Dungeons and Dragons, "Tomb of Annihilation" ep. 0

As I have mentioned on this blog MANY times before I play Dungeons and Dragons.  I decided that I will try to DM the “Tomb of Annihilation” in the near future (along with a large number of modules I got from Humble Bundle).  I like the premise, the tone, the setting, and the promised final confrontation sounds exciting.

To get my players in the mindset for playing the game I thought to throw together a recommendation list of movies to watch to help get them thinking in terms of that setting. So undead lords, jungle adventures, untrustworthy guides, and exotic cults.

After throwing out a short list on Reddit I received a handful of suggestions, unfortunately I have not seen all of the movies on the list (they are either not streaming on service I have or I don’t have the DVD), but I have seen most of them.

So here is the list, they are presented in order of release and contain a short description along with a link to where it is streaming or where it can be purchased… Which is a real waste of time now that I think of it, as the streaming options change so quickly that some of these changed while I was making this list.

THE LIST

Apocalypse Now (1979) sent on a mission to kill a rogue military leader who has set himself up as a minor warlord in the heart of the jungle, a team of soldiers must journey down the river deeper into the heart of darkness.  Lots of little episodic adventures and encounters along the river before the ultimate confrontation in the middle of a jungle.  Streaming on Hulu.

Conan the Barbarian (1982) seeking to avenge the deaths of his family and his enslavement, the warrior Conan and his allies must learn the secrets of a dangerous snake cult and destroy its sorcerer leader.  Let’s be clear, this movie could be suggested FOR EVERY DND GAME EVER.  It is perhaps the best single film in the genre and with the amount of snake men in the “Tomb of Annihilation” it fits thematically.  It is for rent from Amazon Prime.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) the titular adventurer is stranded in a jungle village and must unravel the machinations of a death cult to rescue sacred relics and enslaved children and return them to their village. This movie is underrated.  The idea of breaking the seeming deathly curse put upon the village after their relic is stolen easily fits with the looming Death Curse in “Tomb of Annihilation” but the presence of a goofy cult and an iconic villain with a trap filled tomb… it fits.  It is on Netflix.

Predator (1987) a team of adventurers on a hostage rescue mission are being stalked by some mysterious monster thru the jungles, picking them off one by one.  Jungle setting, check; team of adventurers, check; and a looming doom set to pounce at any time, check!  Possibly on Hulu?  There is a Starz trial thing…

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) on the search for the component to a local drug for potential use as a pharmaceutical, the investigator is drawn into the machinations of a local hoodoo cult.  This is not really an adventure movie, but more of an exploration and mystery movie with lots of horror elements.  It definitely plays on the same tropes of journeying to a mysterious tropical land with the threat of “undeath”.  For rent on Amazon Prime.

Jurassic Park (1993) one of the wealthiest mad geniuses on earth brings dinosaurs back and seeks to create a theme park on a remote jungle island. It is dinosaur necromancy in a thematic setting, hitting multiple concepts at a time.  Rentable on Amazon Prime.

Congo (1995) group of adventurers journey into the jungle for a variety of reasons but find a lost city of diamonds and killer gorillas. I think this movie is highly underrated.  The Jungle setting is one aspect here, but the bigger element is the team of adventurers searching for a lost city and hitting threats along the way.  Currently on Hulu.

Anaconda (1997) a team of explorers must battle a giant snake along a jungle river with the help of an untrustworthy guide.  It is now on Amazon Prime.

The Mummy (1999) a team of archaeologists unlock a long-forgotten menace into the world from a hidden city.  While not set in a jungle, it has pretty much everything else, a lost city, an undead lord, and a team of adventurers.  (I have not seen the Tom Cruise one, I hear it is better than one would expect, but not great.) To rent on Amazon Prime.

The Road to El Dorado (2000) two rogues get possession of a map that will take them to the lost city of gold where they must successfully navigate the politics of the city thru an elaborate ruse.  Jungle and lost city are the only elements here, but the movie has an adventurous feel to it that is also a lot lighter.  Currently on Hulu.

The Rundown (2003) a bounty hunter must locate a treasure hunter lost in the jungle. The area is dominated by the tyrannical diamond mine owner who is being opposed by a local resistance movement.  Comedy action film that I think captures a certain play style of goofing along as the game unfolds.  It is on Hulu.

Apocalypto (2006) Jaguar Paw must flee thru the harsh jungle to evade being sacrificed to the blood thirsty Aztec gods and return to his wife and family.  This is different in that it is fleeing from the city of evil cultists rather than going toward.  But it does capture a level of dread and horror that is at least interesting.  It is on Amazon Prime.

Tropic Thunder (2008) a group of actors are left stranded in the jungle during the botched filming of their latest movie and must contend with the dangerous local warlord.  I would say this has the fewest elements from “Tomb of Horror” but judging by how players typically play a Dungeons and Dragons adventure, this goofball behavior is where we all know it will end up.  Available to rent from Amazon Prime.

Kong: Skull Island (2017) a group of adventurers must journey to the savage Skull Island to unravel the mystery of ancient monsters and giant beasts.  This is the most entertaining movie with King Kong in it, but you could easily throw in any of his movies at still have some of the elements from “Tomb of Horror” be recognizable.  This one is stupidly hard to rent or stream.

The Lost City of Z (2017) a true story about Amazon exploration looking for evidence of a lost advanced civilization. It is on Amazon Prime.

----------------------------------

That is the list.  Some good, some really good, some … that are not to everyone’s tastes.  If you have your own suggestions leave them in the comments, I get so few from actual people and only a couple from bots selling garbage.  My comment section is lonely.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

My Thoughts on the "Ghostbusters" Franchise

            Let me talk a bit about one of my favorite things ever: Ghostbusters.

            The original film holds a special place in my heart as the movie I have seen the most in my life.  My estimates are inexact (as most of the times I saw it were prior to my turning 5) but I think a guess of 100+ times would not be out of the question.  I could quote whole tracts of the movie’s dialogue before I even knew what they meant.  My father brings up wistfully the numerous times I would talk to strangers at the grocery store introducing myself as, “Hello, my name is Ray Stanz, I’m a Ghostbuster” which I pronounced “Gose-Busser”.

More than that, I am a big fan of the cartoons.  I own the gigantic premium box set of “The Real Ghostbusters” and I feel the biggest misstep of the marketing of “Ghostbusters (2016)” is that they have not released “Extreme Ghostbusters” on DVD (it is the most underrated cartoon of the 1990’s).  I watched “RGB” to the point of destroying the VHS tapes of it my grandparents had at their house.

I owned and played with dozens of the toys, to the point where they fell apart, with bits snapping off, pieces going missing, and paint flaking off.  More than “Masters of the Universe”, more than “Transformers”, more than “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” this was the toy line that dominated my childhood (till Lego showed up and took over completely).

I even liked the sister(?)… knock-off(?)… rival?  We’ll go with rival.  I even liked the rival show “Filmation’s Ghostbusters”.  Which had two guys and a gorilla fighting ghosts and monsters sent back in time from the undead hellscape of the future.  It was mostly garbage, but still entertaining, if for no other reason than the music had a lot of get up and go.

The Gorilla Invented all of their equipment.
This used to be a live action series.

If I had the resources I do now (the internet) I would have collected and read the comics which for some reason only ever saw success in the UK.  I have a collection of the first 25 (thank you IDW) and will maybe get others in the future (honestly, the stories are freaking bananas and include an Ecto-4 which is a god damn rocket ship, and the first adventure includes the ghost of an intelligent alien slug monster).

I thought the sequel was fine, bit too much of a rehash of the first movie (kind of a lazy script when you get down to it) but harmless.

The video game was also fine and served as a good unofficial “Ghostbusters 3”, the game play was fun, and the writing (while hampered because there are clearly roles meant for Louis Tully and Dana Barret) is ultimately comparable to “Ghostbusters 2”.

I plan to see the new one this weekend.

That all being said I feel that I disagree with something that a lot of people list as the reason they like the original movie.  A lot of people seem to think that “Ghostbusters” only works because of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Bill Murray.  That their singular chemistry allowed it all to come together.

I disagree.

The idea of “Funny guys fighting monsters/ghosts” has been around a while.  It is a simple premise, and while the execution of that premise varies WILDLY in both how it is done, and how well it is done.  The idea of “comedians fighting ghosts/monsters/aliens” is too broad a concept to be fenced in to just those three actors plus the extended cast (this is not to cast shade at Ernie Hudson, who I feel is underrated both in the franchise and as an actor in general, but he is a supporting character in the story).  Dan Aykroyd did not invent the idea.

Though, back in Mickey's day of fighting "Lonesome Ghosts" they didn't have proton packs.
They had to make due with a shotgun and a deerstalker cap.

The biggest issue I have with Ghostbusters (and I say this keeping in mind all of the positive things I have said above) is that they did not grow the concept.  The 1980’s was filled to the brim with talented comedic actors and special effects that got better every year.  The first “Ghostbusters” was set in New York and used several well-known comedians (and considering Eddie Murphy and John Candy were both originally in it, they didn’t even get their original picks), WHY THEN WAS THE SECOND ONE DOING THE SAME THING?

"Ghostbusters: Mardi Gras", "Ghostbusters: Liberty Bell", "Ghostbusters: Bambino's Curse". Just take a city, and throw comedians at it.  Lily Tomlin, Phil Hartman, Jane Curtin, George Carlin, Chris Rock, and anybody else.  Seriously now, do you think that Bill Murray invented being snide?  There are 100 cities in America that could all have their own ghost stories.  Voodoo zombie hordes, the Jersey Devil, HALF THE STUFF THEY DO ON “SUPERNATURAL” could all have been done with John Lithgow and Jeff Goldblum wearing proton packs.

A Trillion nerds on the internet and this is the only image of an alternate 80's cast.
Really wish I had Adobe Suite on this computer I would have put more into this effort.

“The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon had 140 episodes.  And while they all had different problems (they seemed to face a Gozer level world ending threat every episode) clearly there are stories that exist with people fighting ghosts.

            The reason I saw fit to write this is because I have seen a lot of people online arguing things like, “It is a big part of my childhood, they shouldn’t remake it”.  And I feel that is just stupid.  While I would prefer a movie in which the Ghostbusters already existed, and did the stuff from the movies and video game and then just had Ray and Winston showing up to hand the keys of the New York offices off to new people… That would have been better.  But, that is over with.  You can’t fence off the best iteration of a good idea.  The execution was too good not to run with in various permutations.

Just like Batman has been rebooted 10,000 times, and James Bond has looked like a half dozen people, Ghostbusters is starting fresh and hopefully is good enough to do what I wanted the series to do all along: GO PLACES.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Whitewashing and "Ghost in the Shell"

This will be a fun topic.

 I am a big fan of the Japanese animated series called “Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex” a series I have mentioned before in this blog though in a very different context.  The show is set in Japan, decades from now in a dystopian cyber punk future in which people have so augmented themselves with robotic parts and computerized thought processes that the ability to hack into the minds of others and alter their memories and perceptions has caused many to question what it is to be human.  It has a lot of action, with battles between futuristic tanks, cyborgs, and terrorists, but punctuated by deep discussions on what the nature of intelligence, individuality, reality, and the number “0”.  It is one of my favorite shows.

 

The woman with the Purple hair is the source of this blog.

They are making a movie starring Scarlett Johansson, the biggest female action star in film currently as the main character.  And this has caused some controversy because the main character is a Japanese woman, and Scarlett is not.  To be fair, in the context of “Ghost in the Shell” the main character is actually a cyborg, with only her brain as the biological part of her and she could function in the body of a white woman, a black man, or an Asian person of ambiguous gender.  The fluidity of self is a part of the show.

However, there are not a lot of opportunities for Asian actors in Hollywood to star in a big budget science fiction action film, and considering the setting and origin of the story, to have a movie that could be the break out role for a young Japanese actress and cast of Japanese actors to instead go to a star that is already huge seems to be a problem that I can understand and appreciate.

I do find it strange that a movie set in Japan about Japanese characters is being cast with white actors, but I also know that cannot really be avoided.  Max Landis, who at this point seems to be more a person who complains about the movie industry rather than functioning as a writer in that industry spelled out in his vlog how important having a star in this kind of movie is.  And what he is saying makes sense.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you need a star, there are no Asian stars, you don’t use an Asian star in the movie, there continues to be no Asian stars because no one will take a risk on trying to make one.

I would propose a compromise, it would be prudent to do what they did with "Edge of Tomorrow".  Localize the material by changing names and locations.  “Edge of Tomorrow” was originally a Japanese novel called “All you need is Kill” (the stupidest name ever) and they changed the setting from Asia to Europe, the star is now an older white movie star rather than a young Japanese man, and (I say this having read the book) the story is far more coherent and streamlined (though still not perfect by any stretch).  For “Ghost in the Shell” make Tokyo into San Francisco, Kusanagi becomes Kathrine, and Section 9 becomes Section 9 because somethings don't need to be localized.

And if they did localize the property they could also Americanize some of the designs rather than slaving themselves to remaking those found in the original property which often times scream of being overly sleek and stylized.

The story of "What is human in a world of cybernetic augmentation and robotics" is not a new one (I have talked about "Bladerunner" in this blog before, along with "Deus Ex: Human Revolution", and “The Matrix” too for that matter). Saying that the story is somehow inherently Japanese and incapable of being adapted in such a way is meaningless. I've seen all of "GitS: SAC" and the idea of government officials being manipulated by a pharmaceutical company for massive profits at the expense of people's health is a pretty universal story in the US too.

I would go further to point out that Japan has adapted American stories like Spiderman to suit their needs in the past, and we have done the same with Sentai in the form of Power Rangers.  Many anime are based in Europe (or Europe-esc areas) like "Fullmetal Alchemist" and "Attack on Titan" and Japan has cast Japanese actors in their live action adaptations of these movies. This sort of racial compromise is seen as necessary because there are not a lot of white people in Japan for them to make the movie with, just as there are not a lot of Japanese actors in the US to make movies set entirely in Japan.

This actor portrays a guy named Eren Yeager.  Cause I guess he was the most German looking person to show up at casting.

I suppose the industry could compromise and cast "Asian" actors in the various roles, most people in the US wouldn't notice the difference between someone who is Korean or Chinese playing a Japanese person, but those who do would find it offensive I am sure.  This has happened in the past (though I didn’t notice until told) with John Cho, a South Korean actor being cast a Lt. Sulu in the new “Star Trek” reboot, replacing George Takei, a Japanese actor.  But then Takei voiced a Japanese man in “Mulan” a movie that used many different actors of different races to play parts in China.

But, maybe they are doing the worst possible compromise, by keeping the setting and the names and just using white actors, which is white washing, even if there is a canonical explanation as to why a Japanese brain could be in a white looking body.  If they use a white actor to play a character that has in all previous instances has been Japanese, this echoes a practice of casting white actors in roles where they portrayed minority characters, though in those past instances it was done without class and is frequently the blemish that keeps movies of the past from holding a place in the modern cultural lexicon, for instance when John Wayne played Genghis Khan. In general studios should avoid such practices when adapting properties by taking care with adaptation and casting decisions.

 

Yeesh!

Let’s talk about a movie that has done the opposite of this and cast a black actor in a traditionally white role: Idris Elba played Heimdal in Marvel’s “Thor” Franchise.  Heimdall was described as “the whitest” in Norse mythology, a mythology that is entirely composed of white gods, for a white people.  The stories were adapted by a white artist/author (Jack Kirby) for an overwhelmingly white comic industry to sell to a white audience.  He is played by Idris Elba, who if you are unaware, black guy.  So why am I so okay with this?  A number of reasons.

In the Marvel Universe the Asgardians are aliens that inspired the Norse myths.  In my mind (as in this is my explanation, feel free to ignore it, but I think it works pretty well)… In my mind the Norse people saw the Asgardians, saw them as gods, and as the legends of them passed into myth people started to re-write the legends to better suit how they wanted them to be.  In the Marvel cinematic universe, the Norse people white washed Heimdall to be a white person so that they could feel that they could claim to more closely resemble their gods.

Heimdall as he might have once been imagined.

And let's also be clear, having a cast that looks like the international audience they are trying to attract is helpful to recoup all that money they spent on special effects.

 In the real world, the Norse gods are not real.  They are stories and we as the story tellers are free to picture these fictional people as however we want.  As aliens, as gods, as people who did exist and have since been elevated to godhood in myth (like how Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires).  BUT, “Ghost in the Shell” is not about aliens or gods, it is about Japan.  It is about people who look a certain way and live in a certain place.  If you want to take the thematic trappings of that story and put them in another setting with people who look different in a different place that makes sense.  But to put a white person in a story where she is Japanese is downright silly.

Cyborg or no, watching Scarlett tear her own arms off trying to break into and disable a tank would be a rather interesting thing to see.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or 

Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Product Placement

            Let’s talk about product placement, really more to do with placement of it in movies and TV shows than anything else.  Superman slams into an IHOP in “Man of Steel”.  Dunn plays “Halo 5” at work in “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”.  Scott Lange works at Baskin Robbins in “Ant-Man”.  And clandestine meetings happen at Denny’s, or in the parking lot of Lowe’s Hardware on “House of Cards”.  These are a few examples, but you are already thinking about the types of cars they drove on “The Walking Dead” and “Breaking Bad”, and that episode of “30 Rock” in which Verizon is the best phone ever.  I am doing this off the top of my head and I could go on probably forever.

            Is this a bad thing?  I am going to say “No”.  And here is why.

1) In real life, as I write this, there is a can of sprite to my left, and a “Boarderlands” gaming mouse pad to my right.  You see, while lots of companies do pay to have their stuff featured to various levels… That shit does exist.  And making it part of the character’s world is not unreasonable.

            2) Movies and TV are really expensive to produce and having Coca-Cola help pay in exchange for having their brand on screen in a subtle way helps to defuse the cost and allow for more ambitious productions, I don’t know if they could afford to have Kevin Spacey murder political loose ends while soliloquizing to the audience unless the audience wanted to also clench their thirst with a Coke.

            3) From a historical and social standpoint this is nothing new.  Many of the great works of art in history and especially the great works of architecture have been commissioned by merchants and with streaming and commercial skipping technology becoming the standard way of doing things I see no other way a company can justify creating an entertainment product while at the same time telling the audience that they did so.

Really I find the inevitable outcome for this to be something like this: “Game of Thrones: Episode 55, Brought to you by Pepsi” or “Sony Presents: House of Cards”.  Companies will just become producers of material and will be part owners of it, so that people who like a particular program will have to think of the company when they watch or talk about it.

And eventually people will see it as part of the landscape, just like people used to not bat an eye at Clark Kent and Jimmy Olsen having breakfast together so they could talk about cornflakes, or the Flintstones talking about cigarettes.  Marvel will perhaps have the easiest time with this, as they have been having superheroes fight bad guys over fruit pies for decades.

 

Sure this is boarder line immoral.  But at least they aren't anti-vaccers.

I mean, Superman did cigarette advertising too... But much like in "Man of Steel" it was mostly incidental destruction.

            This blog brought on by seeing “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation” a movie that I highly recommend. There is the occasional wrinkle in which I thought of how they could have done something a little different, or how they should have a gadget for such an occasion, but it is my favorite action movie of the year, beating out "Mad Max: Fury Road", "Jurassic World", "Ant-Man", and "Avengers: Age of Ultron".

I come to find out it is written and directed by the same guy who did "Jack Reacher" and has a lot of the things I liked about that movie in here too. Lots of funny dialogue, no romance subplot, a couple of great chance scenes, and a good bad guy. Unlike "Reacher" it doesn't give away the whole mystery at the start so it ends up working better on that level. Best of the series.  I will eventually give a full review of it, just like I do every other movie I see each year, but for now I must point it out as a must see for the summer.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Predictions for Marvel Movies

            I occasionally make predictions about plot points, character moments, or jokes that will appear in Marvel movies because I have read a bunch of comics and a lot of media that was produced by the movie’s creative teams.  I especially like the “Language” joke from “Avengers: Age of Ultron”, though if it had been up to me I would have had it be more of a running gag, with Cap unironically asking others around him to not curse… but then being put into a situation that seems so hopeless or dangerous that he says “fuck” in a dissatisfied tone and everyone looks at him shocked, and he says something like, “Sometimes language is called for.  I was in the army.  I met Patton once.”  But the idea of the F-word ever making it into a Marvel production is the day I pilot a robot suit to battle the forces of evil.

            Regardless I have been seeing some patterns in the movies and I have two predictions I want to put out there so I can feel smug when I am proven right, or smug when people tell me my ideas would have been more interesting than what actually happened.  I was partially correct the last time I did this with X-Men, but not so much as to feel a sense of psychic link with the creative staff.  Maybe this time I will strike creative oil.

Prediction 1 (AKA, the least complicated one): “Guardians of the Galaxy 2”

            In the comics Drax has a daughter, the superhero known as Moondragon.  A bald psychic bi-sexual (those are seriously the three largest aspects of her persona) who has been an Avenger and a member of the super team Infinity Watch (a group that uses and protects the Infinity Stones, the things the Marvel movie universe has been about since Thanos showed up trying to get the blue cube in “Avengers”).

            In “Guardians of the Galaxy” Drax mentions that he had a family that was murdered by Ronan, but that Thanos was pulling the strings and was really responsible for his family’s deaths.  We also establish that Thanos has a habit of adopting the daughters of families he has murdered, both the bald blue psycho cyborg, Nebula and the mean green killing machine turned Guardian, Gamora were raised by Thanos to be agents of his murderous will.

I think that Moondragon is Drax’s daughter, she is alive, and I think that Thanos raised her to be his bald psychic evil servant.

We might also want to aim for a more dignified costume.

Tim Gunn has already talked about how he wants the next movie to be about fatherhood, “At its heart, Guardians is a story about families, and if the first film was about him and his mother,this is a story about fathers. So it's exciting to go there."  Which most have taken to mean the obvious, that we will meet Star Lord’s mysterious alien father, who will probably either be Adam Warlock (super hero leader of the Infinity Watch in the comics) or his father in the comics, J’Son of Spartax (leader of a space empire that is trying to incorporate Earth under his control to, presumably take control of its superhero population).
            But when you take all of the elements together, first meeting Star Lord’s father, then having Thanos be the villain (as he is Gamora’s father), and then having Drax meet his daughter whom he thought lost… that would be several strong parallels.  Then you have Groot say, "I am Groot" to break up this Maury Povich drama.

 

Sub-header: "Cause everyone saw the first one."

Prediction 2: “Avengers: Infinity War” parts 1 and 2

            The Infinity war involves the retrieval and use of the 6 Infinity Gems, each containing power over an abstract concept: Space, Time, Reality, Power, Mind, and Soul.  When assembled they create the Infinity Gauntlet, allowing for the wearer to control all of existence, Thanos manages this feat in the comic and kills half the universe, only being stopped by luck and stupidity.  There is a scene in which he kills all of the Avengers by hand.

A story in which Thor is turned to glass, Iron Man is decapitated, and Cyclopes is suffocated.

            We have so far seen 4 of the gems.  Space, which is the cube in “Captain America: The First Avenger” which killed the Red Skull, and then later showed up in “Avengers”, now it is currently in the vaults of Asgard.  Reality, which was used by the dark Elf Malakith in “Thor: The Dark World” and is currently in the Collector’s possession on Know-Where.  Power, used to destroy Ronan in “Guardians of the Galaxy”, and is currently under the protection of the Nova Corp on Xandar.  And lastly we have the Mind gem, used by Vision to finish off Ultron during “Avengers: The Age of Ultron”, it is on Earth in the possession of Vision.  The other two, Soul and Time will probably be introduced in “Doctor Strange” (Soul more than likely) and one of the other movies (“Black Panther”, “Captain Marvel”, or “Inhumans”… it could be any of them, though I am betting on Inhumans, having the ancient race of monster people transported thru time to modern day would be a good use of the gem).

            In each instance so far the gems have been used by or against villains and that has resulted in their destruction: Ultron, Malakith, Red Skull, and Ronan.  I predict this trend will continue with the other two gems.  I also predict that Thanos will get all 6 gems in the Gauntlet.  And lastly I predict that when the Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Inhumans, and other heroes team up to fight Thanos… Thanos will use the Gauntlet to summon a team of bad guys to help him fight the heroes, those bad guys that were all killed by the gems will come back to fight the heroes.

Side note: STOP KILLING OFF ALL THE BAD GUYS.  There are lots of stories that can be told with them and you are shutting the doors too quickly.  Too many Iron Man villains are gone for good and it is a waste.

Red Skull will fight Cap but he will be more powerful, maybe he will teleport or have a hoard of Hydra goons to help.  Malakith will transform into one of those Super-Dark-Elf-Warriors that kicked Thor’s ass and only died because of Loki using a black hole grenade.  Ultron will be a swarm of robots made out of energy, or just one giant robot.  And Ronan will have a rematch with the Guardians using his massive hammer (maybe have Thor go hammer to hammer with him cause that would be fun).  Same for the other as of yet unknown bad guys.

 

"Okay, just so we are clear... Next step is to cross this over with Star Wars because money isn't going to print itself."

Bonus Prediction: “Avengers Infinity War” parts 1 and 2

            I do have another prediction.  In the comics Thanos has an advisor for how to use the Infinty Stones to greatest effect… The literal devil.  Mephisto, the Lord of Hell sits at Thanos’ right hand Grima Wormtongue style.  Since Mephisto doesn’t exist in the movies at this time I think that part will be played by a different character: LOKI!  Who at one point will try to gain control of the gauntlet, and one of two things will happen.  Either 1) Loki tries to use it but fails because he (as Agent Coulson put it), “Lacks conviction”.  Or 2) Loki actually does save the day and seeks acceptance from the Avengers and Thor specifically as a hero and worthy of being well regarded, which is what Loki has always wanted anyway.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Movies 2014, Bad Super Heroes

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

            I really do not think that I have the same nostalgia for this property that other people seem to have.  I had lots and lots of toys of the turtles, I watched different cartoons, and I watched the older movies growing up.  I never read the comics.  Regardless, while they are a fixture of my childhood I do not consider them sacred or high art, they are a bit of goofy fun that you watch, laugh a little, and then move on.  But this movie takes a lot of missteps and no real excuse for it, because the Turtles have been portrayed so many times so consistently that the failures are all the more obnoxious.

            First off I find that all of the Turtles themselves are well acted and well animated.  They look suitably monstrous with enough visual distinction to tell them apart.  Splinter is well acted, his voice oozes wisdom and concern.  Both of those things are good.

            I have real problems with the scope of the movie, the hack plot, and the bad guys.  Picture for a moment a tree, the tree branches out in numerous directions, with a big central trunk, then several large branches, then little branches, each with their own leaves.  When building a universe, whether it is a fantasy world like Westros or Middle Earth, a space voyage like Star Wars or Star Trek, or a world of superheroes like the Avengers or the Turtles you have to grow the universe the same way.  A central storyline: Fight Shredder and the Foot Clan; then secondary stories: Fight street crime with Casey Jones and April O'Neil, Fight monsters from Dimension X, Time Travel, Aliens, etc.  This movie doesn't branch.

            April saved them from the lab they were experimented on, the same lab that is working with the Shredder.  See, you took what could have been 3 branches: Shredder, April, and the Lab, and turned them into more trunk.  Rather than the story being able to go in a lot of different directions instead it goes in one direction.  Lack of scope.

            The plot is incredibly hack, a product of two of the biggest hacks in Hollywood, the same guys who did the Transformers series, modern Star Trek, and the Amazing Spiderman.... and holy shit is the climax of this movie look like the climax to Spiderman, with a strange mutagenic gas about to be released over New York, the tower to launch it falling off the building, and a fight taking place in a lab between the female protagonist (April here, Gwen there) to secure a chemical.  There is also magic blood (Star Trek Into Darkness and Amazing Spiderman 2), an action scene based around falling (Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness, though I guess this is down a mountain rather than thru a debris field in space), and saving a mentor figure who is badly injured (Master Splinter here, Captain Pike in Star Trek).  So many elements that have been used before.

            Lastly, the villains are just flat and boring.  Their plan is to create a plague to sell the cure.... Which was the plot in a million other movies and Shredder is a mecha samurai.... just like the Silver Samurai was in "The Wolverine".  It is a boring plot, with boring motivation, and it once again echoes the sentiment of "9/11 Truther" movements which one of the writers is an outspoken member of.  None of the bad guys have any personality and only Shredder ever posses any physical threat to the Turtles.  Boring and unthreatening.  Very weak.

            I really wish some other creative teams could get their feet in the door of these types of movies.  I would not mind the Turtles fighting Krang or the Triceratops aliens, or just some big street gang.  Something other than this.

3/10

 

It's not like this was ever high art.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2                            

            This movie has serious issues, but first the positives.   I still think that Andrew Garfield is great in the role, clearly having a love of playing the character, and his real life chemistry with Emma Stone translates to the screen as a very sincere romance that in many ways makes the movie worth watching, and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is a competent active character that makes all other love interests in superhero fiction look weak by comparison.  A simple movie about them getting back together after breaking up in the first one, maybe while taking classes at NYU and Peter reconnecting with his friend Harry Osborn and battling a small gang of super villains (the Enforcers or Syndicate) would have worked wonders as a fun movie.  That is not what this was.

            This thing is two or maybe even three scripts shuffled together and they suffer for it greatly.  Clearly the Electro story was separate, starting off with Gwen and Peter broken up, Peter meets Electro initially as he works with Gwen as he is trying to get her back, Electro's obsession with Peter mirroring the unhealthy attraction Peter now has toward Gwen following her and taking pictures without talking to her.  Ultimately she helps to defeat Electro and Peter and her get together, her making a conscious choice to accept the dangers of his life as part of hers.  Maybe the introduction of Mary Jane to add a new love interest and give Peter temptation to leave Gwen be.

            The other script had to do with Osborn dying, and the army of super bad guy equipment that had been produced as a side effect of that research, that script had Harry kill Gwen as revenge for Peter failing to help him find a cure for the goblin condition, This running alongside the real story of Gwen deciding whether or not to go to the UK and Peter having to decide if he will follow, her death robbing him of direction in life and the movie ultimately ends with him recommitting to being Spiderman when the Rhino attacks.

            Each of those stories would have worked on its own, but they got mixed up and staggered so they just fail.  There are two showdowns within seconds of each other, the first with Electro, the second with Harry, you are so tired from the fight with Electro.... It is like eating a big meal and then having someone jam a funnel down your throat and pouring in a milkshake.  TOO MUCH.

            These two stories are shuffled together and their themes run counter to each other, one is about reconciliation between Peter and Gwen, the other is about them being broken apart.  A house divided cannot stand.  This is a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.

            This thing is cluttered and incoherent and a huge waste of talent as the special effects and action are on great and the actors are well cast, all of the stars are for Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone which this franchise utterly fails to live up to.

Overall: 4/10

This is a fan made poster.  All of the actual posters are inaccurate, in that they show it as a show down between Spiderman and Electro... That is not the core of the movie.  Gwen and Peter are the core.  I feel like I will have more to say about this movie in time.  Much like I did with "Man of Steel".

Incongruous Soundtrack

            Music plays a huge part it what we perceive on screen in movies and television.  Shows have blamed various drops in quality on the loss of good music direction/production ("Star Trek: The Next Generation" is the example I can think of, dropping a talented musical presence just as the rest of the show was shifting into gear).  This is a tool I think can be used in other ways though.

            Prevalent in theaters there are a lot of remakes and adaptations of older movies and books, but these productions lack an identity of their own because they are just doing what was done before with slightly better special effects or lighting budgets.  I actually think that one of the stronger ways a movie can distinguish itself is through a drastic change in the anticipated musical choices to accompany the scenes.  The best example currently would probably be "The Great Gatsby" released last month.

            I do not care for the book of this story, I find it to be well written, but the subject matter and the characters are just so spit inducing bad that I can't muscle through it.  This movie has those same issues, but it does something to distract you: music.  By putting in a soundtrack that is not just another 1920's production the film wakes the audience up and invites comparison to other things.  Rap music in the modern day based upon singing about drug dealing and casual misogyny evolving into an industry that sings about being rich and how awesome it is.  This is juxtaposed against a world of rich, misogynistic assholes who are miserable, and one of them got his money from alcohol distribution during prohibition.

"How about we don't make just another forgettable remake?" -Luhrmann

            All of that aside it gives you something else.  "The Great Gatsby" has a look, a feel, expectations, and a lot of previous iterations that were the book.  The Robert Redford film from ages back is a bland and joyless movie with no sting or identity beyond being an adaptation of the novel... basically beat for beat.  But the modern Baz Luhrmann directed version has an authorial stamp that distinguishes it in the minds of people.

            Luhrmann's "Gatsby" will be remembered for sucking, but so will its unique presentation.  This style was applied to the director's other period pieces, "Romeo + Juliet" which took the dialogue of the original play and set it into the modern world, and "Moulin Rouge" which took a period setting but with modern music adapted into it, taking typical troupes and a lot of music people knew but presenting them differently enough to grant the work a memorable (albeit kind of shit) collective whole.

            If I could make another example, "A Knight's Tale" directed by Brian Helgeland takes a story from "Canterbury Tales" and adds a rock soundtrack... to great effect.  It shows how sport was a popular thing and instantly draws your mind to the music the stadium plays during lulls in a game to keep the crowd up and interested.  It is granting you a perspective and identifiable mentality to the audiences in the movie.  It is drawing you into a film that is at its core very cliché.

Though I imagine the reasons people saw this movie might vary.

            This sort of thing is sorely missed in a lot of movies that really needed it.  "Troy" was a god awful film starring a huge cast, tons of costuming, huge numbers of extras, and fight scenes that were really cool.  The dialogue and music did nothing.

Though I imagine that the reasons people saw this movie might vary.

            "Troy" did try to change its source material up, changing a story involving very active gods and magic and making it very terrestrial, but did nothing to fix the real problems of Homer's "Iliad" (the story this all turns on).  The real problem is that the work was translated very literally by people who have no ear for normal people.  The movie has speech that is stilted to the point of being unbearable; terribly clunky and formal.  People in ancient Greece did not talk in formal English, soldiers in that time spoke the equivalent of soldiers today, like regular people in a stressful situation far from home.  People going to a theater want to watch a movie that sounds legitimate, not like it is out of time.  One might say that the movie, "The Immortals" (while visually and story wise being balls to the wall insane) is vastly easier to watch and be taken in by because the characters sound like people.

Though I imagine that the reasons people saw this movie might vary.

            Imagine a movie in which you saw warfare in the Classical Age via dialogue and music that elicited the feel of a war movie set in World War II or Vietnam?  Playing "The Ride of the Valkyries", "The End" by the Doors, or "Ohio" by Neil Young.  The juxtaposition of music between modern war and classic war might make the audience think about how the people at war in "Troy" were just like those kids who went to war in our own time, and that the greed of kings like Agamemnon is a thing that is as old as history and is STILL AROUND.  Then you could loosen up the words to have them flow naturally instead of like they are being written by a Professor of Classical Literature who is masturbating to the thought of Homer blindly reciting this all to a group of Greek Aristocrats.

            For other examples of music working with genre to make something unique isn't hard, and I think it is going to be done more and more as directors and producers have to try to express their own creative interests in a movie world that will only let them do so via adaptation.  "Firefly" was a science fiction show with western music and themes, "Cowboy Bebop" was jazz science fiction, and "Samurai Champloo" was Samurai hip hop, all of these were original properties with a blending of music and themes, while "Scott Pilgrim Versus the World" was indie rock Superhero, an adapted work which took a lot of the source material and (I think) elevated it with music you can actually hear (I have no idea how some authors have the audacity to produce comic books about music the reader cannot hear).

(This is the gayest blog post I have ever done...)

The NeXt "X-Men" Movie

            Apparently the sequel to "X-Men: First Class" will be based on the X-Men comic "Days of Future Past", generally considered on of the best stories in X-Men.  In the story, the far off distant year of 2013 is a complete dystopia (It was written in 1981).  Giant Robots called Sentinels have wrecked the world, a holocaust of billions ensues.  Turns out the Sentinels were created by humans to fight back against Magneto and mutants in general, but since Mutation is pretty much the destiny of all human lineage, the Sentinels took to scorching the world to stop the proliferation of mutants.  The last of the X-Men send an envoy back in time to stop the rise of the Sentinels.

They have also been Mecha in the past, but that would not serve the narrative very well I think.

            The story has been adapted a few times, giving important roles to different characters, sometimes it is Wolverine (Ultimate Universe) that goes back, other times Bishop (90's Animated Universe), and in the Original story it was Kitty Pryde, a character that was portrayed by Ellen Page in "X-Men: The Last Stand" (a well casted shitty movie).  The story is often mixed with other time travel stories, mostly involving the character Apocalypse, who has yet to appear in the movies and is a very cool and interesting character.  To that end the story has a lot to offer in the way of characters, bad guys, and more over story opportunities that would help to explain why the "X-Men: First Class" film was not entirely in continuity with the other X-Men Franchise... The same reason "Star Trek" (2009) was not in strong continuity with the old series: TIME TRAVEL SHENANIGANS.

            However being a fan of the comics, cartoons, movies, and other X-Crap, I would like to offer suggestions on what should, or could be in this movie.  It's a Top 5 List.

            5) Cast Members from the first three movies.  You could get Ellen Page back playing a more grown up Kitty Pryde, come from the future to warn of time traveling Sentinels coming back in time to kill Prof. X and Magneto, sort of like "Terminator" but with the X-Men.  You could also have Hugh Jackman do another cameo of him fighting killer robots in the Future.  You could also get Taylor Kitsch, the guy who played Gambit, as I think his career is effectively over and he would be an inexpensive character to add.

My lack of necessity is only matched by my complete inability to be recalled.

            4) Master Mold.  The Sentinels are some of the most stylized robots ever conceived.  No where is this more evident than the sky scrapper sized factory, which is also shaped to look like, and is fully functional as: a giant robotic holocaust on poorly drawn feet.  Master Mold is a walking factory bent on the Annihilation of mutants and humans alike.  It is Sky-Net crossed with Mecha Godzilla.  It would serve as a huge set piece for the movie that could out do "The Avengers" in over the top awesome factor.

Seen here in all his 90's animated glory.  By which I mean the tortured attempt to bring to life the over drawn designs of Jim Lee, who never meet a cross hatching or wild inking he did not like.

            3) New characters based around the idea of time travel.  Bishop and Cable are both front runners in this category.  And both have been the time traveling hero in previous adaptations of the story (although when it was Cable, it was really a future version of Wolverine, who was traveling back to stop Apocalypse... but you could cut most of that crap).  Really, I think that Cable would be the easier character to cast, as Stephen Lang (the military leader from "Avatar") looks the part and is comfortable working in genre fiction, but I think Bishop would be the better character to go with, as the X-Men (who are supposed to be a metaphor for diversity) don't really need another white guy on the team.  Jason Mamoa, IdrisElba, Djimon Housou, or Chiwetel Ejiofor would all be good picks to play the character.

Bishop and Cable also share an unlisted super power.  The ability to hold gigantic guns and not look silly.

            2) Time Traveling Villains.  Nimrod, Trevor Fitzroy, or Legion would all be top candidates, and they all serve very different functions.  Nimrod is a nigh unstoppable Robot that even if reduced to component parts can pull itself back together, and would work if the "Terminator" with X-Men idea went forward.  Trevor Fitzroy, is the archenemy of Bishop, and the son of Shaw (Kevin Bacon's character in "X-Men: First Class")  having him come back through time to seek revenge on the X-Men for the Death of his father would be a good starting point for the movie, just have Bishop follow afterword, from a future in which Xavier wasn't around to call for peace.  Legion is the child of Charles Xavier, he traveled back in time to kill Magneto so that Xavier would be able to pursue peace without having to apologize for Magneto's terrorism, thing is Legion is a fuck up and accidently killed Xavier, leading to a world in which Magneto had a full on war with humanity unchecked by Charles.  Each has strengths, each could work.

If Nimrod were the character it has another advantage: You could have the X-Men fighting thousands of Nimrods not unlike the alien invasion in "The Avengers", or the army of Terminators from "Salvation".

            1) Apocalypse.  Aside from Magneto, Apocalypse is the number one bad guy for the X-Men.  He was the first mutant, and with the help of alien technology he has lived forever slowly through war and destruction fostering the growth of Mutant kind.  He made the world into a eugenics crucible to produce the X-Men.  Having him be the ultimate mastermind behind it all, having created the Sentinels as a way to kill of the weakest of the world by the millions and the experiment getting out of hand would be a great story.  You could go so far as to have Apocalypse from 2013 send Bishop or Cable back in time to stop Apocalypse in the 60's (the presumed setting of the next movie).  Hell, you could have it that the Hellfire Club (the villains from the first movie) were trying to start a nuclear war because they were working for Apocalypse, possibly knowingly.  It is major villain, with a major plan, and a lot of power, and a lot of grandeur that would explain the stylized appearance of the Sentinels.  He is a perfect villain for the movie.

"I am the rocks of the eternal shore.... crash against me AND BE BROKEN"