"The Amazing Spider-Man" Lies His Ass Off In NEW Poster

15 Comments
When I first saw this (origin: SuperHeroHype) as a partial-view on my smartphone I kind of loved it – great design, if nothing else. Then I scrolled down to the bottom and burst out laughing in public.
They’re really selling a revisitation of what may be (at least!) the 3rd most widely-known superhero “origin story” EVER as “The Untold Story?” The origin of Spider-Man is the definition of a TOLD story! It’s not even as though it’s a “prequel” to the previously-made movies and is going to reveal some “untold” part of that continuity; it’s just a new version of the same exact fucking story! That’s as close to a full-blown lie as a poster can tell!
But… whatever. What it does make me wonder (again) is what they might have meant when they put this together. What is “the untold story?”

Of all the things that set off my alarm bells about the godawful first trailer for the film, the most glaring was that the death (dissappearance?) of Peter Parker’s actual parents – and satchel full of mysterious-documents they left behind – was revealed as some kind of big driving point for the plot (the big final line of the trailer was “We all have secrets. The ones you keep… and the one’s kept from you.”)
Of all the convoluted nonsense that Spidey’s backstory has accrued over the years, the detail that Richard and Mary Parker were actually Bond-style secret agents is one of the dopiest; but as part of a movie continuity it gives off the bad vibes of some “big thing” that ‘coincidentally’ connects all the current and future characters together as opposed to “weird super-science stuff happens all the time around here” worldbuilding.
Best guess? They’ll be revealed to have been “taken out” because of some nefarious doings related to Oscorp (the company’s name is on Gwen Stacy’s and Curt Conners’ labcoats in the trailer) which will in turn be the “source” of both The Lizard and sundry baddies to come (oh, and they’ll tease The Green Goblin at the end a’la The Joker.)
Am I the only one that hates when they do that? Joker being the Wayne’s killer in the Tim Burton “Batman,” Sandman shooting Uncle Ben in “Spider-Man 3,” etc? It always makes the “world” so small and narrow. I know why it’s there from a screenwriting 101 standpoint, connecting the threads and whatnot – but it kills out the “scope” factor of having the various villains and/or other “super” people existing independently of the main character until their paths cross. Like… in “Captain America,” I LOVE that the Cosmic Cube has zero connection to Cap until The Red Skull has it, and that even then it has nothing to do with why The Skull is what he is; or how S.H.I.E.L.D. is not exclusively devoted to looking for Thor, they’re just “there” and they’ve brought an archery-themed superhero with them “because why not?” It makes everything so much more expansive and adds so much more potential.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Come See MovieBob At ARISIA ’12!

3 Comments

…And, hey! Did you see the NEW “Game OverThinker?”

Anyway, I can now announce that I’ll be out and about at Arisia ’12 – a big Boston Area scifi/fantasy/fandom convention running January 13th-16th you can learn more about HERE. At this time I can’t officially announce where/when you’ll be able to see me appearing in an “official” capacity (i.e. panels, speaking, discussions, etc;) but I’ll also be around “the floor” so feel free to say hi if you happen to be onhand as well.

I’m also planning on being at PAXEast again this year as well, though details on that are still aways off. Stay tuned!

"Three Stooges" Looks Worse Than You Thought

19 Comments

Apple has the trailer for the Farrelly Bros. modern reboot of “The Three Stooges.” I’ll post an embed when I get one, but for now go and feel my pain.

Ye gods, what did anyone do to deserve this? For all the care taken to get the actors looking “right” and match the old-timey sound effects; how did NO ONE notice (or care) that they have NONE of the actual Stooges’ gift for physical comedy? And are we really, honestly doing “sexy nun” jokes in 2011?

THIS Is Why People Think Republicans Are Stupid.

42 Comments

It is, let’s be honest – just as it’s not fair that my “Liberal” friends get stereotyped as weak and/or wimpy; it’s a little unfair that my Republican friends get stereotyped as being idiots. Granted, running presidential candidates who reject the scientific facts of things like evolution, climate change, or in general hold science and knowledge as inferior to “belief” doesn’t really help their case.

Also not helping their case? Doing a 7 minute segment on Fox Business attacking “The Muppets” for “brainwashing” children with an anti-corporate message. (Summary of charges? The bad guy is an oil magnate named Tex Richman.)

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf

Less-Than-Thrilling "Star Trek" Bad Guy Rumors

15 Comments

EDIT: Somehow, this initially went up without the page-break I intended. My appologies.

This has been “news” for a few days now, but I wanted to chew it over before posting anything. Plus, weekend and all that…

So… Internet Lore has it that I “hated” JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek” reboot; which is basically untrue – I didn’t really care much for it, and I think it’s kind of telling that the “return of Trek as a super-relevant franchise” thing that it was supposed to kick off has more-or-less failed to materialize – let’s be real for a moment: the Geek Culture “organism” has been obsessing over “what’s gonna happen in ‘The Avengers'” since the end of “Iron Man”… how much chatter or even excitement has there been over “New Trek” since the movie? – but mostly I was underwhelmed.

Anyway! Latino Review claims to have the scoop as to the identity of the (presumed) villain Benicio Del Toro is playing in the sequel. POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING FROM HERE ON OUT!/

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

According to LR’s sources – and they are known for having really, REALLY good intel – he’ll be Khan Noonien Singh, pretty-much THE most widely-recognized Trek villain (moreso because of “Wrath of Khan” than his origins on the original series.)

This has pretty-much been what most people have been assuming (again, Khan is really the only Trek heavy that EVERYONE has heard of) since the beginning… and while there have already been a slew of denials from the filmmakers that means very little at this point, as Devin at BAD points out “extreme truth-stretching” is standard-issue for movie rumor denials these days.

In any case, IF true it’s kinda dissapointing news from where I sit.

Mainly, it smacks of taking the easy route: This was what everyone assumed the 2nd movie would be before they shot the FIRST movie. By the same token, it smacks of Abrams and company’s strictly-superficial read of the franchise: Khan is iconic mainly because of “Wrath of Khan” – which they probably aren’t going to remake (in no small part because they already ‘borrowed’ the basic skeleton of Khan’s story in that film for Nero in the last movie.) “Space Seed” – the Young Kirk era episode that introduced the character – had previously been  prized mostly for it’s world-building; one of the few Original Series episodes to offer some tidbits about what had happened in Trek’s history between the audience’s present and the Federation-era future (short version: Khan is a genetically-engineered superhuman who became a would-be conquerer during the delightfully-named “Eugenics Wars,” later discovered hibernating in a spaceship by The Enterprise.)

Basically; if this is true it means that despite re-booting the entire Trek universe and thus having the option of using ANY character (or making up a new one) they’d be going for a retread of the most popular movie in the pre-reboot series. This isn’t automatically indicative of anything, of course – maybe THIS will be the screenplay where Team Abrams finally delivers – but it’s not a terribly encouraging sign.

Also… not to nitpick here, but if it IS going to be Khan… with all due respect to Del Toro, it would’ve been nice if they could’ve found an Indian actor for the role. Khan is supposed to be a Sikh, after all – and it’s not like there aren’t a metric-ton of good Indian actors who could really benefit from a breakout part like this (not to mention it could mean HUGE boxoffice in the increasingly-important India market.) Casting him with another Spanish actor – a good one, don’t get me wrong – once again smells unpleasantly of a surface-only read of the series. Plus, let’s be honest, the ONLY way for a new Khan to stand on his own merit is for him to be as far removed from Ricardo Montalban’s version as possible.

We’ll see.

Today’s Pointless, Doomed-to-Suck Reboot is "Starship Troopers"

17 Comments

The problem with Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” is the problem I worry “John Carter” has – being a ‘seminal classic’ also means that by the time you get to the movies everyone else has already borrowed all the original stuff. Which is why, to my mind, Paul Verhoeven’s “Troopers” movie did the only thing you could really DO with the propert after decades of military scifi had picked it’s bones clean: Turn Heinlein’s quasi-fascist army-fetishism into a scathing – and kind of brilliant – scorched-earth throttling of every bullshit pro-war propaganda flick ever made. I still maintain that, if not for pre-dating the “War On Terror” by many years, it would be the best movie about the “War On Terror” ever made.

So, of course, it’s being rebooted.


It would be crazy for them to try and mimic the tone of the first film (or the sequels,) so expect talk of “going back to the source,” which will probably also include actually utilizing the “powered robot-suits” that the first film skipped for budgetary reasons. I’m sure it’ll result in a serviceable, visually-attractive film… just not one with much going on under the hood.

I could be wrong, of course..

Today I Like McDonalds

22 Comments

I understand and sympathize with the attitude behind San Francisco’s goofy “Happy Meal Ban.” Yeah, my latent libertarian streak says that if your stupid enough to think a $1 hamburger (which is NOT, by the way, the cheapest food you can get in most areas where such poverty is a major problem so please spare me the histrionics) prepared in 30 seconds is proper day-to-day nutrition you deserve what you get. To some people “too dumb to live” is a cute hyperbolic insult – to me, it often sounds like a solid catch-all public policy…

BUT, that said, I completely “get” not wanting children to suffer for the stupidity of their parents. So yeah, I get where they’re coming from; but it’s still a foolish, pointless move from a city that seems to have lost it’s ability to distinguish between worthwhile liberal social-policy and cartoonish parodies of what right-wing dipshits think liberals are about.

Which is why – despite my mixed feelings on the Fast Food industry (on the one hand I’m not “against” corporations ‘preying’ on idiots, on the other hand… y’know, kids don’t get to choose whether or not they’re born to idiot parents) I straight-up LOVE McDonalds’ ingeniously dickish “fuck you!” to the ban:

See, SF made a law that said you can’t include FREE toy prizes in “kids meals” that don’t comply with city nutritional standards; which, of course, seem precisely built to exclude pretty-much anything McDonalds might sell. McD’s solution? Raise the price of a Happy Meal by a dime, make the toys something you have to ask for, and call the dime the “price” of the toy. Oh, and that dime? They’re giving it to charity. Fuck yeah. Take a bow, Ronald.

To show my solidarity, one appreciator of a high-quality loophole-leaping “fuck you” to another, I’ll be making it a point to eat some McDonalds today – y’know, after a 2,000 calorie workout, of course. I haven’t been in awhile, what should I get?