I hate NBC right now. I will get over it, but right now their executives are the lowest forms of life.
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was, in my mind, the best show on the box. It was funny, charming, engaging, and felt genuine. Studio 60 is a big reason that I started watching network television again after nearly 10 years of going out of my way to avoid reality programming. And just like that - poof - it is gone
Maybe it's me. Maybe because I felt so strongly for the show I jinxed it. I haven't felt this strongly for a show since Firefly, and that ended prematurely as well.
Or maybe it is the viewing public. I have believed for quite a while that the western world is being dumbed down. Perhaps we just weren't ready for a program without black hat bad guys. Is it that the general public doesn't understand conflict if it appears that neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong? In the pilot, the executive producer rants on live air how the media has lowered it self to "pandering to 12 year old boys.....and not even the smart ones...."
I normally love irony, but this seems to be too close to the mark.
It is easy to see the conflict in a show like Studio 60's successor, the Black Donnelys. I didn't watch the premiere, and I won't watch any episodes of it, but I can pretty much tell you the story of it. Please tell me I'm wrong, but it has been laid out in all the trailers and teasers leading up to tonight's show - 4 brothers, 1 steals money from a mob boss, gets caught, and beaten within an inch of his life, and the oldest brother must now heroically hold the family to together while at the same time exact revenge for his brother. Sounds like it would have made a good feature film, but not a long run television series...the plot isn't open ended enough to carry more than 2 or 3 episodes.
And perhaps this is what the television audience is looking for: the only thing cerebral about it is the target for a baseball bat.
I will mourn the passing of Studio 60. It is a real shame they couldn't have put it in another time slot. On the TV landscape right now, there are 3 CSI's (more if you count NCIS, Crossing Jordan, Medium, and any other find the bad guy shows), 4 Law and Orders (and more if you count other police/courtroom dramas), still a full plate of gladiatorial reality shows, and very few original ideas.
NBC, shame on you for giving us more of the same with a shiny new bow on it.
February 27, 2007
December 05, 2006
G4 revisited
Well, it has been over 2 years since I last wasted breath on the merger of G4 and TechTV, and what a changed place G4 has become. Two years after Comcast bought TechTV and tried to merge it with G4, I can say that some of my predictions have come to pass, all except where they are out of business (but that does look to be right around the corner.
Has anyone else noticed the programming on G4 lately? Just looking at their website, there are only 4 shows that air regularly that are produced in-house: X-Play, Icons, Cheat, and Attack of the Show (formerly the Screen Savers, formerly cool).
They are running episodes of Star Trek TNG, Arrested Development, Street Fury, and Ed the Sock. While I could go into detail on each of these shows, I will spare you the horror and only give a brief description of each:
Star Trek - seen it, multiple times, to the point where I can recite a lot of the dialog
Arrested Development - canceled 3 years ago, no new episodes being made, and there will soon be reruns of reruns
Street Fury - dated car culture series I had never heard of before - rather light my eyelashes on fire
Ed the Sock - inspiration for Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, except that Triumph is actually funny
What about the shows being produced in-house?
Well, X-Play has been neutered to the point where they average more silly little sketches than actual game reviews. And if that isn't bad enough, the sketches used to be shorter, fewer, and funnier, and now they are just longer and irritating....and neither Sessler or Webb will be winning roles in Oscar contenders anytime soon. More reviews and less acting needed.
What about Attack of the Show? Kevin Rose (remember him, the original host?) found an escape clause in his contract and bailed. Sarah Lane, well, I wasn't paying attention, but she stopped sleeping with Kevin, and was there one minute and gone the next. Alex Albrecht was terrible, and was canned quickly. The Asian girl who's name I am afraid of mangling so I won't try, is gone as well. There must be a revolving door in their casting offices. Kevin Pereira is good, engaging, and better without a script and when he is not trying so hard to be cool. The show itself has sucked every ounce of goodness that was in it from the TechTV/Screen Savers days and is almost a mockery of what good TV is all about.
Cheat.....well, they got rid of the squirrelly little guy who looked like he had tried to unlock everything and they put in eye candy. Did I say eye candy? She isn't as hot as she thinks she is, and I don't believe for a second that she has ever used a controller for anything more than self-satisfaction (they do vibrate, ya know).
And last there is Icons, that shows biographies of the pioneers and innovators of the video game industry, complete with the cheesy narration and the talking head "experts" a la the Discovery Channel. That isn't to say it isn't informative, but I look at it the way I look at the History Channel - only if there is nothing else on.
There is also CinemaTech, but hey, I can hook a VCR to my Xbox too.
Is the end near for G4? No, I don't think so, but if I was to subject myself to watching a whole programming day, I think the nearest comparison would be a local cable access channel with flashier graphics and nationwide distribution. Production quality is still in the toilet, at least for the shows they actually produce. I'm unclear if it is cheaper to buy the license to air an episode of Picard and Crusher's romantic tension than it is to rent studio space and record your own show, or if it was a case that more people would watch a 10 year old rerun than the mindless dribble being produced.
If the latter is the case, then maybe the end is closer than they think.
Has anyone else noticed the programming on G4 lately? Just looking at their website, there are only 4 shows that air regularly that are produced in-house: X-Play, Icons, Cheat, and Attack of the Show (formerly the Screen Savers, formerly cool).
They are running episodes of Star Trek TNG, Arrested Development, Street Fury, and Ed the Sock. While I could go into detail on each of these shows, I will spare you the horror and only give a brief description of each:
Star Trek - seen it, multiple times, to the point where I can recite a lot of the dialog
Arrested Development - canceled 3 years ago, no new episodes being made, and there will soon be reruns of reruns
Street Fury - dated car culture series I had never heard of before - rather light my eyelashes on fire
Ed the Sock - inspiration for Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, except that Triumph is actually funny
What about the shows being produced in-house?
Well, X-Play has been neutered to the point where they average more silly little sketches than actual game reviews. And if that isn't bad enough, the sketches used to be shorter, fewer, and funnier, and now they are just longer and irritating....and neither Sessler or Webb will be winning roles in Oscar contenders anytime soon. More reviews and less acting needed.
What about Attack of the Show? Kevin Rose (remember him, the original host?) found an escape clause in his contract and bailed. Sarah Lane, well, I wasn't paying attention, but she stopped sleeping with Kevin, and was there one minute and gone the next. Alex Albrecht was terrible, and was canned quickly. The Asian girl who's name I am afraid of mangling so I won't try, is gone as well. There must be a revolving door in their casting offices. Kevin Pereira is good, engaging, and better without a script and when he is not trying so hard to be cool. The show itself has sucked every ounce of goodness that was in it from the TechTV/Screen Savers days and is almost a mockery of what good TV is all about.
Cheat.....well, they got rid of the squirrelly little guy who looked like he had tried to unlock everything and they put in eye candy. Did I say eye candy? She isn't as hot as she thinks she is, and I don't believe for a second that she has ever used a controller for anything more than self-satisfaction (they do vibrate, ya know).
And last there is Icons, that shows biographies of the pioneers and innovators of the video game industry, complete with the cheesy narration and the talking head "experts" a la the Discovery Channel. That isn't to say it isn't informative, but I look at it the way I look at the History Channel - only if there is nothing else on.
There is also CinemaTech, but hey, I can hook a VCR to my Xbox too.
Is the end near for G4? No, I don't think so, but if I was to subject myself to watching a whole programming day, I think the nearest comparison would be a local cable access channel with flashier graphics and nationwide distribution. Production quality is still in the toilet, at least for the shows they actually produce. I'm unclear if it is cheaper to buy the license to air an episode of Picard and Crusher's romantic tension than it is to rent studio space and record your own show, or if it was a case that more people would watch a 10 year old rerun than the mindless dribble being produced.
If the latter is the case, then maybe the end is closer than they think.
November 21, 2006
The Rebirth of Television
I may be a little premature in saying this, but television may be getting over it's addiction to reality shows and getting back to telling an interesting story. I do mourn for the days when Hill Street Blues, Cheers, MASH, and other story based programming was hot, but all of a sudden, I find myself watching network TV again. And I like what I see.
My view towards reality shows are fairly well spelled out in my previous post "A Powerful Weapon", so I won't go into detail on why I think it is a symptom of the fall of Western civilization.
I guess I saw the rise of reality TV coming. I remember when they canceled my beloved Firefly, and I remember watching the first season of Survivor. I did happen to enjoy The Mole while it was on, but even reality shows can fall under the ax too (was the Mole too cerebral, or was Celebrity Mole too much for anyone to bear?) I have been a rampant fan of Food Network, and was devastated when TechTV was purchased and dismantled by Comcast/G4 (and those are reality TV, too, when you think about it). It was the more violent and nasty reality shows that took over after Cheers, Seinfeld, and Friends left the airwaves. I had stopped watching network TV altogether at that point, retreating to the specialty cable channels like Bravo, Discovery, Food, Comedy Central, and Spike.
It looks like maybe the profit of these reality shows is bottoming out for the networks, or they see for themselves how formulaic the programming must be to be able to spawn shows that were an outright mockery of the format (Average Joe, Drawn Together, The Gottis). Or maybe the major networks collectively grew a conscience. They were responsible for some pretty disgusting things in the past, like making a bigger deal than necessary out of Anna Nicole Smith, Kellie Osbourne, and Paris Hilton. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention The Surreal Life, and the fact that reality show contestants were getting "star" status in the media. Hollywood specifically, and entertainment in general, was a mess.
I am watching 3 shows religiously right now, but I hope the networks see the light and make more of these gritty shows that can hold our attention week to week. I am watching Heroes, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and The Unit. I see there is a new show out now called 3 lbs. Of the shows that I am watching, I am pleased to report that there is only one big name in all the actors (Matthew Perry in Studio 60), taking a page from Hill Street Blues in casting unknown quality actors and letting the story be the star.
The Story as the Star. What a concept. No one knew who Ted Danson was before Cheers. Or Jason Alexander before Seinfeld. Maybe we need a moratorium on how long fame should last. If you haven't been on a weekly show for 3 years, you should sell the house in Malibu and return to dinner theater in Des Moines. Nah, it would never work, but maybe the bankability of stars has to be examined, that just because you fill a cast with Oscar and Emmy winners doesn't mean the show will be any good.
But I don't want to get negative with this post. I wanted to congratulate Hollywood on these 3 programs, and any others I may be missing or haven't aired yet. I can honestly say, with irony rather than sarcasm in my voice, I WILL be watching.
My view towards reality shows are fairly well spelled out in my previous post "A Powerful Weapon", so I won't go into detail on why I think it is a symptom of the fall of Western civilization.
I guess I saw the rise of reality TV coming. I remember when they canceled my beloved Firefly, and I remember watching the first season of Survivor. I did happen to enjoy The Mole while it was on, but even reality shows can fall under the ax too (was the Mole too cerebral, or was Celebrity Mole too much for anyone to bear?) I have been a rampant fan of Food Network, and was devastated when TechTV was purchased and dismantled by Comcast/G4 (and those are reality TV, too, when you think about it). It was the more violent and nasty reality shows that took over after Cheers, Seinfeld, and Friends left the airwaves. I had stopped watching network TV altogether at that point, retreating to the specialty cable channels like Bravo, Discovery, Food, Comedy Central, and Spike.
It looks like maybe the profit of these reality shows is bottoming out for the networks, or they see for themselves how formulaic the programming must be to be able to spawn shows that were an outright mockery of the format (Average Joe, Drawn Together, The Gottis). Or maybe the major networks collectively grew a conscience. They were responsible for some pretty disgusting things in the past, like making a bigger deal than necessary out of Anna Nicole Smith, Kellie Osbourne, and Paris Hilton. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention The Surreal Life, and the fact that reality show contestants were getting "star" status in the media. Hollywood specifically, and entertainment in general, was a mess.
I am watching 3 shows religiously right now, but I hope the networks see the light and make more of these gritty shows that can hold our attention week to week. I am watching Heroes, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and The Unit. I see there is a new show out now called 3 lbs. Of the shows that I am watching, I am pleased to report that there is only one big name in all the actors (Matthew Perry in Studio 60), taking a page from Hill Street Blues in casting unknown quality actors and letting the story be the star.
The Story as the Star. What a concept. No one knew who Ted Danson was before Cheers. Or Jason Alexander before Seinfeld. Maybe we need a moratorium on how long fame should last. If you haven't been on a weekly show for 3 years, you should sell the house in Malibu and return to dinner theater in Des Moines. Nah, it would never work, but maybe the bankability of stars has to be examined, that just because you fill a cast with Oscar and Emmy winners doesn't mean the show will be any good.
But I don't want to get negative with this post. I wanted to congratulate Hollywood on these 3 programs, and any others I may be missing or haven't aired yet. I can honestly say, with irony rather than sarcasm in my voice, I WILL be watching.
August 14, 2006
my friend Eddie
I've been playing poker online for quite a while now, and I have recently met a special friend online. Eddie is a sweet sweet girl. She also has cancer. She told me that she is fighting hard, but her doctors have already tried everything. She is going to fly to England in a few weeks to see a guy she has been chatting with on the tables. I told her about my own internet romance, and how my wife and I are still together and still in love, but also how we are the exception to the rule. I warned her to never let the guard down, and always be cautious until she knows for sure.
I just keep having horrible thoughts.
Like her 8 hour flight hurting her.
Or the cold air hurting her.
Or being stranded in a strange country with a strange man, and stress hurting her.
Goddess....Bastet, Hera, Freya....goddesses of home and health...watch over my friend Eddie, that she will be able to take all my chips again and again for many years to come.
Blessed Be.
I just keep having horrible thoughts.
Like her 8 hour flight hurting her.
Or the cold air hurting her.
Or being stranded in a strange country with a strange man, and stress hurting her.
Goddess....Bastet, Hera, Freya....goddesses of home and health...watch over my friend Eddie, that she will be able to take all my chips again and again for many years to come.
Blessed Be.
June 24, 2006
Video Game Violence
ENOUGH ALREADY
I am sick to fucking death of politicians rallying around such a non-issue as the damage done to children by video games. Please note, that if you listen to the Congressional testimony and substitute the words "Ozzy Osbourne" for "Grand Theft Auto", the arguement starts sounding hauntingly familiar....but I digress.
First off, let me make the assertion that VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT FOR CHILDREN. They are not marketed to children, they are not priced accessably to children, and they are not demographically aimed at children. I was a child when the Atari 2600 was released, and during the rise of the coin-op arcades on every corner. I have watched, and played, as the video game industry grew up with me. It seems, however, that peoples conception of who plays games has not changed from 1979. I am of the video game generation. I am 36 years old and video games have been a part of my life for over 25 years. I read a study one time that put the age of the average gamer at 35. Not 10, not 15, but 35. Someone in DC has to notice this.
Now, with the previous assertion firmly in mind, let me make my second point: CHILDREN GET THEIR HANDS ON VIOLENT GAMES BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS BUY THEM. Has anyone else seen the box cover graphic for the GTA game? You know, the one showing guns being aimed and crackwhore hookers striking seductive poses. Do parents not see this when buying it? It strikes me dumb that grown adults could ignore these pictures and think this game was about rainbows and lollypops. That brings me to my third point:
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE USRB RATING CODE IS THAT THE ONLY ONES WHO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO IT ARE THE GAME PUBLISHERS. I have to confess that I don't really look at the rating, but I am legally considered an adult, and I am buying the games for myself. I am not buying God of War for any 12 year olds to play. When I buy games for my neices, all younger that 15, I do look at the rating. Perhaps it is arrogance on the part of the parental buyers that is the reason for the ignored ratings; arrogance in the way that they obviously know better than the experts who gave the game a mature rating. Remember, these are the same people that are shocked when they heard about the Hot Coffee mod. All I can ask is, at the time of purchase, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?
My final point in this rant, and perhaps the most pertinant one, is GROW UP AND BE A FUCKING PARENT. If your brat is playing a game that you don't think they should be playing, take the damn thing away. You are the grown-up in the house. You make the rules. Like it or not, household politics are not a democracy, and they shouldn't be, not even ruled by committee. A household has to be a totalitarian regime, benevolent, but totalitarian. You, as the parent, are the supreme ruler, and as supreme ruler, when the peasants decide to have a revolt, they should be sent to bed without supper.
But I am sure I am wasting my breath. I am sure that the politician who is able to capitalize on peoples fears the most will win.
In these mid-term elections, find out where the candidate stands on video game violence. I recommend that if they think legislation is the only course to correct it, VOTE AGAINST THEM. Do not let the fearmongers win this time.
I am sick to fucking death of politicians rallying around such a non-issue as the damage done to children by video games. Please note, that if you listen to the Congressional testimony and substitute the words "Ozzy Osbourne" for "Grand Theft Auto", the arguement starts sounding hauntingly familiar....but I digress.
First off, let me make the assertion that VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT FOR CHILDREN. They are not marketed to children, they are not priced accessably to children, and they are not demographically aimed at children. I was a child when the Atari 2600 was released, and during the rise of the coin-op arcades on every corner. I have watched, and played, as the video game industry grew up with me. It seems, however, that peoples conception of who plays games has not changed from 1979. I am of the video game generation. I am 36 years old and video games have been a part of my life for over 25 years. I read a study one time that put the age of the average gamer at 35. Not 10, not 15, but 35. Someone in DC has to notice this.
Now, with the previous assertion firmly in mind, let me make my second point: CHILDREN GET THEIR HANDS ON VIOLENT GAMES BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS BUY THEM. Has anyone else seen the box cover graphic for the GTA game? You know, the one showing guns being aimed and crackwhore hookers striking seductive poses. Do parents not see this when buying it? It strikes me dumb that grown adults could ignore these pictures and think this game was about rainbows and lollypops. That brings me to my third point:
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE USRB RATING CODE IS THAT THE ONLY ONES WHO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO IT ARE THE GAME PUBLISHERS. I have to confess that I don't really look at the rating, but I am legally considered an adult, and I am buying the games for myself. I am not buying God of War for any 12 year olds to play. When I buy games for my neices, all younger that 15, I do look at the rating. Perhaps it is arrogance on the part of the parental buyers that is the reason for the ignored ratings; arrogance in the way that they obviously know better than the experts who gave the game a mature rating. Remember, these are the same people that are shocked when they heard about the Hot Coffee mod. All I can ask is, at the time of purchase, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?
My final point in this rant, and perhaps the most pertinant one, is GROW UP AND BE A FUCKING PARENT. If your brat is playing a game that you don't think they should be playing, take the damn thing away. You are the grown-up in the house. You make the rules. Like it or not, household politics are not a democracy, and they shouldn't be, not even ruled by committee. A household has to be a totalitarian regime, benevolent, but totalitarian. You, as the parent, are the supreme ruler, and as supreme ruler, when the peasants decide to have a revolt, they should be sent to bed without supper.
But I am sure I am wasting my breath. I am sure that the politician who is able to capitalize on peoples fears the most will win.
In these mid-term elections, find out where the candidate stands on video game violence. I recommend that if they think legislation is the only course to correct it, VOTE AGAINST THEM. Do not let the fearmongers win this time.
December 20, 2005
A Powerful Weapon
There is a device out there that gets little to no use. Its use has far reaching implications for control of societies ills. It is generically made, and very widespread and almost invisible. I would guess there are many in your home right now. It has the ability to control pornography reaching children, violent video games, infomercials, inappropriate music, offensive radio personalities, and even controversial entertainment choices. It is truly revolutionary when used properly. The unfortunate thing it is not.
It is called.....the power button.
Did your 6 year old see a nipple on TV? Turn it off.
Grand Theft Auto a little too gangsta crazy for your 11 year old? Well, you bought it for them, but you can also turn it off.
Howard Stern (while still terrestrial) a little too much for your delicate sensibilities? Turn him off.
I will never understand why people don't use this device. It's use is not too complicated or convoluted....it is as simple as moving your index finger. Why do people feel the need to, instead of turning the offending device off, holding a parade, starting a petition, or just whining and bitching about the offensive material? Are they afraid of what the neighbours think? Are they worried they may start to enjoy it? Perhaps they maybe already do enjoy it, but that is not how proper people behave.
"My parents didn't grow up watching this filth."
"I didn't have to contend with nonsense like this when I was a kid."
Have I got news for you. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Does anyone remember Three's Company? The story of a man living with two beautiful women, posing gay so as not to attract the attention of his landlord. If you have seen the show, and I am sure many of you have, it was full of playful innuendo and sexual humour. And it did draw it's fair share of criticism from sensitive individuals in the 1970's.
"My parents didn't grow up watching filth like this."
We could talk about the need for The Ed Sullivan Show to only show Elvis Presley from only the waist up, for fear that America's teenage daughters would all get fucked that night from his gyrating hips and "black" music.
"I didn't have to contend with nonsense like this when I was a kid."
The echoes of the past coming out of the mouths of today. Let's not forget Deep Throat once being shown at the same theater as Lady and the Tramp, prohibition in the 1930's, or Captain Kirk and Uhura kissing. Everything I have mentioned in here seems laughable now, but in their time, it was all outrageous, and people actually left their homes to picket and carry on, instead of just making the choice to not watch. The peculiar thing is that they continued to watch....in fact they watched more closely, I guess in an attempt to get more outraged.
Do I practice what I preach? Yes I do. Moral values are a funny thing. I find it interesting that breasts are not allowed on television (although 50% of the population has them), but it is completely acceptable to show depictions of violent and gruesome death over and over. Myself, I have made the conscious choice to avoid gladiatorial programming on TV. Survivor, Fear Factor, and even America's Next Top Model are all shows that are the equivalent of blood sport, but because they don't depict anything outright offensive on the screen, they are seen as harmless. Maude has an abortion, Murphy Brown has a child out of wedlock, and the world is going to hell, but the belittling, demoralizing, and degradation of fellow human beings is ok.
That is what I turn off. And I know where the power button is.
It is called.....the power button.
Did your 6 year old see a nipple on TV? Turn it off.
Grand Theft Auto a little too gangsta crazy for your 11 year old? Well, you bought it for them, but you can also turn it off.
Howard Stern (while still terrestrial) a little too much for your delicate sensibilities? Turn him off.
I will never understand why people don't use this device. It's use is not too complicated or convoluted....it is as simple as moving your index finger. Why do people feel the need to, instead of turning the offending device off, holding a parade, starting a petition, or just whining and bitching about the offensive material? Are they afraid of what the neighbours think? Are they worried they may start to enjoy it? Perhaps they maybe already do enjoy it, but that is not how proper people behave.
"My parents didn't grow up watching this filth."
"I didn't have to contend with nonsense like this when I was a kid."
Have I got news for you. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Does anyone remember Three's Company? The story of a man living with two beautiful women, posing gay so as not to attract the attention of his landlord. If you have seen the show, and I am sure many of you have, it was full of playful innuendo and sexual humour. And it did draw it's fair share of criticism from sensitive individuals in the 1970's.
"My parents didn't grow up watching filth like this."
We could talk about the need for The Ed Sullivan Show to only show Elvis Presley from only the waist up, for fear that America's teenage daughters would all get fucked that night from his gyrating hips and "black" music.
"I didn't have to contend with nonsense like this when I was a kid."
The echoes of the past coming out of the mouths of today. Let's not forget Deep Throat once being shown at the same theater as Lady and the Tramp, prohibition in the 1930's, or Captain Kirk and Uhura kissing. Everything I have mentioned in here seems laughable now, but in their time, it was all outrageous, and people actually left their homes to picket and carry on, instead of just making the choice to not watch. The peculiar thing is that they continued to watch....in fact they watched more closely, I guess in an attempt to get more outraged.
Do I practice what I preach? Yes I do. Moral values are a funny thing. I find it interesting that breasts are not allowed on television (although 50% of the population has them), but it is completely acceptable to show depictions of violent and gruesome death over and over. Myself, I have made the conscious choice to avoid gladiatorial programming on TV. Survivor, Fear Factor, and even America's Next Top Model are all shows that are the equivalent of blood sport, but because they don't depict anything outright offensive on the screen, they are seen as harmless. Maude has an abortion, Murphy Brown has a child out of wedlock, and the world is going to hell, but the belittling, demoralizing, and degradation of fellow human beings is ok.
That is what I turn off. And I know where the power button is.
May 25, 2005
Sith Revenge, Evil Empires, and George Lucas
My wife and I just saw Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. I am feeling very torn on my enjoyment level of the film. I feel I am of two minds about it. On one hand, as soon as I saw "A long time ago in a galaxy far away..." I felt like I was seven years old again, it was 1977 and I was sitting in the theater with my mommy and daddy. It didn't matter if it was a bad, poorly crafted film - IT'S STAR WARS!!!
Now, there were some things in the film that were extremely well done, and Lucas should reap all the praise for these. Unfortunately, these things all happened in the first and last half hours. The first half hour was action; Anakin and Obi-Wan in a space battle, boarding General Grievous' ship, lightsaber action and duels, and the rescue of the Chancellor of the Republic. All action, all exquisite, and all of it holding me in the same rapture I felt at seven years old.
In the last half hour, all loose ends were tied up leading us into Episode IV: Senator Organa's ship from Alderaan, the exile of Yoda, the birth of the twins, Luke and Leia, and their separation, start of the construction of the Death Star, and of course, the completed transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader.
Now, the critics panned this film, and while my inner seven year old is still jumping up and down with glee, I am also a 35 year old who did graduate from film school, who was inspired to go to film school because Star Wars was the first real movie I ever saw, and who has been a fan of the entire series for 28 years. 28 years is a long time, the bulk of my life, and perhaps I am a little harsh in my judgment, but I feel the meat of the movie was a betrayal that stretches back to Episode II:Attack of the Clones.
First, and just to get it out of the way, the introduction of the Wookie species, and one Wookie in particular, was basically a throwaway part. The Wookies in Episode III could have been any race, and Chewbacca was reduced to that of a cameo bit part. There was no reason in the story for it: Chewbacca never had any interaction with Yoda any further than what we see in this film. I can only speculate that there are bits that might be released in some super-special edition of the DVD for home sale that might explain this. It is either that, or Lucas thought it would be good to introduce our beloved Chewie in his native habitat, as some sort of weak tie-in, but Chewie seemed like a leader of his people, some high ranking general, at least. So we are to gather that he, in the space between Episodes III and IV went from a leader and hero among his people to the sidekick of a smuggler in the outer rim? I'm not buying it, George, and don't think anyone else will.
Now I get to the point where I feel I am repeating myself from Episode II: Hayden Christensen. I don't think there has ever been anyone as badly miscast in the century of modern cinema as he has been. His acting was as compelling as a turnip and sardine salad. He acted in such a way that I was hoping he would put the helmet on earlier in the movie so we could no longer see his unchanging facial expressions.
In a perfect world, I could go back to the making of Episode II and direct him myself. Lucas said he felt it was unfair of the universal panning of Christensen's performance, saying he was directed to be aloof and arrogant. I didn't get aloof or arrogant out of either II or III, all I got was seemingly unfeeling and mean-spirited. If Anakin was portrayed as lovable, good natured, and just, his fall to the dark side would be much MUCH more meaningful than falling from arrogance - he was already halfway there. I guess the Anakin Skywalker character does need a fatal flaw that would allow him to seek out the power of the dark side, but that was already built into the story: his forbidden love for Amadala. How many times does Yoda have to say love leads to passion, leads to jealousy, leads to anger, leads to the dark side before even Lucas notices his own script? Anakin's forbidden love for Padme, and the threat of her life ending in childbirth should have been enough to push him over the edge - this, coupled with the power he could not control (an invention of mine - after all, it is said many times in the movie that he was more powerful than most of the Jedi council) would have been a compelling way to push our hero to the dark side. The way he acted the part, Christensen was already Darth Vader long before he met Palpatine. The basic script and direction was already a definite problem before shooting even began.
I have to mention the scene where the transformation to Darth Vader is complete, and he asks the Emperor if Padme survived, and he says no, and Darth Vader, the drama queen, releases this booming, overdramatic "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO". I can't even begin to say what all the problems with this scene are. It could have been handled in so many ways and so much better. It is the scene that shows he is now fully in the Emperor's power, that he has been completely seduced by the dark side, the moment we have been anticipating though Episodes I, II, and III, and we get the equivalent of the scourge of the galaxy, the embodiment of pure evil, crying like a schoolgirl. Without completely re-writing and re-blocking the scene, couldn't he have used his vast force powers to show his displeasure by destroying the medical bay, or attacking the attending droids, silently? Or not even going that far; he is on the dark side now, where pain and anger are power. There were so many options open to Lucas, and he chose the cheap one, the easy one. I just felt it wasn't in keeping with the myth, and I feel a little ripped off.
Lucas' need for over-using computer generated images is also a bone of contention for me. Lucas says he is pushing the envelope, which is a good thing, but making central characters completely in the computer was a mistake for the Star Wars franchise (case in point: JarJar Binks). Yoda, R2-D2, and General Grievous are all central characters to the story, and they were all computer generated, and while on some level it can work, too much of it leads to disaster. Movies made with a lot of CG (Lord of the Rings, for example) used CG primarily behind the central action, or during large action sequences, which in both cases allow the eye of the viewer to focus on the story and not the technology.
Lucas also took the opportunity of releasing a movie to make some fairly heavy political statements in the subtext of the film: the war will continue, despite the military achieving objective after objective; the leader will not relinquish his power because of the state of war; and the idea that some people will say it is treasonous to speak against the leader, while watching the treason of allowing the decay of the Republic that happens from the top. While I might agree with these views and the attempt to draw lines between the film and the Evil Empire we are living in today, I don't want to be beaten over the head with them when I go to the movies - if I wanted that, I would watch Fahrenheit 9/11 again.
Now, I distinctly remember a rumor from 1977, one that was repeated well into 1983, and then forgotten as Lucas said I, II, and III would be the last movies - but the original plan was for 12 movies. I read an interview with Mark Hamill where he said Lucas approached him about appearing in Episode VII while they were filming the first one in 1976 in Tunisia. Hamill asked when it would be shot and Lucas said 2011. In 2011, I think Hamill will be in his early 70's, and he may not relish the prospect of a geriatric Luke (but knowing Lucas, he will probably just be CG).
But I know I will be there if it happens, 41 years old, and feeling like it is 1977, and I am 7, and I am there with my mommy and daddy, going back to a galaxy far away.
Now, there were some things in the film that were extremely well done, and Lucas should reap all the praise for these. Unfortunately, these things all happened in the first and last half hours. The first half hour was action; Anakin and Obi-Wan in a space battle, boarding General Grievous' ship, lightsaber action and duels, and the rescue of the Chancellor of the Republic. All action, all exquisite, and all of it holding me in the same rapture I felt at seven years old.
In the last half hour, all loose ends were tied up leading us into Episode IV: Senator Organa's ship from Alderaan, the exile of Yoda, the birth of the twins, Luke and Leia, and their separation, start of the construction of the Death Star, and of course, the completed transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader.
Now, the critics panned this film, and while my inner seven year old is still jumping up and down with glee, I am also a 35 year old who did graduate from film school, who was inspired to go to film school because Star Wars was the first real movie I ever saw, and who has been a fan of the entire series for 28 years. 28 years is a long time, the bulk of my life, and perhaps I am a little harsh in my judgment, but I feel the meat of the movie was a betrayal that stretches back to Episode II:Attack of the Clones.
First, and just to get it out of the way, the introduction of the Wookie species, and one Wookie in particular, was basically a throwaway part. The Wookies in Episode III could have been any race, and Chewbacca was reduced to that of a cameo bit part. There was no reason in the story for it: Chewbacca never had any interaction with Yoda any further than what we see in this film. I can only speculate that there are bits that might be released in some super-special edition of the DVD for home sale that might explain this. It is either that, or Lucas thought it would be good to introduce our beloved Chewie in his native habitat, as some sort of weak tie-in, but Chewie seemed like a leader of his people, some high ranking general, at least. So we are to gather that he, in the space between Episodes III and IV went from a leader and hero among his people to the sidekick of a smuggler in the outer rim? I'm not buying it, George, and don't think anyone else will.
Now I get to the point where I feel I am repeating myself from Episode II: Hayden Christensen. I don't think there has ever been anyone as badly miscast in the century of modern cinema as he has been. His acting was as compelling as a turnip and sardine salad. He acted in such a way that I was hoping he would put the helmet on earlier in the movie so we could no longer see his unchanging facial expressions.
In a perfect world, I could go back to the making of Episode II and direct him myself. Lucas said he felt it was unfair of the universal panning of Christensen's performance, saying he was directed to be aloof and arrogant. I didn't get aloof or arrogant out of either II or III, all I got was seemingly unfeeling and mean-spirited. If Anakin was portrayed as lovable, good natured, and just, his fall to the dark side would be much MUCH more meaningful than falling from arrogance - he was already halfway there. I guess the Anakin Skywalker character does need a fatal flaw that would allow him to seek out the power of the dark side, but that was already built into the story: his forbidden love for Amadala. How many times does Yoda have to say love leads to passion, leads to jealousy, leads to anger, leads to the dark side before even Lucas notices his own script? Anakin's forbidden love for Padme, and the threat of her life ending in childbirth should have been enough to push him over the edge - this, coupled with the power he could not control (an invention of mine - after all, it is said many times in the movie that he was more powerful than most of the Jedi council) would have been a compelling way to push our hero to the dark side. The way he acted the part, Christensen was already Darth Vader long before he met Palpatine. The basic script and direction was already a definite problem before shooting even began.
I have to mention the scene where the transformation to Darth Vader is complete, and he asks the Emperor if Padme survived, and he says no, and Darth Vader, the drama queen, releases this booming, overdramatic "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO". I can't even begin to say what all the problems with this scene are. It could have been handled in so many ways and so much better. It is the scene that shows he is now fully in the Emperor's power, that he has been completely seduced by the dark side, the moment we have been anticipating though Episodes I, II, and III, and we get the equivalent of the scourge of the galaxy, the embodiment of pure evil, crying like a schoolgirl. Without completely re-writing and re-blocking the scene, couldn't he have used his vast force powers to show his displeasure by destroying the medical bay, or attacking the attending droids, silently? Or not even going that far; he is on the dark side now, where pain and anger are power. There were so many options open to Lucas, and he chose the cheap one, the easy one. I just felt it wasn't in keeping with the myth, and I feel a little ripped off.
Lucas' need for over-using computer generated images is also a bone of contention for me. Lucas says he is pushing the envelope, which is a good thing, but making central characters completely in the computer was a mistake for the Star Wars franchise (case in point: JarJar Binks). Yoda, R2-D2, and General Grievous are all central characters to the story, and they were all computer generated, and while on some level it can work, too much of it leads to disaster. Movies made with a lot of CG (Lord of the Rings, for example) used CG primarily behind the central action, or during large action sequences, which in both cases allow the eye of the viewer to focus on the story and not the technology.
Lucas also took the opportunity of releasing a movie to make some fairly heavy political statements in the subtext of the film: the war will continue, despite the military achieving objective after objective; the leader will not relinquish his power because of the state of war; and the idea that some people will say it is treasonous to speak against the leader, while watching the treason of allowing the decay of the Republic that happens from the top. While I might agree with these views and the attempt to draw lines between the film and the Evil Empire we are living in today, I don't want to be beaten over the head with them when I go to the movies - if I wanted that, I would watch Fahrenheit 9/11 again.
Now, I distinctly remember a rumor from 1977, one that was repeated well into 1983, and then forgotten as Lucas said I, II, and III would be the last movies - but the original plan was for 12 movies. I read an interview with Mark Hamill where he said Lucas approached him about appearing in Episode VII while they were filming the first one in 1976 in Tunisia. Hamill asked when it would be shot and Lucas said 2011. In 2011, I think Hamill will be in his early 70's, and he may not relish the prospect of a geriatric Luke (but knowing Lucas, he will probably just be CG).
But I know I will be there if it happens, 41 years old, and feeling like it is 1977, and I am 7, and I am there with my mommy and daddy, going back to a galaxy far away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)