in the sense she's driven crazy by a bad guy and assaults Becky. There are two witches and the Sewer Rat who also know, though she never had to tell them because the witches have magic and the Sewer Rat has a super-sniffer. After that...really I don't think there was anyone except her daughter. The guy she crushed on in the first four books never finds out in the whole series. The cop she often worked with as the Scarlet Knight literally went to her grave not knowing. A couple of other friends she makes in the fifth book never find out. So, yeah, Emma's secret identity was actually pretty secret. What a concept!
I didn't go to that well too often in the Girl Power books either. In the first book the Batmangirl character is found out by a boy who becomes her sidekick. The Flash character gets drunk and goes to see her wife and kid and is then found out by the wife. In the second book the Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane characters find out Supermangirl's identity when a clone shows up. The best one was in the third book when the Robin character's mother finds out and starts critiquing her costume and choice of names. And in the book of short stories there's one where the Flash character's daughter finds out when she gains superspeed too. So really I guess I averaged about one reveal per book. The Aquamanwoman character was a little more complicated. She didn't want her people to find out she used to be the king of Atlantis Pacifica because women weren't supposed to hold power, so while she could appear as a superhero, she had to come up with a secret identity as a peasant girl, so it was kind of opposite from other superheroes. And then in the second book she gets an upgrade and basically comes back to decree herself the queen and if anyone's got a problem, they can try to take power from her--no one does. That's not really the same thing, though, as what superhero shows and movies do.
Anyway, I guess the point is the whole "someone learning the hero's true identity" thing can really be overdone, as can any trope. So tread carefully.
The superhero TV shows I've seen aren't much better. When "Arrow" started it was just Oliver Queen. Then it was Oliver and his bodyguard Diggle. Then it was Oliver, Diggle, and computer nerd Felicity. And now it's Oliver, Diggle, Felicity, Oliver's sister, his ex-girlfriend Laurel, her police captain father, Ra's al Guhl Malcom Merlin, and probably a few other people. "The Flash" is the same way. The first episode of "Supergirl" I think a half-dozen people knew her "secret" identity and then they've added a few more since then.
The thing is, the whole "someone learning the hero's true identity" is not only trite and cliche, but it loses impact each time you do it. Until like the Spider-Man movies it's just tedious and unbelievable that the whole freaking city doesn't know who he is.
 |
| Secret identity that's secret! Whoa! |
I didn't go to that well too often in the Girl Power books either. In the first book the Bat
Anyway, I guess the point is the whole "someone learning the hero's true identity" thing can really be overdone, as can any trope. So tread carefully.
Friday, February 19, 2016
The Epic Comics Post
I'm not sure when was the last time I even talked about comics I've read. I think back in September or something. I haven't read a lot, but I still pick up a few on sale every now and then.
All-Star Batman & Robin: I hated this on every level. Well the art was OK, but the story by Frank Miller of Dark Knight Returns fame is wretched. The gist is that Dick Grayson's parents are killed and so Batman (who has been stalking the kid for years to evaluate his talents...um, gross) kidnaps him and forces him into becoming Robin. I mean the kid's like 10 so that's a great fucking idea. Besides the stupidity and creepiness, there's a hearty helping of misogyny as well. Hooray? If you've ever thought, Gee, Batman should be more of a prick, this is your comic book series! (1/5)
Aquaman: Throne of Atlantis: This was an animated movie last year and the plot is somewhat the same. Aquaman has a brother who's fully Atlantean and is running the show in Atlantis, but is manipulated into attacking the surface world, which puts Aquaman in a tough spot. In one of those "bad comic book fights," somehow the entire Justice League except Aquaman, Cyborg, and of course Batman are incapacitated until they can be rescued. Yeah, sure. It was OK but not great. (2.5/5)
Astro City, Vol 1: This was the original 1995 miniseries that focuses not so much on superheroics but more down-to-Earth stuff in the lives of superheroes and the people of Astro City. The covers by Alex Ross are gorgeous while the interior art is not quite as good. (3/5)
Batman: The Cult: A miniseries where Batman is captured, brainwashed by an evil reverend, and then escapes to come back as the reverend's minions take over the city. It got a little silly when he and Robin drive into town in a specially-designed tank to shoot brainwashed people with sedatives. Not really essential reading but the evil reverend makes an appearance in the next item. (2/5)
Batman Eternal: This was a 52-week series that I thought would not be in continuity, but it actually was. A series of villains (Carmine Falcone, Hush, Scarecrow, and ultimately Bruce Wayne's maybe-brother Thomas) basically turn Gotham City into a Hell on Earth, starting by framing Commissioner Gordon for murder. It's good Batman at this point has like 42 costumed allies in the city (and picks up a couple more in the series run) to help him handle all the crap that goes down. There was one largely pointless subplot involving Arkham Asylum and demons and crap. It was funny too how during the year-long run Batgirl's costume changed from one issue to another thanks to her series' soft reboot last year. Otherwise it was an engrossing story that worked in just about everyone in Batman's history. (3/5)
Batman: Noel: As you might expect, this is a Christmas-themed graphic novel. While set in the modern day it does A Christmas Carol thing where Batman is Scrooge and Bob Cratchitt is a henchman of the Joker who narrates the story to his kid. Batman as Scrooge? you might wonder, but the author does a good job in utilizing Batman's history to contrast today's "gritty" Batman with the campier Adam West-type Batman and put it all together into a coherent story. Think of it as the Adam West-Batman is like young Scrooge and the gritty Batman is like old Scrooge. Instead of losing a fiancee, it's losing Robin that largely triggers the change. The art is also really good for the most part, using a more realistic style, which I always enjoy. (3.5/5)
Batman: Heart of Hush: "Hush" is an old friend of Bruce Wayne's, as revealed in an earlier series of comics. This story goes more in-depth about his past and his jealousy of Bruce Wayne for being orphaned instead of having a controlling, obnoxious mother. The title of the story comes from that Hush captures Catwoman and literally takes her heart out and installs some wacky life support system that will give out in a certain amount of time unless Batman saves her. Does he? Duh. Not as good as the original Hush story. (2.5/5)
Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe: It is exactly what is promised in the title: Deadpool's brain is stabilized by "the Psycho Man" and he becomes a killing machine who destroys every hero and villain in the Marvel universe. The problem is a lot of them are killed off-page or in passing and none of the fights are epic at all. I mean most of the Avengers like Captain America and Iron Man are blown up in an explosion. Yawn. I guess it is good fan service for the nut jobs who sit around wondering how to kill this hero or that villain. (2/5)
Deadpool Killustrated: So after killing the Marvel universe, Deadpool realizes that to really erase superheroes from existence, he needs to wipe out the source material: literature! Instead of killing superheroes, he kills the likes of Moby-Dick, Tom Sawyer, Don Quixote, Captain Nemo, and Dracula. Meanwhile Sherlock Holmes assembles kind of a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to stop him. While the fights were again not that epic, I thought this was a better series with a little deeper meaning. Sometimes in a panel it would go from showing a literature character to the superhero they would correlate to like Magneto as Captain Nemo, General Ross/Red Hulk as Ahab, or Namor the Sub-Mariner as the Little Mermaid. It also kind of reminded me of the Futurama where Fry battles a giant brain by jumping inside books. (3.5/5)
Deadpool Kills Deadpool: The conclusion of the Deadpool "Killology" this is kind of a step back. The Deadpool of the "real" Marvel universe comes under attack by the minions of that other Deadpool and unites with other Deadpools to kill more Deadpools. Um, yeah. There are Deadpools based on different eras or others that are like Deadpool versions of different heroes or villains (even Galactus) and one that's a giant panda! It's amusing but not really all that great unless you really hate Deadpool and like watching him die over and over again. (2.5/5)
Night of the Living Deadpool: The setup is like 28 Days Later or The Walking Dead: Deadpool wakes up after gorging on chimichangas to find zombies running amok. He bands together with a couple of survivors and they cruise by locations from zombie movies/TV shows like a farmhouse, prison, and amusement park. Eventually there's a little town that seems safe--until Deadpool turns undead. But then he turns back and with the help of a scientist who created the thing tries to find a cure. Kind of fun if you like zombie stuff and actually in some ways better than Kirkman's Marvel Zombies story. (3/5)
Fastastic Four 1234: The title really should be 1,2,3,4 because that's the meaning behind it. It's not like 1234 AD or anything. One of those weirder Grant Morrison comics, though not necessarily full weird Morrison. The usual stuff about Dr. Doom trying to kill the Fantastic Four only this time by designing a trap for each one, though he kind of does a 2-for-1 with Namor and the Atlanteans (not the same ones as Aquaman) going after Sue and Johnny Storm. If I knew more Fantastic Four history I'd like it better. (2/5)
Grayson: Volume 1: So after Dick Grayson's superhero identity was exposed to the whole world he joined a spy outfit called SPYRAL. And then stuff happens. It was OK but the whole look of the character made me think of Sterling Archer, only this wasn't as funny. (2.5/5)
Thor, Vol 1: Goddess of Thunder: If it had been me, this would be about Thor being turned into a girl. But actually (spoiler) it's just his sometimes girlfriend Jane Foster, Natalie Portman in the movies. These five issues don't go into any of that but I read the solution to the "mystery" some time ago. Apparently in a previous Marvel event Thor no longer became worthy of the hammer so it was left on the moon like the sword in the stone. Until Jane Foster somehow shows up and lifts it and becomes the female Thor to take on frost giants invading the Earth. In another bad comic book fight, the Avengers are frozen off-page so that only lady Thor can save them. Yeah, sure. The last issue was just a throw away with Thor moping about losing his hammer and Odin all pissed that some woman has the thing. Since the author withholds the new Thor's identity in these issues it makes it hard to really care about the character. (2/5)
X-Men: Gifted: This was from the Joss Whedon run on the title. It was yet another soft reboot of the X-Men series where they assembled a new team (pretty much the same as the old team) and have to investigate a supposed mutant "cure." The cure thing was used in the 2006 movie, The Last Stand, though the comics and movie bear little actual resemblance. (2.5/5)
All-Star Batman & Robin: I hated this on every level. Well the art was OK, but the story by Frank Miller of Dark Knight Returns fame is wretched. The gist is that Dick Grayson's parents are killed and so Batman (who has been stalking the kid for years to evaluate his talents...um, gross) kidnaps him and forces him into becoming Robin. I mean the kid's like 10 so that's a great fucking idea. Besides the stupidity and creepiness, there's a hearty helping of misogyny as well. Hooray? If you've ever thought, Gee, Batman should be more of a prick, this is your comic book series! (1/5)
Aquaman: Throne of Atlantis: This was an animated movie last year and the plot is somewhat the same. Aquaman has a brother who's fully Atlantean and is running the show in Atlantis, but is manipulated into attacking the surface world, which puts Aquaman in a tough spot. In one of those "bad comic book fights," somehow the entire Justice League except Aquaman, Cyborg, and of course Batman are incapacitated until they can be rescued. Yeah, sure. It was OK but not great. (2.5/5)
Astro City, Vol 1: This was the original 1995 miniseries that focuses not so much on superheroics but more down-to-Earth stuff in the lives of superheroes and the people of Astro City. The covers by Alex Ross are gorgeous while the interior art is not quite as good. (3/5)
Batman: The Cult: A miniseries where Batman is captured, brainwashed by an evil reverend, and then escapes to come back as the reverend's minions take over the city. It got a little silly when he and Robin drive into town in a specially-designed tank to shoot brainwashed people with sedatives. Not really essential reading but the evil reverend makes an appearance in the next item. (2/5)
Batman Eternal: This was a 52-week series that I thought would not be in continuity, but it actually was. A series of villains (Carmine Falcone, Hush, Scarecrow, and ultimately Bruce Wayne's maybe-brother Thomas) basically turn Gotham City into a Hell on Earth, starting by framing Commissioner Gordon for murder. It's good Batman at this point has like 42 costumed allies in the city (and picks up a couple more in the series run) to help him handle all the crap that goes down. There was one largely pointless subplot involving Arkham Asylum and demons and crap. It was funny too how during the year-long run Batgirl's costume changed from one issue to another thanks to her series' soft reboot last year. Otherwise it was an engrossing story that worked in just about everyone in Batman's history. (3/5)
Batman: Noel: As you might expect, this is a Christmas-themed graphic novel. While set in the modern day it does A Christmas Carol thing where Batman is Scrooge and Bob Cratchitt is a henchman of the Joker who narrates the story to his kid. Batman as Scrooge? you might wonder, but the author does a good job in utilizing Batman's history to contrast today's "gritty" Batman with the campier Adam West-type Batman and put it all together into a coherent story. Think of it as the Adam West-Batman is like young Scrooge and the gritty Batman is like old Scrooge. Instead of losing a fiancee, it's losing Robin that largely triggers the change. The art is also really good for the most part, using a more realistic style, which I always enjoy. (3.5/5)
Batman: Heart of Hush: "Hush" is an old friend of Bruce Wayne's, as revealed in an earlier series of comics. This story goes more in-depth about his past and his jealousy of Bruce Wayne for being orphaned instead of having a controlling, obnoxious mother. The title of the story comes from that Hush captures Catwoman and literally takes her heart out and installs some wacky life support system that will give out in a certain amount of time unless Batman saves her. Does he? Duh. Not as good as the original Hush story. (2.5/5)
Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe: It is exactly what is promised in the title: Deadpool's brain is stabilized by "the Psycho Man" and he becomes a killing machine who destroys every hero and villain in the Marvel universe. The problem is a lot of them are killed off-page or in passing and none of the fights are epic at all. I mean most of the Avengers like Captain America and Iron Man are blown up in an explosion. Yawn. I guess it is good fan service for the nut jobs who sit around wondering how to kill this hero or that villain. (2/5)
Deadpool Killustrated: So after killing the Marvel universe, Deadpool realizes that to really erase superheroes from existence, he needs to wipe out the source material: literature! Instead of killing superheroes, he kills the likes of Moby-Dick, Tom Sawyer, Don Quixote, Captain Nemo, and Dracula. Meanwhile Sherlock Holmes assembles kind of a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to stop him. While the fights were again not that epic, I thought this was a better series with a little deeper meaning. Sometimes in a panel it would go from showing a literature character to the superhero they would correlate to like Magneto as Captain Nemo, General Ross/Red Hulk as Ahab, or Namor the Sub-Mariner as the Little Mermaid. It also kind of reminded me of the Futurama where Fry battles a giant brain by jumping inside books. (3.5/5)
Deadpool Kills Deadpool: The conclusion of the Deadpool "Killology" this is kind of a step back. The Deadpool of the "real" Marvel universe comes under attack by the minions of that other Deadpool and unites with other Deadpools to kill more Deadpools. Um, yeah. There are Deadpools based on different eras or others that are like Deadpool versions of different heroes or villains (even Galactus) and one that's a giant panda! It's amusing but not really all that great unless you really hate Deadpool and like watching him die over and over again. (2.5/5)
Night of the Living Deadpool: The setup is like 28 Days Later or The Walking Dead: Deadpool wakes up after gorging on chimichangas to find zombies running amok. He bands together with a couple of survivors and they cruise by locations from zombie movies/TV shows like a farmhouse, prison, and amusement park. Eventually there's a little town that seems safe--until Deadpool turns undead. But then he turns back and with the help of a scientist who created the thing tries to find a cure. Kind of fun if you like zombie stuff and actually in some ways better than Kirkman's Marvel Zombies story. (3/5)
Fastastic Four 1234: The title really should be 1,2,3,4 because that's the meaning behind it. It's not like 1234 AD or anything. One of those weirder Grant Morrison comics, though not necessarily full weird Morrison. The usual stuff about Dr. Doom trying to kill the Fantastic Four only this time by designing a trap for each one, though he kind of does a 2-for-1 with Namor and the Atlanteans (not the same ones as Aquaman) going after Sue and Johnny Storm. If I knew more Fantastic Four history I'd like it better. (2/5)
Grayson: Volume 1: So after Dick Grayson's superhero identity was exposed to the whole world he joined a spy outfit called SPYRAL. And then stuff happens. It was OK but the whole look of the character made me think of Sterling Archer, only this wasn't as funny. (2.5/5)
Thor, Vol 1: Goddess of Thunder: If it had been me, this would be about Thor being turned into a girl. But actually (spoiler) it's just his sometimes girlfriend Jane Foster, Natalie Portman in the movies. These five issues don't go into any of that but I read the solution to the "mystery" some time ago. Apparently in a previous Marvel event Thor no longer became worthy of the hammer so it was left on the moon like the sword in the stone. Until Jane Foster somehow shows up and lifts it and becomes the female Thor to take on frost giants invading the Earth. In another bad comic book fight, the Avengers are frozen off-page so that only lady Thor can save them. Yeah, sure. The last issue was just a throw away with Thor moping about losing his hammer and Odin all pissed that some woman has the thing. Since the author withholds the new Thor's identity in these issues it makes it hard to really care about the character. (2/5)
X-Men: Gifted: This was from the Joss Whedon run on the title. It was yet another soft reboot of the X-Men series where they assembled a new team (pretty much the same as the old team) and have to investigate a supposed mutant "cure." The cure thing was used in the 2006 movie, The Last Stand, though the comics and movie bear little actual resemblance. (2.5/5)
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Sticking It Out
This is kind of a sequel to my "Great Art Takes Time" post. In that one I mentioned that my business model is generally writing a story pretty quick, giving it an editing pass, and then putting it out there. It's about quantity more than the quality, though I like to think there's some quality too.
Sometimes though I get annoyed with myself when I find a story stretching past the 70-page mark with no end in sight. I mean a lot of people in this market write a "book" that's only 20-30 pages--and some even less. Yet I haven't really been able to do that too much. I think this one is the shortest one I've done and that's 30 pages.
A lot of times when a story's running long I think, "Can't we just get this over already? We need to move on to the next thing!" But then that other voice says, "No, you have to think of the story. It'll go as long as it needs to." That voice kind of sucks but I usually listen to it. I guess at heart I'm still too much of an artiste. Ha.
That doesn't mean I'm adverse to finding a shortcut. A few times I've seen a quicker way to wrap up a story and run with it. It isn't really how I imagined the story would go, but as long as it still seems like a good idea, then I'll do it.
Though that voice saying to just end things usually says, "Come on, it's not like people really care!" Those are the times when it would be nice to get more fan mail or positive reviews. It's a lot easier to take time to craft stories when you know people actually like them. Even perverts need positivity!
Sometimes though I get annoyed with myself when I find a story stretching past the 70-page mark with no end in sight. I mean a lot of people in this market write a "book" that's only 20-30 pages--and some even less. Yet I haven't really been able to do that too much. I think this one is the shortest one I've done and that's 30 pages.
A lot of times when a story's running long I think, "Can't we just get this over already? We need to move on to the next thing!" But then that other voice says, "No, you have to think of the story. It'll go as long as it needs to." That voice kind of sucks but I usually listen to it. I guess at heart I'm still too much of an artiste. Ha.
That doesn't mean I'm adverse to finding a shortcut. A few times I've seen a quicker way to wrap up a story and run with it. It isn't really how I imagined the story would go, but as long as it still seems like a good idea, then I'll do it.
Though that voice saying to just end things usually says, "Come on, it's not like people really care!" Those are the times when it would be nice to get more fan mail or positive reviews. It's a lot easier to take time to craft stories when you know people actually like them. Even perverts need positivity!
Monday, February 15, 2016
The Not-So-Secret Secret to Reviews
If you've read my blog for a while, you know that I frequently complain about not getting enough good reviews. So when I saw someone hocking a book called Book Reviews That Sell for a paltry 99 cents, I thought I might as well give it a try. Maybe I'd actually learn some great secret to getting book reviews.
Reading it reminded me of this time I watched this 30 minute web video that promised to tell me some great secret to more job interviews. The first like 27 minutes of the video was this guy just saying the same generic crap over and over again in slightly different ways. After 27 minutes of vamping he finally got to the big "secret," which was: I don't really remember. Some stupid thing you put in the PS of a cover letter. Then I just had to shake my head for getting taken, not that it cost me anything and actually after about 10 minutes of the dude's vamping I put the video in another tab and played around on Facebook or something.
I also remember reading an article about all those "One Weird Trick" videos you see advertised around the Internet. Apparently the ones the author watched used a similar tactic of just vamping for most of a half hour and then giving you a "secret" that wasn't really much of a secret. Like if you watch "One Weird Trick" to losing a bunch of weight it might after a half hour of bullshitting tell you to take some Vitamin D pills or something like that.
In the same way the first 2/3 of this "book" is mostly the author going on and on about Amazon's Terms of Service, which you could read for yourself if you felt like it. And also that review swaps are bad. You should never, ever promise to trade reviews with someone. Sure. I got that the first five times he mentioned it, but just to make the book seem more like a real book he said it five more times. (Slight exaggeration.)
Ironically in the same way as that video or book, I've been vamping before giving you the big "secret," albeit not as long. Here's the "secret": Find books like yours, make a list of Amazon reviewers of those books who have email information, and then send them an email to ask if they'll review your book.
I think I literally started to laugh. I mean really, that's it? That's the secret? Since this would actually take hundreds of hours to do on your own, he suggests hiring someone on Fiverr or something to help you track down leads in exchange for a few bucks. Then you put them into an Excel sheet and go to work. Chances are you'll send out hundreds of Emails and get only a few positives--and then even fewer who actually go through with it in a reasonable amount of time.
Basically it operates under the junk mail principle: you send out a hundred thousand postcards or Emails and if even 2% of those buy your product or service--or give you their bank information in the case of those Nigerian prince email scams--then you've turned a profit. Though in this case the profit is in terms of reviews.
Ordinarily I might try this because what the hell? I mean, I tried that Reader Magnets thing, which didn't really pay off for me. However, I'm in kind of an ethical dilemma because I am an Amazon reviewer and I have had people pitch me free copies of their books if I'll review it. I did accept one or two, but then I gave up because it was annoying and taking time I could be reading books I actually wanted to read. So sure I can go find some other people who have reviewed gender swap fiction and ask them if they'll review one of my books, but having been on the other side of it, I'd feel like kind of an idiot. Also I don't want to waste money trying to hire a minion on Fiverr or whatever.
BTW, here's another "secret" for you from the book: how to deal with bad reviews. Basically you get a "street team" of other people who have Amazon accounts and you post comments on the bad review and vote it "not helpful" and hope the reviewer changes his/her mind or at the least it will seem to other people like it's not a good review. (In a similar fashion Jay Greenstein goes to everyone who posts a bad review of his books to scream that they have a grudge against him because of his nefarious message board activities.) If you're the author, you can promise to change things the reviewer pointed out in the hope the reviewer will decide to alter the review.
What's funny is after I posted the review to Amazon, the next day the author made one of those comments and had a couple of his "street team" making comments and voting it down. They didn't seem to realize the reviewer has a nuclear option: copy the review, delete it on Amazon, and then repost it. I did that a few times with a review of a Sufjan Stevens album that for some reason really irked people. I didn't get death threats, but close. There was a Michael Chabon book too with a similar situation, to the point I finally changed the title of the review to: I Don't Care What You Think, I'm Not Changing the Review! So really the author of the review doesn't have to take bullying like that. Right now it's actually at 5 of 7 helpful votes and just one "street team" commenter, so for the moment I can live with it.
Anyway, you can try this system if you want. I'm sure other Amazon reviewers are a lot more forgiving than I am.
PS: If the author of the book and his street team show up, this is my blog so if you try any of your tricks I'll go full Andrew Leon and make your comments mysteriously disappear. And there's no "not helpful" button for you to press.
Reading it reminded me of this time I watched this 30 minute web video that promised to tell me some great secret to more job interviews. The first like 27 minutes of the video was this guy just saying the same generic crap over and over again in slightly different ways. After 27 minutes of vamping he finally got to the big "secret," which was: I don't really remember. Some stupid thing you put in the PS of a cover letter. Then I just had to shake my head for getting taken, not that it cost me anything and actually after about 10 minutes of the dude's vamping I put the video in another tab and played around on Facebook or something.
I also remember reading an article about all those "One Weird Trick" videos you see advertised around the Internet. Apparently the ones the author watched used a similar tactic of just vamping for most of a half hour and then giving you a "secret" that wasn't really much of a secret. Like if you watch "One Weird Trick" to losing a bunch of weight it might after a half hour of bullshitting tell you to take some Vitamin D pills or something like that.
In the same way the first 2/3 of this "book" is mostly the author going on and on about Amazon's Terms of Service, which you could read for yourself if you felt like it. And also that review swaps are bad. You should never, ever promise to trade reviews with someone. Sure. I got that the first five times he mentioned it, but just to make the book seem more like a real book he said it five more times. (Slight exaggeration.)
Ironically in the same way as that video or book, I've been vamping before giving you the big "secret," albeit not as long. Here's the "secret": Find books like yours, make a list of Amazon reviewers of those books who have email information, and then send them an email to ask if they'll review your book.
I think I literally started to laugh. I mean really, that's it? That's the secret? Since this would actually take hundreds of hours to do on your own, he suggests hiring someone on Fiverr or something to help you track down leads in exchange for a few bucks. Then you put them into an Excel sheet and go to work. Chances are you'll send out hundreds of Emails and get only a few positives--and then even fewer who actually go through with it in a reasonable amount of time.
Basically it operates under the junk mail principle: you send out a hundred thousand postcards or Emails and if even 2% of those buy your product or service--or give you their bank information in the case of those Nigerian prince email scams--then you've turned a profit. Though in this case the profit is in terms of reviews.
Ordinarily I might try this because what the hell? I mean, I tried that Reader Magnets thing, which didn't really pay off for me. However, I'm in kind of an ethical dilemma because I am an Amazon reviewer and I have had people pitch me free copies of their books if I'll review it. I did accept one or two, but then I gave up because it was annoying and taking time I could be reading books I actually wanted to read. So sure I can go find some other people who have reviewed gender swap fiction and ask them if they'll review one of my books, but having been on the other side of it, I'd feel like kind of an idiot. Also I don't want to waste money trying to hire a minion on Fiverr or whatever.
BTW, here's another "secret" for you from the book: how to deal with bad reviews. Basically you get a "street team" of other people who have Amazon accounts and you post comments on the bad review and vote it "not helpful" and hope the reviewer changes his/her mind or at the least it will seem to other people like it's not a good review. (In a similar fashion Jay Greenstein goes to everyone who posts a bad review of his books to scream that they have a grudge against him because of his nefarious message board activities.) If you're the author, you can promise to change things the reviewer pointed out in the hope the reviewer will decide to alter the review.
What's funny is after I posted the review to Amazon, the next day the author made one of those comments and had a couple of his "street team" making comments and voting it down. They didn't seem to realize the reviewer has a nuclear option: copy the review, delete it on Amazon, and then repost it. I did that a few times with a review of a Sufjan Stevens album that for some reason really irked people. I didn't get death threats, but close. There was a Michael Chabon book too with a similar situation, to the point I finally changed the title of the review to: I Don't Care What You Think, I'm Not Changing the Review! So really the author of the review doesn't have to take bullying like that. Right now it's actually at 5 of 7 helpful votes and just one "street team" commenter, so for the moment I can live with it.
Anyway, you can try this system if you want. I'm sure other Amazon reviewers are a lot more forgiving than I am.
PS: If the author of the book and his street team show up, this is my blog so if you try any of your tricks I'll go full Andrew Leon and make your comments mysteriously disappear. And there's no "not helpful" button for you to press.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Evil Prevails
Sunday is Valentine's Day so the timing of this seems apt. Haha.
Anyway, I mentioned I watched the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. In the movie, they bring up an experiment done back in the early 20th Century. Basically a shrink had an actor go in a little booth to pretend to be a random person and then brought in subjects, who were commanded by a scientist to keep shocking the person in the booth with increasing amounts of electricity. For the most part, people would question the scientist but then deliver the shocks as ordered, no matter how much the actor in the booth scream or carried on.
The gist of the study was that ordinary, seemingly non-evil, non-sadistic people were capable of doing horrible things to someone else so long as they were commanded by someone in authority. The movie doesn't mention it, but we saw real-world examples of this at Nuremberg and other war crime trials where someone would say, "I was only following orders." Most of us would probably say that if we were conscripted into the Nazi army we wouldn't kill a bunch of Jews and other people, but would we really not do that? If it came between you being killed or all those people, would you really not do it? Or would you rationalize by saying you're following orders?
For the most part I think that's the kind of evil we have to worry about more than supervillains like in comic books or James Bond movies. Most people are capable of doing terrible things because either they're "following orders" or they think they're doing the right thing. That's why it's so hard to eliminate evil in the world. First it's hard for all of us to agree on a definition and second, we're all fragile and fallible.
There you go, depressing thoughts for your weekend of love and chocolate.
Anyway, I mentioned I watched the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. In the movie, they bring up an experiment done back in the early 20th Century. Basically a shrink had an actor go in a little booth to pretend to be a random person and then brought in subjects, who were commanded by a scientist to keep shocking the person in the booth with increasing amounts of electricity. For the most part, people would question the scientist but then deliver the shocks as ordered, no matter how much the actor in the booth scream or carried on.
The gist of the study was that ordinary, seemingly non-evil, non-sadistic people were capable of doing horrible things to someone else so long as they were commanded by someone in authority. The movie doesn't mention it, but we saw real-world examples of this at Nuremberg and other war crime trials where someone would say, "I was only following orders." Most of us would probably say that if we were conscripted into the Nazi army we wouldn't kill a bunch of Jews and other people, but would we really not do that? If it came between you being killed or all those people, would you really not do it? Or would you rationalize by saying you're following orders?
For the most part I think that's the kind of evil we have to worry about more than supervillains like in comic books or James Bond movies. Most people are capable of doing terrible things because either they're "following orders" or they think they're doing the right thing. That's why it's so hard to eliminate evil in the world. First it's hard for all of us to agree on a definition and second, we're all fragile and fallible.
There you go, depressing thoughts for your weekend of love and chocolate.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
"New" Book Releases!
I recently released three books, none of which are gender swap erotica. And actually two of them are kind of the same concept.
First there's this:
The zombie apocalypse takes to the sky in this thrilling new series! Major Hunter Hawking was an ace Air Force pilot, but two years after a zombie outbreak and global war have destroyed civilization, he's fighting only to stay alive. Then his old commander calls him back to an island near Seattle where society is trying to rebuild. After a series of successful strikes to root out zombies and criminal elements, Hunter thinks he might finally have a home.
Then a new enemy emerges with an air force of high-tech fighters and a devastating new weapon: tamed zombies that are dropped from the skies. When his new home is killed, Hunter is on his own to track down this enemy and stop them from deploying it again. Along the way he explores the shattered remains of America, bringing hope to those who remain as the Sky Ghost.
I put it up on Kindle Scout but of course it didn't get enough support to be published by Amazon. I thought of querying it but then decided I don't want to wait a year to never for it to come out. I kinda need money now, you know?
Buy it for $3.99 from Amazon in Kindle format and from Draft2Digital for other formats!
Then there's this, which might seem familiar:
For two years, Casey and her father have survived the zombie apocalypse on a small Michigan island. When they fly off the island to look for supplies, they're saved by the folk hero known as the Sky Shadow. When Casey witnesses a shadowy organization dropping zombies from the air, Casey has to enlist the Sky Shadow's help to stop them before her home ends up next on the list.
If it seems sort of the same as the first one, it's because this was the first draft. They are completely different stories, but the same concept. I just threw this cover together in like 15 minutes.
Buy it for $2.99 from Amazon or get it FREE for Kindle Unlimited!
Finally, there's this:
From the pages of the Girl Power superhero series! After a devastating alien attack has left the world in shambles, what's needed more than ever is a global intelligence agency. Enter the Global Autonomous Intelligence Agency, run by Melanie Amis, once the superhero sidekick the Outcast. When one of Melanie's agents goes missing in Africa, it begins to unravel a conspiracy that could throw the world right back into chaos.
I wrote this early in 2014 but I thought I might rewrite it at some point because it's only like 45,000 words. Now that it has been about 2 years, it seems kind of unlikely I'm going to do a rewrite, so I might as well just publish it. The only gender swapping in this is a girl who was a guy gets changed back into a guy--and then back into a girl. Yeah.
Buy it for $2.99 from Amazon or get it FREE for Kindle Unlimited!
First there's this:
The zombie apocalypse takes to the sky in this thrilling new series! Major Hunter Hawking was an ace Air Force pilot, but two years after a zombie outbreak and global war have destroyed civilization, he's fighting only to stay alive. Then his old commander calls him back to an island near Seattle where society is trying to rebuild. After a series of successful strikes to root out zombies and criminal elements, Hunter thinks he might finally have a home.
Then a new enemy emerges with an air force of high-tech fighters and a devastating new weapon: tamed zombies that are dropped from the skies. When his new home is killed, Hunter is on his own to track down this enemy and stop them from deploying it again. Along the way he explores the shattered remains of America, bringing hope to those who remain as the Sky Ghost.
I put it up on Kindle Scout but of course it didn't get enough support to be published by Amazon. I thought of querying it but then decided I don't want to wait a year to never for it to come out. I kinda need money now, you know?
Buy it for $3.99 from Amazon in Kindle format and from Draft2Digital for other formats!
Then there's this, which might seem familiar:
For two years, Casey and her father have survived the zombie apocalypse on a small Michigan island. When they fly off the island to look for supplies, they're saved by the folk hero known as the Sky Shadow. When Casey witnesses a shadowy organization dropping zombies from the air, Casey has to enlist the Sky Shadow's help to stop them before her home ends up next on the list.
If it seems sort of the same as the first one, it's because this was the first draft. They are completely different stories, but the same concept. I just threw this cover together in like 15 minutes.
Buy it for $2.99 from Amazon or get it FREE for Kindle Unlimited!
Finally, there's this:
From the pages of the Girl Power superhero series! After a devastating alien attack has left the world in shambles, what's needed more than ever is a global intelligence agency. Enter the Global Autonomous Intelligence Agency, run by Melanie Amis, once the superhero sidekick the Outcast. When one of Melanie's agents goes missing in Africa, it begins to unravel a conspiracy that could throw the world right back into chaos.
I wrote this early in 2014 but I thought I might rewrite it at some point because it's only like 45,000 words. Now that it has been about 2 years, it seems kind of unlikely I'm going to do a rewrite, so I might as well just publish it. The only gender swapping in this is a girl who was a guy gets changed back into a guy--and then back into a girl. Yeah.
Buy it for $2.99 from Amazon or get it FREE for Kindle Unlimited!
Monday, February 8, 2016
Losing Creative Control: The Fall of Sci-Fi's Titans
Last month I mentioned in my mini-reviews segment that I watched Bill Shatner's "Chaos on the Bridge" about the turmoil involved in the first few seasons of ST: TNG. It was made pretty clear that probably the biggest hurdle to the show's success was the creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry. And it's painted as no surprise that the show didn't really start to connect with fans until Roddenberry's failing health (and ultimate demise) forced him off the show.
It's interesting that pretty much the same thing is perceived to have happened with that other huge sci-fi franchise, Star Wars. Pretty much every fan after the lame prequels was howling for George Lucas's blood. Most of us pinned the failure (or perceived failure as they still made money) on Lucas maintaining too much control over the writing and directing, duties that had been given to other people for the last two segments of the original trilogy. Then every disgruntled fan got their wish in 2012 when Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney and they immediately announced plans to make new movies that wouldn't involve Lucas. And in many opinions (including mine) the new movie is much better than the prequels.
I guess of the two Lucas is luckier in that he got a golden parachute of about $4 billion and has lived to spend some of it. Though after Star Wars was released in December, Lucas let slip some nasty comments about it being a "retro movie" and selling the property to "white slavers." Roddenberry didn't have much of an opportunity for those kind of sour grapes; maybe he was better off that way. But it is interesting that the two creators of these beloved sci-fi franchises basically had to be forced out in order to save those franchises.
In comparison the common factor to the downfall of Lucas and Roddenberry is they ended up sticking too rigidly to their "vision." If anyone had had the balls, they could have told Lucas that fans didn't want prequels; they wanted Han and Leia and Luke and Chewie back. But even after the relative failure of the prequels Lucas wouldn't consider doing sequels to the original trilogy. Instead he kept focusing on the prequels with the "Clone Wars" show, which was a good series, something snarky fans (like me) would attribute to Lucas not writing or directing the scripts.
For Roddenberry the problem talked about on "Chaos on the Bridge" was that he was fixated on this idea that the Federation was this great utopia and no one should fight or argue or be racist or evil or anything. Which obviously created problems for the writers, because how can you create conflict in a universe where everyone is supposed to get along? The series picked up in the third season when Roddenberry pretty much tapped out because of his health and the showrunner he had hired was replaced with Michael Pillar, who let the writers do more character-oriented stories.
Just to throw another name out there, Stan Lee is "The Man" who put Marvel Comics on the map, but while he created (or co-created) a lot of Marvel's characters, a great many of them like the X-Men or Daredevil didn't really achieve success until after Lee had left the title. And it was really because again someone else came along and changed things up. With X-Men it was introducing new characters like Wolverine while with Daredevil it was Frank Miller's grittier stories. You can say the same for Batman, Superman, and a lot of other properties where their greatest eras came after the original creators were gone.
I guess then the main point here is sometimes with a franchise the person who originates it gets too stale or rigid or out of step with the times or whatever the case might be. Probably someone could do all my various franchises better than I can if anyone gave a shit about said franchises. But I suppose too we need to be mindful that it's easier to fix something that's broken than to create it from scratch. Maybe JJ Abrams could have invented Star Wars, but I doubt it. Maybe Rick Berman and Michael Pillar could have invented Star Trek, but again I doubt it--and not just because they would have been kids when the original Trek aired.
We should probably keep that in mind with all these reboots.
It's interesting that pretty much the same thing is perceived to have happened with that other huge sci-fi franchise, Star Wars. Pretty much every fan after the lame prequels was howling for George Lucas's blood. Most of us pinned the failure (or perceived failure as they still made money) on Lucas maintaining too much control over the writing and directing, duties that had been given to other people for the last two segments of the original trilogy. Then every disgruntled fan got their wish in 2012 when Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney and they immediately announced plans to make new movies that wouldn't involve Lucas. And in many opinions (including mine) the new movie is much better than the prequels.
I guess of the two Lucas is luckier in that he got a golden parachute of about $4 billion and has lived to spend some of it. Though after Star Wars was released in December, Lucas let slip some nasty comments about it being a "retro movie" and selling the property to "white slavers." Roddenberry didn't have much of an opportunity for those kind of sour grapes; maybe he was better off that way. But it is interesting that the two creators of these beloved sci-fi franchises basically had to be forced out in order to save those franchises.
In comparison the common factor to the downfall of Lucas and Roddenberry is they ended up sticking too rigidly to their "vision." If anyone had had the balls, they could have told Lucas that fans didn't want prequels; they wanted Han and Leia and Luke and Chewie back. But even after the relative failure of the prequels Lucas wouldn't consider doing sequels to the original trilogy. Instead he kept focusing on the prequels with the "Clone Wars" show, which was a good series, something snarky fans (like me) would attribute to Lucas not writing or directing the scripts.
For Roddenberry the problem talked about on "Chaos on the Bridge" was that he was fixated on this idea that the Federation was this great utopia and no one should fight or argue or be racist or evil or anything. Which obviously created problems for the writers, because how can you create conflict in a universe where everyone is supposed to get along? The series picked up in the third season when Roddenberry pretty much tapped out because of his health and the showrunner he had hired was replaced with Michael Pillar, who let the writers do more character-oriented stories.
Just to throw another name out there, Stan Lee is "The Man" who put Marvel Comics on the map, but while he created (or co-created) a lot of Marvel's characters, a great many of them like the X-Men or Daredevil didn't really achieve success until after Lee had left the title. And it was really because again someone else came along and changed things up. With X-Men it was introducing new characters like Wolverine while with Daredevil it was Frank Miller's grittier stories. You can say the same for Batman, Superman, and a lot of other properties where their greatest eras came after the original creators were gone.
I guess then the main point here is sometimes with a franchise the person who originates it gets too stale or rigid or out of step with the times or whatever the case might be. Probably someone could do all my various franchises better than I can if anyone gave a shit about said franchises. But I suppose too we need to be mindful that it's easier to fix something that's broken than to create it from scratch. Maybe JJ Abrams could have invented Star Wars, but I doubt it. Maybe Rick Berman and Michael Pillar could have invented Star Trek, but again I doubt it--and not just because they would have been kids when the original Trek aired.
We should probably keep that in mind with all these reboots.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Haters Gotta Hate
When the new Star Wars movie came out, most critics liked it (unlike the original movie or the prequels) but of course there are always some who have to complain. Notably Max Landis, the writer of Chronicle and some comic books, aired some grievances about the movie. Most of the time when people do this, it sounds like sour grapes. Especially someone whose recent American Ultra and Victor Frankenstein made less in their entire runs combined than Star Wars did in a day.
But really this happens with every big movie: Avatar, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Jurassic World, the Avengers, etc. The thing is, a lot of the complaints made usually sound petty. People get into camera angles or plot elements that can be explained or that there are too many coincidences, as if great writers like Dickens didn't rely on coincidences for their plots.
With The Force Awakens a lot of the criticism was it was too much like the original movie. But really I think when you're trying to win back the jaded fans after the prequels, reminding them of the original is a good start. At the same time I think it's a good enough movie on its own, which is probably why it quickly became the biggest movie ever--that and inflation, IMAX/3D sales, etc. The other major criticism is that Finn and Rey are "Mary Sues" in that they almost instantly know how to do stuff. I don't really agree with that. Finn's struggles learning to use the laser guns on the TIE Fighter and Millennium Falcon were documented. And he loses both lightsaber fights, so it's not like he was really "good" at using it. As for Rey, she probably has Skywalker DNA, so it would only make sense for her to know how to fly, just like Luke and Anakin. That she could mind control a guy is explainable in that she obviously heard stories about Jedis. And that she beats Kylo Ren is because she embraces the Force and she already had plenty of practice in fighting with her staff, so it's not like she was a wimp. See? You can poke holes and I can poke back. Suck it.
That said I can't deny The Force Awakens isn't a perfect movie. Neither are any of the other ones that I mentioned. I actually think Avatar was pretty lame--but it looked really cool doing it. The thing is, if I enjoyed a movie I can forgive a lot of its imperfections. I suppose if you want to get deep, it's like how your significant other might not look like a supermodel but you enjoy their company and thus can overlook that. Plus it's not like you look like a supermodel either. Before he throws stones at a movie like Star Wars, Max Landis might want to consider the imperfections in his movies. It's not like Chronicle was Citizen Kane by any stretch.
Though it's ironic for a Grumpy Bulldog to say so, I think some people just can't stand something being popular if they aren't involved. Maybe they're narcissists like Michael Offutt would say. Or just contrarians. Plus it's a good way to get yourself some publicity if you're a C-list celebrity. And then some men just like to watch the world burn--or piss off people by hating on what they like.
But really this happens with every big movie: Avatar, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Jurassic World, the Avengers, etc. The thing is, a lot of the complaints made usually sound petty. People get into camera angles or plot elements that can be explained or that there are too many coincidences, as if great writers like Dickens didn't rely on coincidences for their plots.
With The Force Awakens a lot of the criticism was it was too much like the original movie. But really I think when you're trying to win back the jaded fans after the prequels, reminding them of the original is a good start. At the same time I think it's a good enough movie on its own, which is probably why it quickly became the biggest movie ever--that and inflation, IMAX/3D sales, etc. The other major criticism is that Finn and Rey are "Mary Sues" in that they almost instantly know how to do stuff. I don't really agree with that. Finn's struggles learning to use the laser guns on the TIE Fighter and Millennium Falcon were documented. And he loses both lightsaber fights, so it's not like he was really "good" at using it. As for Rey, she probably has Skywalker DNA, so it would only make sense for her to know how to fly, just like Luke and Anakin. That she could mind control a guy is explainable in that she obviously heard stories about Jedis. And that she beats Kylo Ren is because she embraces the Force and she already had plenty of practice in fighting with her staff, so it's not like she was a wimp. See? You can poke holes and I can poke back. Suck it.
That said I can't deny The Force Awakens isn't a perfect movie. Neither are any of the other ones that I mentioned. I actually think Avatar was pretty lame--but it looked really cool doing it. The thing is, if I enjoyed a movie I can forgive a lot of its imperfections. I suppose if you want to get deep, it's like how your significant other might not look like a supermodel but you enjoy their company and thus can overlook that. Plus it's not like you look like a supermodel either. Before he throws stones at a movie like Star Wars, Max Landis might want to consider the imperfections in his movies. It's not like Chronicle was Citizen Kane by any stretch.
Though it's ironic for a Grumpy Bulldog to say so, I think some people just can't stand something being popular if they aren't involved. Maybe they're narcissists like Michael Offutt would say. Or just contrarians. Plus it's a good way to get yourself some publicity if you're a C-list celebrity. And then some men just like to watch the world burn--or piss off people by hating on what they like.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Stuff I Watched January Edition
The stuff I watched mostly in January. I'm again going to try to keep these short. Try being the operative word.
American Ultra: Slacker version of The Bourne Identity that ends up dragging at the end. (2.5/5) (Fun fact: The movie is set in the town of Liman, WV. The director of The Bourne Identity was Doug Liman. Coincidence? Probably.)
The Avengers: No, not the Marvel ones. This is the 90s adaptation of the old British TV show, which is full of corny jokes (like the bad guy and his henchmen all meeting in teddy bear costumes) and almost nonstop bad puns. Didn't Uma Thurman learn anything from Batman & Robin? Guess not. (1/5)
The Best That Never Was: ESPN documentary on Marcus Dupree, a highly-sought player in the early 80s who played 1 1/2 unhappy seasons at Oklahoma before going to the USFL and blowing out his knee. Thus he never realized the potential he showed in high school. An all-too-common story really. (2.5/5)
Born Into This: Documentary on the life of Charles Bukowski, who wrote tons of poetry and novels like Post Office and Ham on Rye. Doesn't tell you a lot you couldn't get from a Wikipedia page but then the dude has been dead since 1994. He's one of my literary heroes so it was interesting. Sean Penn and Bono make appearances among others. (3/5)
Broke: ESPN documentary on the plague of athletes going broke. It's such a shitstorm for a lot of these guys that you have to wonder if they would be better off never making the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL. My own situation parallels a lot of these guys after they retire, when you go from having money to having nothing. Of course I never got to "make it rain" or buy a Ferrari or anything. Anyway, this was interesting even if not particularly insightful. (2.5/5)
Chasing Tyson: ESPN documentary on Evander "The Real Deal"' Holyfield's rise to heavyweight champion in the early 90s. Unfortunately for him it was when Mike Tyson's life was imploding and thus Holyfield was seen as a paper champion more than a real one. And when they did finally fight the results were not that satisfying, especially the second time around when Tyson bit Holyfield's ear--twice! But now it's all good; Tyson has a cartoon on Adult Swim and Holyfield is pitching for Hardee's/Carl's Jr. (3/5)
Cougars Inc.: Boring movie where the pale kid from the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot breaks bad and starts an escort service for local "cougars" in order to pay his boarding school tuition. Far less skin and laughs than you'd expect from an R-rated sex comedy. (2/5)
Cyborg 2: The secret origin of Angelina Jolie! She plays the cyborg who is created by an evil corporation to blow up another evil corporation. Mayhem ensues but I slept through most of it. (2/5) (Fun Fact: Like Kickboxer 2 this was the sequel to a movie originally starring Jean-Claude van Damme, though he only appears in archival footage.)
The Death of Superman Lives: This documentary talks about the failed attempt to make a Superman movie in 1997-98 that would have been directed by Tim Burton and starring Nicolas Cage. About 3/4 of it involves talking about all the various concept art, which gets to be a bit tedious. I think the problem is no one really wants to badmouth anyone and risk being blackballed from the industry, so it's kind of tepid, though you really get the sense than everyone hated producer Jon Peters. (With good cause.) As for why the movie failed, basically Warner Bros had a string of failures and didn't want to risk it. Instead they passed the money to Wild, Wild West--because that was a surefire hit. Not. (2/5) (Fun Fact: Tony Laplume would enjoy the cameo by comic book writer Grant Morrison, despite that Morrison had absolutely nothing to do with the project. It would have been cool if he would have narrated the whole film with his Scottish accent.)
The Double: It's like a mix of Terry Gilliam's Zero Theorem and the Jake Gyllanhaal movie Enemy. Jesse Eisenberg meets his exact double except this one isn't a weird stalker. He tries to use the double as his Cyrano but it doesn't work. Slow and kind of weird. (2/5)
Dying of the Light: Competent Nic Cage thriller about a CIA agent with early stage dementia who searches for an ailing terrorist with the help of Chekov from the Star Trek reboot. Not really a lot of twists, but it's decent for what it is. (2.5/5)
Embryo: I saw this on late-night TV. It's an old 70s movie that's kind of a take on Frankenstein. A scientist finds a way to grow an embryo out of the womb. He starts with a dog that after it's born ages rapidly and gets super-smart. Then he does on a miscarried girl only about 15 weeks in. The girl grows until she's about 25, though she's kind of like a jungle girl needing to learn to talk and stuff. And then after a while she starts rapidly aging again. The only cure: sucking stuff out of fetuses. Most of it's OK but it's not really a horror movie. (2/5)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room: Documentary that depicts the fall of Enron in 2001. It's not "fair and balanced" but why should it be? Ironically this was made in 2005, just a few short years before even bigger corporate scandals proved no one on Wall Street learned anything from this. (3/5)
Formula 51: Sam Jackson makes a new drug and takes it to Liverpool, where rival factions try to capture him. Mostly fun imitation of Guy Ritchie's early work. (2.5/5)
Going Clear: Documentary tracing the history of Scientology from a self-help book to a wacky cult to a "church" to a sort of fascist state. Tom Cruise and John Travolta only appear in archival footage but Oscar-winner Paul Haggis and others talk candidly about their involvement with the pseudo-religion and why they got out. Scary stuff. (4/5)
Hostage: Bruce Wills fucks up a hostage situation in LA and goes to a small town to work as a local cop there, but of course there has to be a hostage situation to put him back into the game. The most amusing part was the little kid running around the oversized air ducts like a pint-sized John McClane. Otherwise it kind of drags on too long. (2/5)
Howard the Duck: I watched this probably 30 years ago but didn't remember a lot about it. Which was for the best. With corny jokes, lame effects, and bad 80s style, this is as bad as everyone says. (1/5) (Fun Fact: Since he appeared in a cookie scene at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy, Howard the Duck is part of the MCU!)
Hollywood Homicide: Speaking of bad movies...Actually this wasn't bad so much as boring. Basically two Hollywood detectives who give zero fucks about their day job have to solve the murder of a rap group. Harrison Ford moonlights as a realty agent and Josh Hartnett moonlights as a yoga teacher and wanna-be actor--insert your own joke. Like I said, it's pretty boring, capped off by a chase scene that goes much too long. (2/5)
Jackie Brown: Bloated Quentin Tarantino thriller based on an Elmore Leonard novel. (2/5)
Pay the Ghost: Has elements of Poltergeist, Halloween III, and The Lovely Bones as Nicolas Cage's son is abducted by a vengeful Celtic spirit on Halloween and taken to "the other side." A year later he has to venture over to save the kid, which is kind of easy really. Not a great movie by any stretch but not terrible. (2/5)
St. Vincent: Bill Murray is a crusty old man who starts to take care of a kid who moves in. The movie can't decide whether it should be a heartwarming family story or a raunchy comedy and so kind of does both not all that successfully. (2.5/5)
Small Potatoes: An ESPN 30 for 30 documentary on the rise and fall of the USFL, a football league in the mid-80s that briefly challenged the NFL's dominance. They even won a court case declaring the NFL an illegal monopoly. The jury awarded them a whopping $3. (Seriously, the filmmaker has the check.) BTW, if you're planning to vote for Trump, realize that his involvement couldn't make this league great; it actually had the opposite effect. Burt Reynolds and others have some pretty choice words about him while he petulantly walks out of the interview for the film. Classy. (3/5)
Ted 2: The first one was OK but this just felt so goddamned lazy. Most of it is recycled Family Guy jokes and celebrity cameos. Mark Wahlberg was the star of the last one but this time he's just the sidekick to Seth MacFarlane's talking teddy bear, which is not for the best. Really hoping it didn't make enough for a Ted 3. (1/5)
Tell: At first it seems like it'll be one of those Tarantino/Guy Ritchie rip-offs but then it shows some heart near the end as the eponymous character steals a million dollars but has to survive cops, his brother-in-law, and manipulative ex-wife who are all trying to get it from him. (3/5)
Toys: It manages to be even dumber and more annoying than the previews were. Though it kind of predicts the drones the military uses. (1/5)
Trapped in Paradise: Three dumb robbers, rob a bank in a small town on XMas Eve. But when their car runs off the road in a blizzard, they're trapped in the town and hilarity is supposed to ensue. Middling 90s comedy overall. (2/5)
Uncanny: In one of those weird Hollywood coincidences, this movie is largely the same as Ex-Machina and was made at pretty much the same time. Only in this case the robot is male and the nerd brought in to test it is female. And then robot and creator are competing for the woman, kind of like Frankenstein if Victor and the monster had wanted the same woman. There's a twist at the end that wasn't completely unexpected. It was not quite as good as Ex-Machina, with less style, less acting talent, and less naked Swedish and Asian chicks. Still it's decent and just different enough to stand on its own. (3/5)
The Water Diviner: Russell Crowe is an Australian widower whose sons are missing and presumed dead in WWI, so he goes to Turkey to search for them. And in the process finds love and stuff. (2.5/5)
What We Do in the Shadows: Mockumentary that follows four old school vampires living in a house in New Zealand. It's a pretty funny send-up of vampires, werewolves, and other ghouls. (3/5) (Fun Fact: I just heard a sequel has been greenlit.)
Wild Card: Jason Statham does Jason Statham stuff in Las Vegas. (2.5/5)
Where the Truth Lies: Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth are a 50s comedy duo whose act dissolved after a young woman died in their hotel room. A reporter searches for the truth 15 years later. To save you trouble: the butler did it. Seriously. (2/5)
BTW, I know best of 2015 lists are passe by February but I got to thinking of all the movies I saw in the theater last year and how I'd rank them:
I didn't think any of those were really bad--even Fantastic 4.. I never walked out thinking I got cheated, so it was just a matter of some being not quite as good as others.
American Ultra: Slacker version of The Bourne Identity that ends up dragging at the end. (2.5/5) (Fun fact: The movie is set in the town of Liman, WV. The director of The Bourne Identity was Doug Liman. Coincidence? Probably.)
The Avengers: No, not the Marvel ones. This is the 90s adaptation of the old British TV show, which is full of corny jokes (like the bad guy and his henchmen all meeting in teddy bear costumes) and almost nonstop bad puns. Didn't Uma Thurman learn anything from Batman & Robin? Guess not. (1/5)
The Best That Never Was: ESPN documentary on Marcus Dupree, a highly-sought player in the early 80s who played 1 1/2 unhappy seasons at Oklahoma before going to the USFL and blowing out his knee. Thus he never realized the potential he showed in high school. An all-too-common story really. (2.5/5)
Born Into This: Documentary on the life of Charles Bukowski, who wrote tons of poetry and novels like Post Office and Ham on Rye. Doesn't tell you a lot you couldn't get from a Wikipedia page but then the dude has been dead since 1994. He's one of my literary heroes so it was interesting. Sean Penn and Bono make appearances among others. (3/5)
Broke: ESPN documentary on the plague of athletes going broke. It's such a shitstorm for a lot of these guys that you have to wonder if they would be better off never making the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL. My own situation parallels a lot of these guys after they retire, when you go from having money to having nothing. Of course I never got to "make it rain" or buy a Ferrari or anything. Anyway, this was interesting even if not particularly insightful. (2.5/5)
Chasing Tyson: ESPN documentary on Evander "The Real Deal"' Holyfield's rise to heavyweight champion in the early 90s. Unfortunately for him it was when Mike Tyson's life was imploding and thus Holyfield was seen as a paper champion more than a real one. And when they did finally fight the results were not that satisfying, especially the second time around when Tyson bit Holyfield's ear--twice! But now it's all good; Tyson has a cartoon on Adult Swim and Holyfield is pitching for Hardee's/Carl's Jr. (3/5)
Cougars Inc.: Boring movie where the pale kid from the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot breaks bad and starts an escort service for local "cougars" in order to pay his boarding school tuition. Far less skin and laughs than you'd expect from an R-rated sex comedy. (2/5)
Cyborg 2: The secret origin of Angelina Jolie! She plays the cyborg who is created by an evil corporation to blow up another evil corporation. Mayhem ensues but I slept through most of it. (2/5) (Fun Fact: Like Kickboxer 2 this was the sequel to a movie originally starring Jean-Claude van Damme, though he only appears in archival footage.)
The Death of Superman Lives: This documentary talks about the failed attempt to make a Superman movie in 1997-98 that would have been directed by Tim Burton and starring Nicolas Cage. About 3/4 of it involves talking about all the various concept art, which gets to be a bit tedious. I think the problem is no one really wants to badmouth anyone and risk being blackballed from the industry, so it's kind of tepid, though you really get the sense than everyone hated producer Jon Peters. (With good cause.) As for why the movie failed, basically Warner Bros had a string of failures and didn't want to risk it. Instead they passed the money to Wild, Wild West--because that was a surefire hit. Not. (2/5) (Fun Fact: Tony Laplume would enjoy the cameo by comic book writer Grant Morrison, despite that Morrison had absolutely nothing to do with the project. It would have been cool if he would have narrated the whole film with his Scottish accent.)
The Double: It's like a mix of Terry Gilliam's Zero Theorem and the Jake Gyllanhaal movie Enemy. Jesse Eisenberg meets his exact double except this one isn't a weird stalker. He tries to use the double as his Cyrano but it doesn't work. Slow and kind of weird. (2/5)
Dying of the Light: Competent Nic Cage thriller about a CIA agent with early stage dementia who searches for an ailing terrorist with the help of Chekov from the Star Trek reboot. Not really a lot of twists, but it's decent for what it is. (2.5/5)
Embryo: I saw this on late-night TV. It's an old 70s movie that's kind of a take on Frankenstein. A scientist finds a way to grow an embryo out of the womb. He starts with a dog that after it's born ages rapidly and gets super-smart. Then he does on a miscarried girl only about 15 weeks in. The girl grows until she's about 25, though she's kind of like a jungle girl needing to learn to talk and stuff. And then after a while she starts rapidly aging again. The only cure: sucking stuff out of fetuses. Most of it's OK but it's not really a horror movie. (2/5)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room: Documentary that depicts the fall of Enron in 2001. It's not "fair and balanced" but why should it be? Ironically this was made in 2005, just a few short years before even bigger corporate scandals proved no one on Wall Street learned anything from this. (3/5)
Formula 51: Sam Jackson makes a new drug and takes it to Liverpool, where rival factions try to capture him. Mostly fun imitation of Guy Ritchie's early work. (2.5/5)
Going Clear: Documentary tracing the history of Scientology from a self-help book to a wacky cult to a "church" to a sort of fascist state. Tom Cruise and John Travolta only appear in archival footage but Oscar-winner Paul Haggis and others talk candidly about their involvement with the pseudo-religion and why they got out. Scary stuff. (4/5)
Hostage: Bruce Wills fucks up a hostage situation in LA and goes to a small town to work as a local cop there, but of course there has to be a hostage situation to put him back into the game. The most amusing part was the little kid running around the oversized air ducts like a pint-sized John McClane. Otherwise it kind of drags on too long. (2/5)
Howard the Duck: I watched this probably 30 years ago but didn't remember a lot about it. Which was for the best. With corny jokes, lame effects, and bad 80s style, this is as bad as everyone says. (1/5) (Fun Fact: Since he appeared in a cookie scene at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy, Howard the Duck is part of the MCU!)
Hollywood Homicide: Speaking of bad movies...Actually this wasn't bad so much as boring. Basically two Hollywood detectives who give zero fucks about their day job have to solve the murder of a rap group. Harrison Ford moonlights as a realty agent and Josh Hartnett moonlights as a yoga teacher and wanna-be actor--insert your own joke. Like I said, it's pretty boring, capped off by a chase scene that goes much too long. (2/5)
Jackie Brown: Bloated Quentin Tarantino thriller based on an Elmore Leonard novel. (2/5)
Pay the Ghost: Has elements of Poltergeist, Halloween III, and The Lovely Bones as Nicolas Cage's son is abducted by a vengeful Celtic spirit on Halloween and taken to "the other side." A year later he has to venture over to save the kid, which is kind of easy really. Not a great movie by any stretch but not terrible. (2/5)
St. Vincent: Bill Murray is a crusty old man who starts to take care of a kid who moves in. The movie can't decide whether it should be a heartwarming family story or a raunchy comedy and so kind of does both not all that successfully. (2.5/5)
Small Potatoes: An ESPN 30 for 30 documentary on the rise and fall of the USFL, a football league in the mid-80s that briefly challenged the NFL's dominance. They even won a court case declaring the NFL an illegal monopoly. The jury awarded them a whopping $3. (Seriously, the filmmaker has the check.) BTW, if you're planning to vote for Trump, realize that his involvement couldn't make this league great; it actually had the opposite effect. Burt Reynolds and others have some pretty choice words about him while he petulantly walks out of the interview for the film. Classy. (3/5)
Ted 2: The first one was OK but this just felt so goddamned lazy. Most of it is recycled Family Guy jokes and celebrity cameos. Mark Wahlberg was the star of the last one but this time he's just the sidekick to Seth MacFarlane's talking teddy bear, which is not for the best. Really hoping it didn't make enough for a Ted 3. (1/5)
Tell: At first it seems like it'll be one of those Tarantino/Guy Ritchie rip-offs but then it shows some heart near the end as the eponymous character steals a million dollars but has to survive cops, his brother-in-law, and manipulative ex-wife who are all trying to get it from him. (3/5)
Toys: It manages to be even dumber and more annoying than the previews were. Though it kind of predicts the drones the military uses. (1/5)
Trapped in Paradise: Three dumb robbers, rob a bank in a small town on XMas Eve. But when their car runs off the road in a blizzard, they're trapped in the town and hilarity is supposed to ensue. Middling 90s comedy overall. (2/5)
Uncanny: In one of those weird Hollywood coincidences, this movie is largely the same as Ex-Machina and was made at pretty much the same time. Only in this case the robot is male and the nerd brought in to test it is female. And then robot and creator are competing for the woman, kind of like Frankenstein if Victor and the monster had wanted the same woman. There's a twist at the end that wasn't completely unexpected. It was not quite as good as Ex-Machina, with less style, less acting talent, and less naked Swedish and Asian chicks. Still it's decent and just different enough to stand on its own. (3/5)
The Water Diviner: Russell Crowe is an Australian widower whose sons are missing and presumed dead in WWI, so he goes to Turkey to search for them. And in the process finds love and stuff. (2.5/5)
What We Do in the Shadows: Mockumentary that follows four old school vampires living in a house in New Zealand. It's a pretty funny send-up of vampires, werewolves, and other ghouls. (3/5) (Fun Fact: I just heard a sequel has been greenlit.)
Wild Card: Jason Statham does Jason Statham stuff in Las Vegas. (2.5/5)
Where the Truth Lies: Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth are a 50s comedy duo whose act dissolved after a young woman died in their hotel room. A reporter searches for the truth 15 years later. To save you trouble: the butler did it. Seriously. (2/5)
BTW, I know best of 2015 lists are passe by February but I got to thinking of all the movies I saw in the theater last year and how I'd rank them:
- Star Wars
- The Martian
- Ex-Machina
- Birdman
- Ant-Man
- Jurassic World
- Avengers 2
- Fantastic 4
I didn't think any of those were really bad--even Fantastic 4.. I never walked out thinking I got cheated, so it was just a matter of some being not quite as good as others.
Monday, February 1, 2016
The Great (And Not-So-Great) Debaters
A couple of months ago I watched this documentary on Netflix called "Best of Enemies" about the 1968 presidential convention debates between conservative writer William Buckley and liberal writer Gore Vidal. I thought since it was about writers, why not watch it? I wondered too if they would be like Siskel & Ebert who seemed like enemies a lot of the time but over time gained a grudging respect and admiration for each other. Um, no, these guys hated each other to the bitter end, to the point that when Buckley died, Vidal wrote "RIP--in Hell." Ouch. And for at least 3 years they had a lawsuit accusing each other of libel, which was eventually settled by Esquire magazine.
You might wonder if this has any significance to modern life and it actually does. These debates were pretty much the beginning of talking head debate shows you see everywhere: CNN, Fox "News," MSNBC, PBS, and even ESPN. There might have been shows like that beforehand but this was where networks found out that it could be lucrative to have guys with opposing viewpoints argue on live TV.
The genesis of the idea was that basically ABC was way behind NBC and CBS in news rankings. They also didn't have as much money; their set on the Republican National Convention actually collapsed and to be hastily rebuilt. So while the competition basically just filmed the entirety of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, ABC was only going to cover it in primetime and to fill some of the time, they brought in Buckley and Vidal. Ostensibly they were supposed to talk about the events of the convention but they seemed to spend all their time talking about their opposing political views--and each other.
There were five debates during the Republican convention in Miami and people liked them so much that obviously they had to have five more during the Democratic convention in Chicago. If you remember your 60s history, the Chicago convention was marred by protests and a brutal crackdown by the Chicago police. That probably helped to fuel the drama of the debates so that in the ninth one Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist" and Buckley in response called Vidal a "queer" and threatened to punch him. Which really it would have been hilarious to see these two middle-aged writers who both talked like Thurston Howell III of Gilligan's Island fame going at each other. Sadly we were denied that and now they're both dead.
It was pretty obvious from at least what the movie showed that Vidal was trying to wind Buckley up to get just that kind of reaction. Instead of worrying about the conventions, they were both were more interested in discrediting each other, which if you think about it is not unlike most Internet flame wars I've been involved in.
But the only problem with Internet flame wars is you can provoke a Jay Greenstein or Andrew Leon but you can't make them explode like Buckley for the simple reason that it's not happening live. So no matter how much you might rankle them or rile them, they have all the time in the world to recover. Let's face it, that's why Internet arguments in general fail: each side all the time in the world to recover emotionally, to dig up facts, and only has to respond to what they want to respond to. And if they so chose, it's easy enough just to walk away. Thus you don't really get the "Gotcha!" moment you can get in a live debate.
That doesn't stop us from trying, does it?
Though as the documentary pointed out while Buckley lost the battle, Vidal in the end lost the war. Not only did Nixon win the election, Buckley's best bud Reagan won the presidency 12 years later while extolling most of the virtues Buckley put forth.
Anyway, there's some food for thought the next time you get sucked into a flame war on Blogger or Facebook or something, which probably happens to other people far less than it happens to me.
You might wonder if this has any significance to modern life and it actually does. These debates were pretty much the beginning of talking head debate shows you see everywhere: CNN, Fox "News," MSNBC, PBS, and even ESPN. There might have been shows like that beforehand but this was where networks found out that it could be lucrative to have guys with opposing viewpoints argue on live TV.
The genesis of the idea was that basically ABC was way behind NBC and CBS in news rankings. They also didn't have as much money; their set on the Republican National Convention actually collapsed and to be hastily rebuilt. So while the competition basically just filmed the entirety of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, ABC was only going to cover it in primetime and to fill some of the time, they brought in Buckley and Vidal. Ostensibly they were supposed to talk about the events of the convention but they seemed to spend all their time talking about their opposing political views--and each other.
There were five debates during the Republican convention in Miami and people liked them so much that obviously they had to have five more during the Democratic convention in Chicago. If you remember your 60s history, the Chicago convention was marred by protests and a brutal crackdown by the Chicago police. That probably helped to fuel the drama of the debates so that in the ninth one Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist" and Buckley in response called Vidal a "queer" and threatened to punch him. Which really it would have been hilarious to see these two middle-aged writers who both talked like Thurston Howell III of Gilligan's Island fame going at each other. Sadly we were denied that and now they're both dead.
It was pretty obvious from at least what the movie showed that Vidal was trying to wind Buckley up to get just that kind of reaction. Instead of worrying about the conventions, they were both were more interested in discrediting each other, which if you think about it is not unlike most Internet flame wars I've been involved in.
But the only problem with Internet flame wars is you can provoke a Jay Greenstein or Andrew Leon but you can't make them explode like Buckley for the simple reason that it's not happening live. So no matter how much you might rankle them or rile them, they have all the time in the world to recover. Let's face it, that's why Internet arguments in general fail: each side all the time in the world to recover emotionally, to dig up facts, and only has to respond to what they want to respond to. And if they so chose, it's easy enough just to walk away. Thus you don't really get the "Gotcha!" moment you can get in a live debate.
That doesn't stop us from trying, does it?
Though as the documentary pointed out while Buckley lost the battle, Vidal in the end lost the war. Not only did Nixon win the election, Buckley's best bud Reagan won the presidency 12 years later while extolling most of the virtues Buckley put forth.
Anyway, there's some food for thought the next time you get sucked into a flame war on Blogger or Facebook or something, which probably happens to other people far less than it happens to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
