Mar
8
Now I know what the shepherd in Ezekiel 25:17 feels like, beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Or maybe not. At any rate, someone made fun of me on the Internet again, so it is time to salute Mr. J. Evert Jones for his response to my “Back to the Future” blog, wittily entitled “Claudia Wells > Elizabeth Shue.”
If I remember the piece correctly, I suggested that actress Claudia Wells, who played Marty’s girlfriend Jennifer in the first “Back to the Future,” essayed a performance that was superior to Elizabeth Shue’s turns as Jennifer in “Back to the Future, Part II” and “Back to the Future, Part III.” Some say there are more pressing things to discuss. Libya, for one. Charlie Sheen, for another. Nay, say I. However, Libyan terrorists do machine gun Doc Brown to death at the beginning of “Back to the Future,” and Charlie Sheen would someday replace Michael J. Fox on “Spin City.” And so, there is in fact some tenuous way for me to shoehorn those of-the-moment topics into a blog about BTTF.
I think I may have adult-onset autism.
But I digress. What was I talking about? Oh, yes. J. Evert Jones and his remarks. Here they are, unedited:
“I’m sorry you didn’t like Ms. Shue’s bow in the BTTF series, but I think you missed an important plot point– that of the danger of interacting with yourself while time travelling.
“Remember, Jennifer had to be knocked out by Doc Brown with his MIB prototype (!). This action caused an insufficient “knockout charge” administered to Marty Jr. And then, the dominoes fell; the fight/chase with Griff putting him in front of the clock tower, the idea of buying the sports almanac, etc.”
In particular, I like how he used the word “bow” when describing Elizabeth Shue’s performance. Since she spent the bulk of both movies in a state of unconsciousness, I think maybe he’s overreaching with his actorly terminology. Also, he brings up the idea of interacting with oneself during time travel, but his subsequent paragraph doesn’t bother to elaborate on this ever so important “plot point.” Even worse, he mischaracterizes the function of the neuralizer in “Men in Black,” which is designed to blank someone’s short-term memory, not render them unconscious. What a maroon!
Point is, Claudia Wells played Jennifer Parker with a sultriness that’s lacking in Shue’s take on the role. As played by Wells, Jennifer is the ultimate high school sweetheart. Shue’s Jennifer is cloying and kind of dim; she reminds me of my actual high school sweetheart. Don’t get me wrong. I love Shue in “Leaving Las Vegas,” a film I like to think is a spiritual sequel to “Back to the Future, Part III.” I imagine that Jennifer eventually broke up with Marty, relocated from Hill Valley to Sin City, and reinvented herself as a prostitute named Sera. But that’s a topic for a whole ‘nother blog to be ripped apart by Internet trolls.
-Brad Lohan
Feb
21
It’s rare that I get anyone to post a comment on my blog, so when I do, and when it’s especially vitriolic, it’s always a treat. Here’s a recent comment I got from someone calling himself “anti-hero fan” in response to this post. Apparently, I’m not as smart as I think I am. J’accuse!
According to anti-hero fan, “You, sir, [are] a friggin’ know-it-all. Anti-heroes come in many shades of gray. But you seem to think in terms of black and white.
“Don’t think that you know everything about anti-heroes because obvious that you don’t.
“Anti-heroes AREN’T villains. They’re beings who aren’t true heroes because they behave like villains.
“I’ve learned about anti-heroes. But unlike [you], I know that I don’t know everything about them. You just think and claim that you’re expert on them even though you aren’t.
“And no, Harvey Dent isn’t an anti-hero. He became the villain who’s known as Two-Face.
“So don’t give me your arrogant I-know-everything-so-that-makes-me-smarter than-everyone-else attitude. There are things that other people know about but you don’t know about.”
I haven’t revisited my treatise on anti-heroes in awhile, nor do I plan to, as I’m probably even less of a fan of my writing than anti-hero fan. At any rate, keep on drinking the Haterade, dear readers!
-Brad Lohan
Jan
28
The Death of 3D*
Filed Under Culture | Leave a Comment
2010 was the unofficial year of 3D. After “Avatar” shattered box office records, studios post-converted their big-budget stinkers into 3D, hoping to capitalize on the gimmick and make a quick cash grab. It worked. Films with some of the worst reviews of the year (“Alice in Wonderland,” “Clash of the Titans” and “The Last Airbender”) were all successful in spite of themselves. The overinflated ticket prices helped, as undemanding audiences shelled out a few extra dollars to see murky and generally underwhelming 3D effects. A backlash ensued, but like the similar hue and cry over LIEmax presentations in 2009, it didn’t seem to really cause a sea change in public perception towards 3D post-conversion.
Warner Bros. decided against post-converting the first half of the mind-numbingly boring “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” but the second part will be post-converted. The release of “The Green Hornet” was delayed several months to be post-converted. Marvel Comics’ “Thor” and “Captain America” are also going through the process as of this writing.
I doubt most people understand the different between a movie that’s shot stereoscopically (meaning the filmmakers used 3D cameras during production) and a movie that was 3D-ified in post-production. Some people might ask, “Well, what’s the difference?” Think of a movie that’s shot in color versus a movie that was colorized. The image has been tampered with in a way that was not originally intended, and it shows.
I almost got my “Piranha 3D” ticket refunded when I found out that the movie had been post-converted. The only saving grace was that the film had been shot in 2D with an eye for post-converting it in 3D. There are still a couple shots in the film that don’t look right. But for the most part, it takes advantage of 3D in a way that most post-converted films don’t.
Thing is, 3D is a dumb gimmick. It doesn’t make a movie more immersive. I didn’t go see “Saw 3D” because I wanted to be transported. I saw it because 3D is a format that best serves exploitation movies, not mainstream Hollywood blockbusters. A-pictures aren’t going to go out of their way to poke you in the eyes. So why bother? But that’s what 3D is supposed to do.
“Toy Story 3” is one of the best movies of 2010, and yet, it’s not enhanced in the least by virtue of the fact that it’s in 3D. Conversely, “Jackass 3D” is a brilliant piece of 3D filmmaking because it takes full advantage of the added dimension by throwing poop at the viewer.
Trying to legitimize 3D is a wasted effort. It’s fodder for low-art. In fact, 2010’s post-converted offerings were so uniformly dreadful, it’s probably set the format back. I can imagine another dozen or so shoddy 3D-upped movies might finally convince audiences to avoid go for the cheaper 2D presentations. I’ve made it a point to avoid any post-converted movie that comes down the pike.
3D has its place, but it’s not in major studio releases. I’m hoping that the trend is in its last throes and 3D fatigue will goad studios to move away from the format and find some new trend to follow instead. Hey, how about making movies that tell good stories?
-Brad Lohan
*Has been greatly exaggerated.
Aug
18
I always made time to watch Siskel and Ebert when I was younger. Curious about how two curmudgeonly oldsters weighed in on movies I enjoyed, I tuned in to their show every Sunday afternoon during my adolescent years. I still remember how Gene Siskel said that “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze” was “just as boring and violent as the first,” and that episode aired in 1991. I maintain that the second film is less violent than the original Ninja Turtles movie because they weren’t allowed to use their weapons and had to beat up the badguys with sausage links and yo-yos.
Siskel and Ebert were all over the bloody map in terms of film criticism. I was blown out of my chair the other day when I watched a clip from one of their old episodes where they gave Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” two thumbs-down. Keep in mind, this same pair endlessly praised the earlier efforts of none other than Steven Seagal. Siskel even listed “Under Siege” as one of the 10 best films of 1992. It’s a great movie, but let’s be real here. It was the 11th best film of 1992.
Nonetheless, the pair were synonymous with film criticism throughout much of my lifetime. Idiots I went to high school with would often tell me that I should be “a Siskel and Ebert” [sic] when I grow up. The pair were an institution, putting faces and names to film criticism, and making it somewhat accessible to the masses. You’d feel empowered when they agreed with you, and alternately think they’re just a couple of arty-farty schmucks when they’d pan something you liked. Oh, and when they disagreed with each other, that was just great television.
When Gene Siskel died suddenly in 1999, I felt the show never fully recovered. Numerous guest critics rotated in and out of Siskel’s vacant seat, including the semi-articulate oddball Harry Knowles from Ain’t-It-Cool.com. Richard Roeper ultimately became the permanent replacement, and boy, what a terrible choice he proved to be. I couldn’t bring myself to give him any credibility whatsoever after he praised Tim Burton’s shit-awful “Planet of the Apes” remake and went on to remark that it was better than the original. Holy Jesus!
Ebert’s failing health and poor decision-making on the part of the network would see a pair of newer, supposedly hipper hosts for “At the Movies.” The thumbs were replaced by a three-tiered “See It,” “Rent It,” “Skip It” rating system, and the viewers had the vacuousness of saucer-eyed weenis Ben Lyons inflicted upon them. Dude makes Richard Roeper look like Andre Bazin. Now there’s an esoteric film criticism reference for you.
Now, “At the Movies” is over and done with. Film critique has evolved, or devolved, into a more internet-based system of aggregation and compilation. It’s become more siloed and niche with all the movie geek sites, and practically any boob with a blog can weigh in now. I mean look at me. I have no business reviewing movies. I never even saw 2005’s Best Picture winner “Crash.” I did see David Cronenberg’s 1996 NC-17 sex-with-scar-tissue movie “Crash,” though. I make Ben Lyons look like Richard Roeper.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
30
Every so often, I’ll cull my DVD collection of all the titles that I’ve soured on, lost interest in, or don’t know why I bought in the first place and sell them to Amoeba Music. It’s a quick way to make $30-$40. Never mind how much money I probably spent on the DVDs in the first place. I’ve become more discriminating in my DVD purchases over the years. One day I hope to look at my collection and not find a single title that I’d be willing to part with for a couple bucks. I’m getting there. I’m still on the fence about whether or not I really need all six seasons of “Dawson’s Creek” on DVD.
One boxed set jumped out at me as I was culling last night: “The Lethal Weapon Trilogy.” In 2006, I sold back to Amoeba “Mad Max,” “The Road Warrior” and “Braveheart” after Mel’s anti-Semitic meltdown but kept the “Lethal Weapon” flicks, sort of splitting the difference between my intense dislike of the man in real life and my willingness to eighty-six his filmography. Now that Mel’s added blacks, Hispanics and Timothy Dalton to his growing list of people he hates, not to mention the allegations of domestic violence, I feel it’s time I parted with the rest of his movies. I simply can’t bring myself to watch them again. Well, bringing myself to watch “Lethal Weapon 3″ was already nearly impossible.
It’s very strange to do a complete 180 on a celebrity. Mel Gibson in particular used to be the man who could do no wrong. He picked projects better than his fellow A-listers, many of which struggled throughout the ’90s to crank out half as many hits. Both he and Tom Cruise, however, justified their colossal paydays with boffo box office hauls time and again. Incidentally, Tom Cruise similarly imploded in the mid-2000s, but the particulars of his tailspin seem trivial when stacked against Gibson’s. That Cruise’s name still can’t appear in an article without the words “couch jumping” and “Oprah” in the same piece seems asinine to me, and I’m hardly the world’s biggest Tom Cruise fan. It’s been five years! Yes, it was in poor taste to criticize Brooke Shields for being on anti-depressants, but you have to take into account the fact he believes in the hokiest religion ever, second only to Catholicism.
Nice segue. Gibson’s fanatical devotion to Catholicism, not unlike Cruise’s goofy adherence to Scientology, is what seems to have caused him to unravel to some extent. Even before his 2006 diatribe, his 2004 $30 million Jesus fan film, “The Passion of the Christ,” was derided as being anti-Semitic. I didn’t find the film to be much more than a two-hour exercise in Catholic guilt at its most nakedly aggressive. But it was definitely a red flag, signaling that Gibson might have a screw loose.
(Man alive, would I like to see Tom Cruise self-finance — and topline — a mega-budget L. Ron Hubbard biopic.)
And so, the last bit of Mel Gibson residue will be purged from my DVD collection this weekend. The stink of Gibson’s contempt for everyone save himself hangs over all three “Lethal Weapon” movies, regardless of the quality of his performance or the films’ technical and storytelling merits.
-Brad Lohan
May
12
Interview With a Cosplayer
Filed Under Culture | 2 Comments
Today’s blog is incredibly exciting, as I recently interviewed the lovely Roxanna Meta, a regular convention-goer and cosplayer. What’s cosplay? Well, it’s dressing up like your favorite comic book, science fiction or fantasy character. The practice is fairly common on the convention circuit, where you’re likely to see all sorts of people in capes and masks and skin-tight clothing. Very few of these devoted fans, however, are as easy on the eyes as Roxanna. Although I’ve never done cosplay myself, I find the culture fascinating. Fortunately, Roxanna was generous enough to grant me an interview about the world of cosplay.
Brad Lohan: Who are you? Tell me a little about yourself.
Roxanna Meta: I’m Roxanna Meta, 24 years old, 5′5″, 34-27-40… or maybe I should say I’m a proud California girl, geek of all trades, and I love to dress up!
BL: When was the first time you dressed up as a comic book character? Tell me about that experience. Who did you dress up as and where was the convention/event?
RM: Well, I originally made movie-style costumes, and I dressed up as my first comic-movie character at San Diego Comic Con 2007. I was Anna Paquin’s Rogue to compliment the Alan Cumming Nightcrawler costume I made for Rob Goodfellow. Mostly that show was about him, and he did a beautiful job pulling it off and got a lot of compliments… we’re very proud of that costume.
The next year, for WonderCon 2008, my friends all had badass DC comic costumes and I felt left out of the game. So I decided to make Black Canary because I liked her aesthetic, and thus an obsession was born. [Goodfellow soon followed suit, as you can see from his awesome Green Arrow costume in the photo!]
BL: Are you an avid comic book collector? If so, who are your favorite characters?
RM: I would say “avid” requires a bigger budget than I have! Disregarding that, yes, I definitely read comics, and my all-time favorite characters are Green Arrow and Black Canary. I’m really suspicious of the direction J.T. Krul is taking my baby, though, and long for the Judd Winick days.
BL: Who have you dressed up as? Who are your favorite characters to dress up as? Least favorite?
RM: My movie costumes include classic Jack Sparrow, Jadis’s battle dress from the Chronicles of Narnia, and Guinevere’s battle costume from King Arthur. I particularly miss Guinevere and I think I might revamp that costume for SDCC this year.
My standard comic costumes are Black Canary, old-school Polaris and Black Cat. My Batgirl costume is on hold for a little while, and my Domino costume belongs partly to Psykitten. We joke that it’s the “traveling pants” costume – four of my friends have worn it so far, in different incarnations.
Batgirl is probably my least favorite costume – I never really identified with Barbara Gordon, and the damn thing is totally falling apart.
My current favorite is Black Cat because I get a chance to bring out my inner sex kitten. I can prance around in heels, smear myself on hot guys, and generally be a total cliche. It’s good fun!
Oh, how could I forget? I also have a circa-Lovegame Lady Gaga costume, which is almost more fun that Black Cat because it’s recognizable to the general public and I can wear it out on the town. A girl can get a lot of free drinks that way.
BL: What’s the craziest thing that’s happened to you while in costume?
RM: Craziest… craziest… I don’t know if I quite have an answer for that, but I do have some stories. Like the time I agreed to an interview as Black Canary, only to be asked a series of dirty questions about my sex life. Or the time security escorted Tallest Silver and myself out of Downtown Disney because we were toting tons of fake weapons. Or the time I flashed a photographer as Lady Gaga and he nearly had a heart attack. Or the time I put my purse down on a booth and turned away, and when I turned back it was gone. Going out in costume basically turns into a series of really, really entertaining incidents all strung together.
Oh! Here’s one of my favorites. My best friend, Psykitten, was dressed as Catwoman one day at WonderCon and decided to give a whip demonstration. I thought I was out of her way, but as she pulled back and cracked the whip I felt something whiz right past my eye and through my hair. I put my hands to my face and doubled over, and there was a moment of horror from the crowd and from poor Psykitten before I came up with my false eyelash in my hand. She had taken off my EYELASHES with her whip. We still get a kick out of how close that one was.
BL: What’s it like interacting with fans at the conventions? Are they nice, creepy, grabby?
RM: They’re almost always really nice. I read a wonderful article recently by a father who had just been to WonderCon, saying that he hopes his son will grow up to be a geek, because they’re the nicest demographic he had ever encountered.
That said, I’ve had a select few creepers/grabbers, such as the guy who lifted up my Polaris cape so his buddy could take a picture of my ass.
BL: How many marriage proposals have you gotten while in costume?
RM: None yet, although I do get asked out a fair amount!
BL: Which conventions do you normally attend while in costume?
RM: My traditional two are San Francisco WonderCon and San Diego Comic Con, although I’ve also been once each to Dragon*Con and Anaheim Wizard World.
BL: Do you go to parties/events in costume? Do you just wear costumes around the house for fun sometimes?
RM: Absolutely! My friends like inviting me to themed parties because they know I’ll go all out! As for wearing costumes around the house, that’s a little less frequent, because most of them are actually uncomfortable, once you get the undergarments and the heels and the false eyelashes and the wigs on. That said, sometimes my girlfriends (many of whom are also cosplayers) and I have dress-up-and-take-pictures days for fun.
BL: What’s the culture of costumed convention attendees like? Tell me about your fellow cosplayers.
RM: Generally speaking, they’re really really sweet and generous. We compliment each other’s work, trade costuming tips, start photoshoots, become Facebook friends. It’s a really great community and I’m proud to be a part of it. We’re all doing this for fun, and so far that’s really been the sentiment I get from others. There is a bit of a superficial hierarchy, of course, as far as whose work is better than others and who’s hotter than others, but generally when it comes to just having a conversation, nobody ends up caring.
The best moments, for me, are meeting costumers whose work I’ve admired from afar, and almost always they turn out to be total sweethearts. I’ve been lucky to meet a lot of my idols whom I can now call friends!
BL: Are your costumes homemade or do you buy them online?
RM: Oh! It burns, it burns!
All right, I’m not going to lie. I’m still learning to be a seamstress and at the moment, my skills are not developed enough to be able to make base pieces like spandex bodysuits. But it’s a point of pride for many cosplayers to wear our own work – I spend a lot of time (and unfortunately a lot of money) getting my costumes the way I want them. There are some costumers – and good friends of mine! – who get what they wear custom-made and look great doing it, but because I’m so interested in the craft, I make as much as possible of what I wear.
BL: Which character(s) would you like to dress up as but haven’t yet?
RM: I’d like to be some form of Rogue at some point. I’d like to be Hawkgirl. I’d like to be Wasp and Lady Blackhawk and Hope. And while I’m at it, I’d like to be a My Little Pony.
BL: Who would you never dress up as and why?
RM: I have a running joke “I will never be Wonder Woman.” Besides the fact that I have almost no interest in the character and she’s massively overdone, I also know that I have small breasts and legs that just won’t work for her. You have to know your body type. (Then again, that’s what I said about Black Cat, and I went for it anyway, and that got me a guest spot on this blog!)
Oh, how could I forget. I’ll never dress up as Storm, even though I love the heck out of her. That’s an obvious one.
BL: Has anything embarrassing happened to you while in costume? Tell me about that experience.
RM: Well, I tend to block embarrassing moments for my own mental health, honestly. In general I would say I have a few regrets about costumes I’ve worn out in public when maybe I shouldn’t have, times when I had a little more weight on me or wore the wrong cut of leotard for my shape or did my makeup badly. I know that seems trivial but it’s amazing how much difference the details can make. I want to tell my old self sometimes, “Honey, sweetie, don’t step out of the house like that. Let me help.”
BL: Have you ever appeared in any fan films as a costumed character? If so, tell me a little about that experience.
RM: The closest I’ve come is participating in a traditional prank that my costuming group, United Underworld, plays on the UC Berkeley Batman class every semester. Around Halloween and sometimes for April Fool’s, we raid the class and spend the period messing with them. You can see videos of those up on YouTube and they’re great fun.
I’ve been asked to participate in a couple of upcoming fan films, but nothing has yet come to fruition.
BL: What’s the best costume you’ve ever seen at a convention?
RM: Bumblebee.
BL: Have you been to conventions where it seems like everyone’s in the same costume as you? What’s that like?
RM: That’s an interesting question, and actually I just had a conversation with someone about multiple Black Canaries being at the last WonderCon. It can go either way – either you’re super excited and want to take pictures with all of them (which can be hilarious) or you’re self-conscious and try to stay out of their way. I hate to admit this, but I have a tendency to size up the other person in costume before I approach them. How good do they look, are they just going to make me look bad? I know, it’s really sad to think that way, but sometimes I can’t help it!
BL: Does the costume have any impact on you psychologically? Do you act any differently while dressed up?
RM: Well, almost always it’s the opposite of what I just said! It’s a great ego boost to be stopped and asked for pictures wherever you go. I try to be very gracious and take every picture I’m asked to take – I’ve almost never refused anybody. That said, if anyone messes with me, I feel no qualms about being firm with them. In some ways, dressing as a strong character makes you feel stronger.
I have several friends, including Tallest Silver, who make it a point to be totally in character when they’re dressed up, and I find that really hysterical, so it’s a skill I’m working on! ; )
BL: Do people give you money for posing for pictures with them sometimes? If so, what’s the most you’ve gotten?
RM: Well, Black Canary does look like a prostitute. But no, there’s definitely convention/cosplayer etiquette, and that would be a serious violation. Leave it to the folks on Hollywood Boulevard.
That said, I do birthday parties and events, and am happy to be paid for that kind of appearance.
BL: If you could actually become one of the characters you dress up as, who would it be? Why?
RM: Black Canary, no contest. If I could sleep with Green Arrow I think I’d die and go to heaven.
Apr
8
Will “Star Wars” Ever Go Away?
Filed Under Culture | Leave a Comment
Last weekend, I watched Red Letter Media’s 90-minute takedown of “Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones” and enjoyed it immensely. As far as I’m concerned, the epic fail that is the prequel trilogy — and let’s once and for all acknowledge the fact that those three movies are artistic failures — finally justifies its existence by being fodder for critics to assail in lengthy video blogs.
That being said, I’d be pleased as punch if the “Star Wars” saga bowed out of the cultural landscape altogether, like for the rest of my natural life. I’m tired of it. Two out of the six movies are good. That’s only one-third of the theatrically-released live-action films. I haven’t seen any of the myriad cartoon series (“Droids,” “Ewoks,” “Clone Wars,” etc.), I don’t remember the made-for-TV “Ewok Adventure” movies that came out when I was kid, and I can’t muster any enthusiasm for that bullshitty “Holiday Special” that fans seem to have an unhealthy fascination with. And now there’s news of a “Star Wars” sitcom in the works. Jesus H. Christ.
When, if ever, will “Star Wars” reach its saturation point? When will people come to the conclusion that there’s no more story to tell, the characters are all ciphers and clock-wipes are crummy transitions? When will the apologists be carted off to lunatic asylums?
Full disclosure: I was once a fanboy and am now in recovery. It was a difficult process, but not impossible. I gave away all my “Star Wars” action figures, I sold the prequel trilogy back to Amoeba Music for a few dollars in cash, and I made a vow never to revisit any of the original trilogy films until I’d seen every other movie ever made at least once. I simply live one day at a time and take things as they come.
It was easy for me because “Star Wars” wasn’t something that was woven into the fabric of my childhood. I was two years away from being born when the first film came out and only vaguely remember seeing “Return of the Jedi” in the theater during its initial release. No, I got into the movies during my late-teens. However, many of the hardcore fans grew up on the movies, and their nostalgia for the franchise prevents them realizing what an absolute dung heap it is for the most part.
And so, I’ve sat through countless film school classes that have been hijacked by “Star Wars” fanboys, pontificating about how the characters, the structure and so on and so forth apply their favorite movies. It’s as though no other movie comes close. Everything’s so boring and insular when you view it through the lens of a single film or franchise. It’s even more irritating when you realize the last good “Star Wars” movie is thirty friggin’ years old. I’m astonished that people still support and defend a film series that has spent the past three decades insulting its target audience’s intelligence. Even so, they lap it up.
Seriously, I think of “Star Wars” fans the same way I do Twi-Hards, those tasteless bimbos who gush over “Twilight.” There’s so little reason to like something as aggressively stupid as either franchise. These goofballs apply meaning to properties that have none, see depth where there isn’t any, and invest so much of themselves in something that ain’t worth it. Why can’t these weirdos become drug addicts like most socially inept young people with no creativity or ambition?
It’s depressing for me to think that “Star Wars” will never go away. It will always be there, stinking up the place. Oh, well, at least Red Letter Media will go after “Revenge of the Sith” sooner or later.
-Brad Lohan
Mar
31
VCR RIP
Filed Under Culture | Leave a Comment
I received my first DVD player as a Christmas gift in the year 2000. Since then, I’ve watched VHS go the route of Betamax and Laserdisc, but that doesn’t mean I’ve thrown away all my tapes or my dusty old VCR. In fact, I’ve picked up a few more videocassettes over the past decade, movies that are out-of-print on DVD (“The Ipcress File”) or movies that never were released on DVD in the first place (“Rolling Thunder”).
Last weekend, I popped in my VHS copy of “Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth” to bone up for my forthcoming Raising Hell review, and my VCR shit the bed. It’s been on its last legs for a few years now, eating tapes like a mother. When I tried watching “Hellraiser III,” the VCR played the flick at the wrong speed, making an already pretty wretched film all the more unwatchable. I tested another movie in hopes that maybe it wasn’t the VCR but the tape. It was the same story.
My VCR was, for all intents and purposes, dead.
I tried to remember how old the machine was. I came to the conclusion that I’ve had it for at least twenty years. Who knows how many movies I’ve watched on it, how many movies I’ve recorded. My use of it has nosedived in the past decade, but until recently, it was fairly reliable whenever I wanted to watch a random VHS title. Now it’s nothing more than an oversized clock.
Back in 2002, I briefly worked at Best Buy, where they were phasing out their VCRs. I deeply regret not picking on up for myself at the time. But I was broke, and my VHS player was working fine then. I tend to hang on to things until they completely crap out on me. For example, my laptop has a burnt-out monitor, so it’s plugged in to my desktop monitor. It ain’t dead until I say it’s dead.
I’ll see if I can’t find a cheap and unused VCR on Amazon or eBay. It’s disappointing that the technology has almost entirely been phased out of our culture, considering that tons of movies have never been released on DVD or Blu-Ray. That said, if “Rolling Thuder” does wind up on Blu, I’ll finally make the leap to the new format. Until then I’ll hang on to my antiquated VHS copy.
-Brad Lohan
Mar
15
Before I quit reading monthly comics, I started buying old back issues of Marvel’s “What If…?” series. What a fascinating line of books. Each issue of the series changed some important element in a character’s history and then examined the repercussions. The “What If…?” comics harmlessly altered a character in order to explore the storytelling possibilities but left the character’s ongoing book alone. Every book was self-contained and usually exhausted all the ideas of the retcon in 22 pages.
I’d like to apply a similar concept to the movie business and ask what if George Lucas had never written and directed the original “Star Wars.” This blog isn’t intended to rake Lucas over the coals. Rather, I’d like to see how Hollywood would hypothetically be different had one particular movie never been made. But first, here’s a brief history lesson.
Originally conceived as “The Star Wars” while Lucas was working on “American Graffiti,” the plot and characters were more in line with what we saw in “The Phantom Menace” — boring space samurai with oddball names, careering around the cosmos from one loosely connected caper to the next. Lucas labored over his original concept for years until finally it took shape as a modern-day myth about a farmboy from a backwater planet who becomes the savior of the galaxy by embracing an esoteric religion.
No studio wanted to make it. Even Disney turned “Star Wars” down. Lucas finally got financing from 20th Century Fox to do his $8 million film in 1976 and endured a bitch of a shoot in the deserts of Tunisia as well as the soundstages outside London. His crew thought they were making some sort of camp classic. A year was spent developing the SFX for the film, and early effects shots were deemed unusable. Test screenings were a disaster. Director Brian DePalma harangued Lucas’ concept of “The Force of Others,” dubbing it “The Farts of Others;” Lucas ultimately truncated the name of his newfangled religion to simply, “The Force.” Early trailers were met with resounding laughter when shown to audiences.
But surprisingly, the film was released in May of 1977 and became the highest-grossing box office success of its day.
“Star Wars” changed George Lucas’ life forever in more ways than one. He became a victim of his own success, forever shackled to a movie he’d made to simply prove something to Francis Ford Coppola: that he could direct a populist film. Funnily enough, he’d already done that with “American Graffiti,” so I assume “Star Wars” was supposed to be his victory lap.
At any rate, where Anakin Skywalker had ceased to exist and became Darth Vader, the guy who’d made the arty and impenetrable “THX-1138″ turned into the guy who did “Star Wars.” George Lucas would never go back to directing esoteric films. In fact, Lucas didn’t direct anything from ‘77-’99. Making “Star Wars” was so miserable, he relegated himself to an Executive Producer role (and 2nd Unit Director) on “Empire” and “Jedi.” He also Exec Produced the “Indiana Jones” pictures, not to mention middling animated films like “An American Tail” and fantasy clunkers like “Willow.” Two decades later, Lucas would write and direct the “Star Wars” prequels, and we all know how those turned out.
So let’s just say that in the mid-’70s an exasperated Lucas put “The Star Wars” on the shelf when he couldn’t crack the story or that no studio would greenlight the thing. How different would movies and the movie industry be without one “game changer?”
Lucas, for one, would probably have directed “Apocalypse Now” instead of Francis Ford Coppola. Lucas’ approach would’ve been a low-budget, 16mm film, done in the style of the news footage that came out of Vietnam during the war. It wouldn’t have been a bloated and uneven operatic mish-mash that Coppola’s vastly overrated film is. That said, had Lucas directed “Apocalypse Now,” Coppola wouldn’t have lost his goddamn mind on location in the Philippines and perhaps cranked out some other brilliant films going into the 1980s. Lucas, meanwhile, could’ve potentially won that elusive Best Director Oscar and pursued more personal projects.
“Star Wars” is credited with legitimizing the science-fiction and fantasy genres, but I think that would’ve happened regardless. 1977 also saw the release of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” a devastatingly slow, albeit critically acclaimed and financially successful, sci-fi movie directed by Steven Spielberg. The following year, “Superman: The Movie,” directed by Richard Donner, made audiences believe a man can fly. What’s more, producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind had the forethought to shoot “Superman: The Movie” and “Superman II” simultaneously. It might be argued that the success of “Star Wars” is what led to “Superman” getting a greenlight, but in fact, “Superman” was in production before “Star Wars” was released.
What movies were directly influenced by “Star Wars” then? Well, “Alien,” “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” “Moonraker,” “Flash Gordon,” and so on and so forth might not have happened or have taken a different shape. Screenwriter Dan O’Bannon toiled over “Alien” (aka “Star Beast”) prior to May 1977. But it’s doubtful that 20th Century Fox, the same studio that released “Star Wars,” would’ve bought it or that director Ridley Scott would’ve been hired to make it. But it stands to reason that O’Bannon would’ve scraped together the money to do the film himself. “Star Trek” probably would’ve never hit theaters, but rather, returned to the small screen. Attempts to restart the “Trek” franchise on television, minus William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, had been made throughout the 1970s. They were this close to launching a new TV series when “Star Wars” hit and gave Paramount the idea that “Trek” could be a viable film franchise. The gritty “For Your Eyes Only” would’ve come out on the heels of “The Spy Who Loved Me,” not the hokey “Moonraker.” And my favorite “Star Wars” wannabe, “Flash Gordon,” probably wouldn’t have happened at all. Believe it or not, George Lucas originally wanted to make a “Flash Gordon” film, but couldn’t secure the rights. So he made “Star Wars” instead. Its boffo box office lit a fire under Universal to make “Flash Gordon,” which subsequently bombed. Wah-wah… I still love it.
What about career trajectories? Lucas and Spielberg enjoyed a friendly creative rivalry that began with “Jaws.” (To me, “Jaws” is the film that really changed the filmmaking landscape in the ’70s, not “Star Wars.”) Lucas topped “Jaws” at the box office with “Star Wars” in 1977, and “E.T.” topped “Star Wars” at the box office in 1982. The two also collaborated on the wildly successful “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and its subsequent installments. But the character of Indiana Jones first came to Lucas during his development of “Star Wars.” As far as I’m concerned, if “Star Wars” never had happened, then neither did Indy. And if Indy never happened, well, “E.T.” would’ve looked a hell of a lot different. Harrison Ford’s then-wife, Melissa Matheson, wrote “E.T.” after breaking the story with Spielberg on the set of “Raiders.” Spielberg probably still would’ve made his first bomb, “1941,” but not bounced back with the double-whammy of “Raiders” and “E.T.” No, he probably would’ve done the sci-fi thriller “Watch the Skies,” a film about a family menaced by extra-terrestrials. Would it have been a hit, though? Well, both “Poltergeist” (ghost-directed by Spielberg) and “E.T.” are based in part on his original concept for “Watch the Skies,” so it’s very likely the film would’ve at least had the box office take of the former. Spielberg naturally would’ve enjoyed a strong career as director and executive producer without a rivalry or collaboration with Lucas.
When it comes to careers, Harrison Ford suffers the worst here. Without “Star Wars” or Indy, the man would’ve probably disappeared entirely from the acting scene after “American Graffiti” and become a professional carpenter. That sound you hear is my mother fainting.
What about the ancillary market? “Star Wars” wasn’t the first film to have all manner of tie-ins (toys, games, lunchpails, clothing, cereal, etc.), but it hit shortly before programming laws were changed. As such, TV shows aimed at children became 30-minute commercials for action figures. The animated series “He-Man and the Masters of the Universe,” a fairly obvious marriage of “Star Wars” and “Conan,” burst onto the scene in 1982 and became a merchandising giant for Mattel. “G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero” and “The Transformers” followed shortly thereafter. These same cartoons had “educational” PSAs at the tail end of each episode, but they were chiefly designed to market toys to the same young audience that gobbled up “Star Wars” and “The Empire Strikes Back.” If “Star Wars” hadn’t come out, it’s possible that tie-ins might not have proven themselves to be such a cash cow, and children’s TV may have been vastly different going into the 1980s.
Removing “Star Wars” from the cultural zeitgeist would even change the name of Ronald Reagan’s shitty missile defense shield. The arms race was impacted by a film that no studio thought would get an ROI on an $8 million budget!
In the ’70s, there was a rapid succession of mega-hits: “The Godfather,” “The Exorcist,” “The Godfather, Part II,” “Jaws,” and “Rocky.” Yes, “Star Wars” outgrossed them all, but it didn’t exactly invent the blockbuster. Had it not come out when it did, another film — perhaps Donner’s “Superman” — would’ve filled the vacuum as the science fantasy razzle-dazzle crowd-pleaser of its time. We’ll never know how different cinema would be, but it’s always fun to ask the age-old question, “What if…?”
-Brad Lohan
Mar
2
Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?
Filed Under Culture | Leave a Comment
Driving to work this morning, I saw billboards for “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” and “She’s Out of My League,” the kind of toothless, sissy-Mary pap that passes for adolescent power fantasies these days. Yeesh, what’s happened to young men? As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that adolescence isn’t a phase for males; it’s perpetual. I read the “Kick-Ass” graphic novel last weekend and eagerly anticipate the film. I just finished watching “G.I. Joe” Volume 1.2 and am moving on to Volume 1.3 tonight. So it’s not as though I’m some cultural elitist. I like comic book violence just as much as the next sexually awkward young man with a largely absent father.
But I don’t like weenises. Movie heroes have become too sissified. I’m working on a script for class with a tough guy hero and was trying to think of research materials (i.e. comic books) I could review with a character whose values jibe with my protag. It occurred to me that Jim Steranko’s “Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD” is probably my best bet. And that title was published in the ’60s. Jeesus Kerist! I have to go that far back in time to find flinty heroes for inspiration?
That isn’t to say I think movie heroes should be brutes. Some of my favorite movie characters are deeply troubled. Marty McFly desperately needs to avoid his future mother’s advances and set up his would-be parents before he’s erased from existence in “Back to the Future.” But despite his having to play cupid, he’s still a courageous and resourceful hero, punching out Biff Tannen (who’s twice his size) before leading him on a chase through Hill Valley on a makeshift skateboard. Nowadays, Marty’d probably be some metro candyass who resolves his problems with an elaborate musical number.
John McClane, before he turned into a boring bald-headed killing machine, appears in the first “Die Hard” as a New York cop with a bruised ego. After a long-gestating row with his wife over her career, he has to kill his way through a dozen international terrorists to apologize for not being supportive.
Martin Riggs in “Lethal Weapon I” is a suicidal wreck after the death of his wife. It’s only after befriending his partner, family man Roger Murtaugh (and killing a bunch of ex-CIA drug smugglers), that he is able to move on to the next stage of his bereavement: acceptance.
The Terminator in “T2″ is an unemotional walking tank who learns the value of human life that comes from his interactions of his surrogate son, John Connor.
These are terrific movie heroes because they’re steely sonsabitches, but they’re not completely devoid of inner-conflict. There’s a happy medium between strong and sensitive. I think that’s somehow been lost, and now the cinemas are teeming with mopey, emo dinkuses. It makes for weak sauce cinema. Movie heroes are supposed to be larger than life, not your everyday schmoes.
Anyone who goes to see “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” deserves to get beaten up, and anyone who watches “She’s Out of My League” should die a virgin. It’s time for a tough guy renaissance.
-Brad Lohan