#BUT has SAM FUCKING RAIMI PRODUCING IT ?!
Note
So now that Lore Olympus is over...
Are you excited for the TV Series that will definitely happen? LOL
i'm definitely excited to be proven right again when it doesn't happen ╭( ･ㅂ･)و
(ok sorry i promise i'm not that petty about it but the odds of the LO TV show happening at this rate are NOT looking good, the best time to reveal stuff for the TV show was 3 years ago, the second best time was at NYCC/SDCC last year, and the third best time is now during the comic's finale. they don't even have a director, cast list, or distributor lined up. at BEST if it IS in the works, they're doing a SHIT ASS JOB at hyping people up for it and keeping them informed.)
#did you know I'm the Grim Reaper is not only getting a TV series#BUT has SAM FUCKING RAIMI PRODUCING IT ?!#meanwhile rachel and WT keep going “trust me bro” on the LO show and have literally NOTHING. TO SHOW FOR IT.#so yeah at this rate rekindled will be done before the LO show comes out LMAOOOO#ama#ask me anything#anon ama#anon ask me anything#lo critical#lore olympus critical#anti lore olympus
123 notes
·
View notes
Text
respect to people who see peter engineering his web fluid/the entire concept of web fluid being an external substance that has to be manufactured as cool but i will never be swayed from the position that its 1 million times cooler and more effective when he can produce it biologically. sam raimi + james cameron were smoking penises when they came to that conclusion, it just makes sense that spider powers would also mean organic production of webbing. its fucking awesome.
#syd squeaks#for a while I thought all spidermen could produce it organically because of the raimi trilogy#my ass was soooooo mad when I realized that most of them just have a web shooter filled with synthetic web fluid#spiderman
40 notes
·
View notes
Note
Sorry for the dump you are about to read but I gotta tell you about a dream I had last week that was so earth shattering that I get sad to this day. I wrote it down when I woke up and thought of you. In my dream the year was 2001 and they were making the first Spider-Man movie. Sam Raimi decided that he wanted chemistry between Peter and Harry but your nemesis James Franco wasn’t interested since he didn’t like Tobey at all. James decided to drop out and I remember Tobey being upset because it was short notice. So he’s upset and crying in his mansion or whatever and his best friend Leonardo Di-fucking-Caprio was like “oh sure I can cover for him. I can be Harry.”
I forgot what happens in between but some time later, I sit down for the premiere and instead of the normal plot, Leo and Tobey derailed the movie by having their characters fall in love and it was a huge thing because the producers didn’t know. It was beautiful. Imagine the backyard conversations with Peter and MJ but instead it’s Leonardo DiCaprio giving the best performance of his life. They were in LOVE and the SM-2 unmasking scene was even more emotional than I could have imagined. They kissed before Tobey Maguire had to leave to save the city or whatever but like it was emo and hate filled for obvious plot related reasons. I remember crying SO hard in my dream and looking forward to SM-3. During the premiere, dream-me began to get confused because I was expecting things to happen that only happened in FTD, like the snake and the mushrooms. Apparently the producers knew you and were using your ideas so it was confusing that I never saw them materialized.
The ending of my dream came when Sony wanted Leo for Django unchained at the same time (timelines do not match up) so they had to kill him off and it was the most tragic death scene ever because it was like they really cared about each other. That boat movie has nothing on the misery this made me feel. They had a last kiss but never got to be together which was terrible because the first 2 movies were building up their relationship plus I never got to see the mushrooms and body horror! (I don’t know where MJ was actually. She sort of phased in and out of my consciousness) I woke up crying because for a moment, all of this was real and they were indeed this close to being together. Also I was PISSED that I woke up without completing the story. I saw an article a few days ago about the fact that they wear matching necklaces and the memory of my dream cut me.
They should have cast dave franco instead of trading one sex offender out for another.
Also Sony should in fact hire me and let nobody else touch spider man.
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
Am I the only one who enjoys the movies and the series of marvel?, they're movies are really good, the characters, the fight scenes, the qoutes, everything is so good, the only problem is the cgi,well it's not really a problem for me, I just want to enjoy the fucking movie/series, also the fans are having TOO MUCH expectations over everything, like what did you expect in multiverse of madness?, every character from the fox universe? , every non mcu character?,I feel like everyone in this app who says "MaRvEl sToP MaKiNg mOvİeS" haven't watched a single movie of them, probably only read the cgi news and the bad reviews of the fans over some movies like nwh and MoM, nwh was actually really good, it was good to see Toby, andrew and the old villains back, what is it that you didn't like about nwh?, MoM was amazing, Sam raimi and Danny elfman did really good job in the movie, Elizabeth's acting felt so real too me, I cried in every single scene she cried in, i enjoyed every single second of the movie,what is it that you didn't like in Mom? , I'm really surprised that none of you mention moon knight and Shang chi, moon knight is probably the only good series marvel has produced, and Shang chi's soundtrack was FİRE, the fight scenes too,it's not about good or bad, it's about enjoying, I honestly enjoyed all their projects,just because endgame was epic doesn't mean every movie after endgame should be epic, again it's about enjoying.
Please reblog for God's sake
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
I finally saw Don't Breathe from 2016, a movie I was utterly not interested in because American horror / suspense movies like this are always overly-long contrivance filled slogs of annoying 20-somethings reenacting the worst parts of the SAW movies (which themselves have never been interesting to me).
These kinds of movies are neither suspenseful nor scary. I don't get the point. Unless as basic exercises in filmmaker resume building? But this one was produced by Sam Raimi and Bob Tappert so, that is decided not what this is.
It was...alright, I suppose. In the last third it gets legitimately gross which was a breath of fresh air. It then immediately ruins that by going on for another 20 minutes to do a schmaltzy sequel-bait ending, and oh my god, who the fuck cares. Like anyone is here for character development. Climb out of your own butts, please.
They didn't even really do much with the core premise, since this supposed blind man has a lot of guns and doesn't seem to have any problems shooting people at range. He also has an attack dog, which they have to contrive reasons to keep away from him for most of the movie because it basically cancels out the core premise. ...So why give him one?
Also you're doing a movie that obviously thinks it is being smart by setting things in the abandoned wasteland of Detroit, and your one black character gets killed immediately.
Guys.
What, it wouldn't tug the heartstrings in Nebraska if Black women were subjected to these things?
I'm not saying this is racist. I'm just saying the movie was made by old white Hollywood guys and it is 100% what that is, and always has been, since the 70s.
Which is, by this point, tired and boring. The bar is low for these so this is fine, I guess. It is competently made, such as it is. If it was a 15 minute short film that was serious about the bad guy being blind, and ended with the female protagonist getting captured, then you might have something. But it isn't, so it's just not my thing. I'm not 16 and don't go to Sunday school anymore, so I need a little more than what this is, a faint sparkle of interesting creepiness mired in knots of unbelievable coincidences and unrealistic idiot character behavior. This is a C+ movie if ever there was one.
0 notes
Text
no but I honestly do feel like Xena as a show shaped me as a person
#and it's so funny that things went the way they went#because as a child i didn't know who the fuck sam raimi was#but he created and was executive producer for xena#and his brother was in it#and his childhood friend was in it too#and the aesthetic and feel and vibes were the same of army of darkness but i knew nothing about horror#fast-forward 15 years i fist watched evil dead#and then army of darkness#and hated AOD because it was 'too cheesy'#and i guess i was still self-hating at the time and also being kind of pretentious all the time#but now i rewatched army of darkness and it all clicked#it looks and feels like xena because sam raimi created and produced it after directing army of darkness#and now ash vs evil dead has ted and bruce and even lucy lawless#it all came full circle#and idk... it feels like i was fated to become obsessed with horror#because even though xena wasn't a horror show i eventually ended up loving the same people who worked on it through horror#ok now i'll go to bed and out of y'all's hair
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Any thoughts on Darkman, the Liam Neeson movie? I heard it was originally going to be a Shadow movie.
I love Darkman very much, but I've realized recently that this love comes with some pretty bittersweet feelings at the story behind it.
Michael Uslan: I was going to produce a Shadow feature film with Sam Raimi, but Sam got consumed by back-to-back movies and we ran out of time. We were headed in a good, period piece direction and managed to do so without relying on yet another bout with Shiwan Khan. I later had another major director passionate to do The Shadow, but a person at the company wanted to do a modern day TV series instead, which ultimately did not go... - comment saved from a post in The Shadow Knows Facebook group
For those of you who only now got into The Shadow or don't remember, for much of the early 00s, when The Shadow basically had no current projects and Conde Nast was taking down webpages and fan content left and right, the only things that kept this "fandom" alive were occasional fanfics (many of which are gone now), and the dim light in the horizon that was the rumors that Sam Raimi was finally going to make his Shadow film. Dig back on The Wayback Machine for Shadow web page and you're gonna see this as consistently the only thing they had to look forward to in regards to the character. These rumors floated around for over a decade, at one point Tarantino was even supposed to direct it, but he confirmed in 2013 that it wasn't going to happen. At least, not with him at the helm.
The project has been dead for a while now, and Conde Nast seems to be shuffling around plans for the character, and I deleted my Facebook months ago so I haven't kept up with any news, although it seems the James Patterson novel wasn't received too well, so I'm not sure what other plans they have in the pipeline.
Back in the 1970s, after the release of Richard Donner's Superman and in line with The Shadow's pop culture resurgence, thanks to the paperback reprints and the 70s DC run, there were plans to make a Shadow feature film, and there were quite a handful of scripts being tossed around for the following years (Will Murray states most of them were horrible), several names attached to the project at one point or another. The plans died down a bit following Gibson's death and only really picked up again after the 90s, and of course we all know that the 1994 movie came out with spectacularly bad timing. From what I recall, it seems Sam Raimi wanted to make his Shadow film in the 80s, was unable to secure the rights, and then just made his own version, which would go on to be his first major motion picture.
Even after making Darkman, Sam Raimi still wanted to make The Shadow. I guess that's ultimately the bittersweet part for me. I imagine the current state of Shadow media would be significantly better if Sam Raimi, who was a fan of the character and the pulp version (and even knows of The Shadow's connection to Houdini and stage magic), got to make his Shadow film, years before Blood & Judgment, years before Burton's Batman made it impossible for a Shadow film not to be compared to it, in a time period where it wouldn't have had to compete with The Lion King and The Mask for box office. And second, I have been drawing up my plans for Shadow projects for, what, 5 years now? And I have just barely got my foot off the door as a filmmaker. Sam Raimi had a decade-long career as a cult filmmaker before he got turned down, and decades later, after becoming a household name in charge of Marvel's biggest icon, the project still fell through. It doesn't exactly get my hopes up, y'know.
I love Darkman, it's the best Shadow film that doesn't technically star the real Shadow, and it works pretty well on it's own regardless of that association, but I do get pretty sad looking at it from the outside, because I just can't help but think on what it could have been.
In some aspects I do think the film benefits from not being about The Shadow proper, because it means Raimi got the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted. The character of Darkman already existed separately from Sam Raimi's plans for a Shadow film, already carrying off the Phantom / Universal Monster influence, and what Raimi did was basically combine the two ideas together.
He took the basic iconography of The Shadow, a terrifying urban crimefighter in coat and slouch hat, and add in other Shadow traits like his mastery of disguise, his disfigurement, and that wonderful scene where he's invisibly running circles around a panicky triggerman while laughing maniacally, a moment which definitely feels like Raimi taking a second to indulge himself to do what you can call The Classic Shadow Scene with a character he's, for the most part, succesfully convinced us (and Conde Nast's lawyers, most importantly) isn't supposed to be The Shadow.
But then he filters these through his own influences and style to make him a new character, so instead of a mysterious mastermind with lots of resources and a enigmatic background, instead he's a disfigured and psychotic scientist with a vengeance against those who made him that way. He's like Night Raven, in the sense that he's built off traits that The Shadow has, but develops them differently to the point he stands on his own as a character. It's The Shadow combined with The Phantom of the Opera, filtered through a 1930s Universal Horror lens, played for greater tragedy and a dash of Evil Dead 2 wackyness.
He hides away in trashed up ruins and bickers with a cat, he has fits of rage that make him endanger innocents, he has a doomed love affair, and sometimes he gets so batshit he gives us hilarious moments like "TAKE THE FUCKING ELEPHANT" and "SEE THE DANCING FREAK! PAY - FIVE - BUCKS! TO SEE THE DANCING FREAK!". Moments that really show why he was such a good fit for Spider-Man despite the liberties he took with the source material.
I think the big thing that helps to make Darkman works as a property in it's own right is also that, ultimately, these influences are ultimately at the forefront of it, and the core of it works on it's own. Darkman is a believable, engaging character in his own right, one who tells a story that would be more at odds with The Shadow proper.
In some aspects, Darkman tries to be The Shadow, he is forced to become The Shadow by literally picking the clothes off a dumpster after he escapes the hospital, and it's a miserable, wretched existence, in a way rather befitting his status as a legally safe knock-off. He is a creature of nightmare who lost his face and takes on a dozen others to fight crime by turning terror against them, except he is still just a man in the end, and no man was ever supposed to live like this.
Raimi was also inspired by the Universal horror films of the 1930s and 1940s because "they made me fear the hideous nature of the hero and at the same time drew me to him. I went back to that idea of the man who is noble and turns into a monster".
He originally wrote a 30-page short story, titled "The Darkman", and then developed into a 40-page treatment. At this point, according to Raimi, "it became the story of a man who had lost his face and had to take on other faces, a man who battled criminals using this power"
A non-superpowered man who, here, is a hideous thing who fights crime. As he became that hideous thing, it became more like The Phantom of the Opera, the creature who wants the girl but who was too much of a beast to have her
I decided to explore a man's soul. In the beginning, a sympathetic, sincere man. In the middle, a vengeful man committing heinous acts against his enemies. And in the end, a man full of self-hatred for what he's become, who must drift off into the night, into a world apart from everyone he knows and all the things he loves.
For the role, Raimi was looking for someone who could suggest "a monster with the soul of a man"
It's the fact that Darkman is ultimately played for vulnerability and tragedy that really sets him apart. While I wouldn't go far enough to say The Shadow is a man with the soul of a monster, still, the difference in presentation is still there when it comes to these two. The Shadow is The Other, Darkman is You. Darkman is the victim of extraordinary circumstance that affects his life, The Shadow is the extraordinary circumstance that affects the lives of others. People react to The Shadow, Darkman reacts to people (and rather poorly).
One is the man who takes off his skin (or yours, staring back at you) to reveal the weird creature of the night ready to prowl and pounce and cackle at those who think they hold power over it's domain, and the other is the monster who falls apart bit by bit until you are left staring at the broken man within who has no choice but to be something he was never supposed to be.
The Shadow is The Master of Darkness. Darkman weaponizes the dark, but in the end, he's still just a man, lost within it. Not everyone can be The Shadow, and you would most likely turn into Darkman if you tried.
62 notes
·
View notes
Text
Press: WandaVision Was Elizabeth Olsen’s Exercise in Reclaiming Her—and Wanda’s—Power
On this week’s Little Gold Men, Olsen explains why she was “mortified” to share WandaVision with the world and teases her upcoming turn in Doctor Strange.
VANITY FAIR: Despite her onscreen superhero status, Elizabeth Olsen admits to Vanity Fair’s Joanna Robinson that she gets “panic dreams” before beginning a new project. That was never more so the case than with WandaVision, the genre-bending Disney+ series that imagined Wanda Maximoff and Vision’s (Paul Bettany) married adventures through a sitcom-style lens. But after the show premiered to rave reviews and an eager fanbase, Olsen’s nerves about launching the Marvel TV empire could melt away, right?
That is, until she suited up as the Scarlet Witch once more for Sam Raimi’s upcoming sequel, Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. Although writer Michael Waldron has compared the titular character to Indiana Jones, Olsen insists that the final product is edgier than that figure’s action epics. “I think it’s more than a glossy Indiana Jones movie, which I love Indiana Jones,” Olsen says on the latest Little Gold Men episode, adding, “But I feel like it has a darker thing going on.”
This week’s Little Gold Men podcast is a Disney+ double feature, featuring an interview with Sebastian Stan of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (also courtesy of Joanna). She joins Vanity Fair’s executive Hollywood editor, Jeff Giles, Richard Lawson, and Katey Rich in a conversation about Witness, which gave Harrison Ford his only Oscar nomination to date. Other top of mind topics include the lackluster box office performance of In the Heights, Emmy buzz for Bo Burnham’s Netflix special Inside, and Pixar’s newest release Luca, which arrives on Disney+ Friday.
This is a partial transcript:
You’ve talked about Wanda coming into her own power, discovering her power. Something that I think is so interesting is you were doing work as an executive producer on Sorry For Your Loss. And I was wondering what that experience taught you about your power, your ability to have input over your acting choices or your acting roles going forward?
It was incredible. It was truly one of the greatest learning experiences I could have had. I saw how everything can be done if I ever wanted to direct something, which I’m not sure yet. But I have seen how maybe the healthiest way to crew up a show is, to a writers room, to the whole journey in between and editing and color correction and sound mixing. All the things that I had wanted to experience, I got to do that on that show. And it created this neverending voice in my head that now just expresses all of her opinions when I’m on set. It’s great working with. Like, I’m starting to work with another director right now and it’s great just saying, when people sometimes would ask me, “How would you like to work?” I wouldn’t really know how to answer that because I’ve always been malleable to if other actors like working specific ways. I’m cool to kind of be fluid in that zone.
Now I can just say, “It’s really good for me to have all the information, just so I don’t have to ask questions in my head and think, why are they doing that instead of this?” But if I just have the information of “Oh, this is an issue, so we’re doing this instead” then I’m not going to try and make up what the issue is and spend weeks trying to figure out, “Why are we doing it this way?” S I know that that’s now something. I just like having information, even when I’m not a producer. It just helped. I’m sure other actors would be like, “How the fuck would you keep all that straight?” And it actually rests my brain. It rests my monkey brain, I think. to just have facts and information about how everything’s going, why schedules are changing. Yeah, I loved that experience.
I would say on every single ensemble job that I have done with Marvel, I try and take up the least space possible and let everyone else’s personalities fly. And that’s truly what I’m more comfortable with in that space. It’s kind of in the same way [that] it’s really nice to have one-on-one conversations, but if you put me in a theater with 50 people and having to address a TedTalk kind of thing, that’s my worst nightmare. So I just would rather be small and take up a little bit of space and do my part of the puzzle. I still think I’m going to be like that. And the other big ensemble ones, I didn’t feel that way with Dr. Strange because it wasn’t that kind of a thing. But yeah, between Age of Ultron and WandaVision it’s literally like someone who doesn’t want to peep up and who is so scared to do anything wrong, who just is going to defer to everyone else for information and just do it and just stay in my lane.
Now in WandaVision, it was like I wasn’t a producer on it but it felt like I wanted to be a leader. I wanted to take the opportunity to kind of set the tone of how we treated one another, how prepared we were, how collaborative we could be. And [director/producer] Matt Shakman was the ultimate, greatest leader. I think we didn’t come to work with our sides in our hands. We were giving notes to [creator] Jac [Schaeffer] at least a week before we…And obviously there are things that are always going to be coming up and changing but we didn’t want to do the whole thing where an actor has a brilliant idea at midnight and we have to kind of spend too much time that we do not have discussing that brilliant idea. Just look ahead and be prepared and then be really kind and treat everyone with respect. That just is how we worked and we had a joyful time doing it.
Wanda has always been a character embraced by the fandom, but what does it mean to you, given that you have this different approach this time, to see Wanda embraced by a much larger group of people and awards folks are knocking at your door and all this other stuff?
I feel really grateful. I was mortified when this show was coming out. I was having a lot of weird anxiety about it and felt pressure from the idea that Marvel hadn’t had something come out [like this] and it felt so different. And I was like, “They like the sitcom but they’re not going to like it when we get out of the sitcom.” I had strange, really strange experiences when I was working in England and it sounded like people were enjoying it and I just wasn’t believing it.
So it was really kind of when I wrapped Dr. Strange and came home and I now have this gratitude that I feel like Kathryn [Hahn] and Paul and Teyonah [Parris] had while we were doing press during it coming out. They had this nostalgia of the time we had. And I’m still playing the same frickin character, but like moved on. I just could not sit back and kind of have that gratitude. I do now. And it really feels good, even if nothing happens, to be continued to be a part of a conversation about people acknowledging work that was done. As much as I try not to have an attachment to it, it is a sense of gratitude and you just feel lucky.
Go here to listen to the podcast. Elizabeth is near the end after Sebastian Stan.
Press: WandaVision Was Elizabeth Olsen’s Exercise in Reclaiming Her—and Wanda’s—Power was originally published on Elizabeth Olsen Source • Your source for everything Elizabeth Olsen
#Elizabeth Olsen#WandaVision#Avengers#Scarlet Witch#Wanda Maximoff#Sorry For Your Loss#Avengers Infinity War#Avengers Age of Ultron#Captain America Civil War#Ingrid Goes West#Godzilla
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why Spider-Man Leaving The MCU Is The Best News I’ve Heard In Ages - Quill’s Scribbles
Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Did you hear the news? I’d be surprised if you didn’t. EVERYONE has heard the news by now. A couple of days ago it was reported that the deal between Marvel and Sony that allowed the two studios to share custody for the rights of Spider-Man has fallen through. Spider-Man is no longer going to be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Speaking as someone who is not only a big Spider-Man fan, but also a very vocal critic of the current state of Marvel and Disney’s cynical and convoluted ‘shared universe’, this caused quite a reaction when I first heard the news. I’m as happy as a man who just found out his high school crush likes him back on the same day he won the lottery. Happy, but not surprised. In fact I’m more surprised that other people were surprised by the news. The deal Marvel and Sony managed to strike was almost unheard of. Two rival movie studios in mutual cooperation. Never thought I’d see the day. But if you thought this was going to be the new norm, then I’m afraid you don’t understand this industry. I knew, or at least suspected, that once Sony had a hit on their hands, they’d cut ties with Marvel and Disney. It was only a matter of time. Now that Spider-Man: Far From Home has made over a billion dollars at the box office and now they have found success with their own non-MCU films, Venom and Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse, the simple fact of the matter is they don’t need Marvel or Disney anymore. So they’ve flown the coop. Yes it’s possible they could renegotiate the deal, but given how unlikely the prospect of the initial deal was in the first place, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. It’s more likely they’re going to take their ball and go home. Sony’s Universe Of Marvel Characters (despite its incredibly clunky name) is now going to be firmly built upon and expanded, and I for one could not be more excited.
Of course not everyone shares my excitement. Disney, for one thing, aren’t happy. Nor are the cast. Jeremy Renner has made his views clear, begging Sony to give the rights to Spidey back. (Perhaps he should focus more on his own character Hawkeye, considering what a mess he’s become). Die hard MCU fans aren’t pleased neither. Same goes for ‘celebrity’ fans like Kevin Smith, a filmmaker who preferred to be called a comic book expert on the Venom Blu-Ray bonus features presumably because he hasn’t actually been relevant as a filmmaker since the 90s. (it’s worth reading his thoughts just for a laugh. He honestly thinks Disney aren’t greedy, corporate bastards. ROFL). And of course the so-called ‘professional’ critics, who for years have deluded themselves into thinking the MCU is actually good, have been writing their own little think pieces about what all this means. Can Spider-Man possibly survive without Iron Man and pals to prop him up? To which the answer is obviously yes. Sony had the rights to Spidey for fourteen years before the Marvel deal. They made five Spider-Man movies, four of which were massive box office successes. They also released Venom and Spider-Verse last year. Both hugely successful and the latter even won an Oscar, which is one more Oscar than Marvel Studios have ever won (sorry Black Panther. You were robbed).Can Spider-Man survive outside the MCU? Gee I don’t know. I guess somehow Sony will find the strength to soldier on without them.
Although, that being said, there’s not as many journalists siding with Disney as I thought there would be. There are quite a few articles explaining how this split could help Spidey in the long run, which is both absolutely true and refreshing to see. Hopefully this is a sign that we’re finally turning a corner and critics are starting to use their brains again. Like how everyone worshipped the ground Steven Moffat walked on until Sherlock Series 4 where everyone realised that he’s actually shit and has always been shit.
Spider-Man leaving the MCU is the best thing you could do for the character at this stage. The way he’s been treated since joining the Marvel clusterfuck has been nothing short of appalling. I’ve made it no secret how much I detest this version of Spider-Man and some might dismiss what I’m about to say out of hand, perhaps claiming I’m biased because I’ve said numerous times that I love The Amazing Spider-Man films starring Andrew Garfield. Two films I will go to my grave defending because they were bloody good movies. People were just butt hurt because it wasn’t Spider-Man 4. Never mind the fact that the original Sam Raimi films were never that good to begin with (seriously, have any of you actually watched Spider-Man 2 recently? Trust me. It’s not as good as you remember it). No, I promise you that if MCU Spidey existed in a vacuum, I would still hate him just as much for the simple reason that he has absolutely nothing in common with the source material. Under the watchful, Orwellian eye of Marvel, they took Spider-Man, a character most famous for being a working class everyman, and turned him into the most spoilt and privileged little bum-balloon I’ve ever seen.
Spider-Man: Homecoming was a terrible movie. Plain and simple. A cynically produced, written by committee, pile of wank that gets so much of Spidey’s character and story completely wrong, it’s almost impressive. No longer a teenager/young adult struggling to balance his superhero life, his school work, his career and his social life, instead we got a groomed Mary Sue who doesn’t have to fight for anything because everything is basically handed to him on a silver platter courtesy of Iron Man. We never see him struggle. He’s not relatable. He never has to face consequences for his actions. He misses God knows how many classes and debate group meetings and yet he never gets punished for it. Sure he gets sent to detention a couple of times, but we see him leave whenever he bloody wants to. It’s just boring. If there’s no struggle, where’s the tension? And the less said about the villain, the better. Taking an eccentric antagonist like the Vulture and turning him into the stereotypical blue collar dad trying to provide for his family has got to be one of the most uninspired and blatantly lazy bits of characterisation I think I’ve ever seen. And that’s not to mention the supporting cast. Aunt May is youthed for no reason other than to make sexist jokes at her expense with every man that comes within her general vicinity staring at her with their tongues hanging out and eyes as large as saucepans. Minor villains like Shocker and the Tinkerer have their characters reduced to unfunny comedy sidekicks. And then there’s Peter Parker’s gang of racial stereotypes. We have Peter’s best friend, the fat and nerdy Ned who has no real personality other than being fat and nerdy (and is without a doubt the most annoying character in the damn film). Flash has been racebent so now he’s the stereotypical arrogant Asian prick. Michelle has no character other than being the same sassy black teenager who don’t give a shit, a caricature so old now it’s practically been fossilised. And then there’s the love interest Liz, a character so bland and one dimensional that I had to look her name up. Oh and lets not forget that the majority of this Spider-Man’s story was nicked from Miles Morales because people are only going to empathise with his story if it revolves around a white kid, am I right?
You know, I get so frustrated whenever people slag off the Amazing Spider-Man movies and claim that these new movies are better because... well... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! I’m sorry, but I was much more invested with Peter and Gwen than I ever was with Peter and... what’s her face? Or Peter and Michelle (who I categorically refuse to call MJ because she’s not MJ, is she? They just used the initials to pander to gullible fans. They didn’t have the guts to just make Mary Jane Watson black, did they? Of course not! We don’t want to alienate the casual racists, do we? They’re our main demographic after all). The reason why Peter and Gwen worked is because they’re well-written, three dimensional characters with great chemistry and whom we actually spend a significant amount of time getting to know. So when Gwen dies at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, it becomes a heart wrenching moment because we’ve grown invested in this character and this relationship. If Michelle were to die in a future movie, I honestly wouldn’t bat a fucking eyelid. Even Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst had more chemistry than those two, and that relationship was a total shambles from start to finish.
It also helps that Peter and Gwen felt like real people. I loved the scene in the first movie where Peter awkwardly asks her out because it reminded me so much of how I asked my first girlfriend out. And that’s why I love the Amazing Spider-Man movies. Because out of all the Spidey films we’ve had over the past 17 years, the Amazing ones are the only ones in my opinion that manage to capture the humanity of the character. As fantastical as the world is, the characters, their relationships and their dilemmas are grounded firmly in reality. Homecoming on the other hand is just embarrassing. Despite casting teenage actors, none of the teenagers actually act like teenagers. They act like five year olds. It’s painfully obvious that the filmmakers are trying to pander to young kids and they clearly don’t know how to write them. Again, this is where the Amazing movies stands head and shoulders above the others. They’re not treated like kids or teenagers. They’re treated like people. Real people. Same goes for the villains. (Yes, even Electro, despite wonky execution).
But the main criticism people have with MCU Spidey is that these films aren’t actually about Spidey. They’re really about the MCU mascot Iron Man.
Now to be clear, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the idea of Iron Man being a surrogate father figure to Spidey. It could work. Captain America: Civil War, despite the clunky and contrived way in which Spidey was introduced to the MCU (oh you just happened to know about a masked vigilante we haven’t seen or heard of until now Tony? Okay. What about Daredevil and Luke Cage?... What do you mean they’re not in the movie?), did a good job of setting up the dynamic. Namely that Tony doesn’t actually care about Peter or his well being, merely using him for his own ends. Unless Americans have some kind of ‘Bring Your Child To A Warzone Day’ I don’t know about.
Despite its flaws, Civil War was good because it gave us an unsettling look at the characters we’ve been watching for years. We see Captain America consumed by his own naivety and idealism to the point where he can no longer see the bigger picture and we see Iron Man go from being an industrial capitalist to an authoritarian fascist. Homecoming could have followed up on that. Have Spidey realise that Tony doesn’t have his best interests at heart, reject him as a father figure and grow into his own man. Instead the movie seems to go out of its way to undo all the interesting things Civil War brought to the table. Of course Tony cares about Peter! Oh and his relationship problems with Pepper Potts have been magically fixed off screen and now they’re getting married! Relax people, it’s okay! Nothing morally complicated going on here! We apologise for assuming you’re actually intelligent and promise never to make you think about anything ever again!
Not only is this quite insulting to the audience, it also negatively impacts Spidey’s arc. Turns out the movie isn’t about Spider-Man becoming his own man. It’s about him proving he can be an Avenger. He’s constantly in the shadow of Iron Man and, more to the point, we’re supposed to be happy that he’s in the shadow of Iron Man.
Again, this is where the Amazing Spider-Man gets it right. The first movie is very much about father figures. Uncle Ben, Curt Connors and Gwen’s dad all play a role in Peter’s growth and development over the course of the film. He’s able to take all the lessons and advice he gets from the three and use them to become his own man. As director Marc Webb so eloquently put it, ‘it’s a story about a kid who grows up looking for his father and finds himself.’ Compare that to the current iteration of Spidey where Uncle Ben doesn’t even appear to exist in this continuity because he’s been completely supplanted by Iron Dad. Remind me again why people think the Amazing movies are shit?
The latest film, Spider-Man: Far From Home, is no better. Same problems as before only this time Mysterio gets MCU’d to death. Instead of the pathetic loser trying desperately to receive recognition for his talents, we basically get a rehash of the plot from Iron Man 3, which in turn was a rehash of the plot from The Incredibles. Mysterio is basically trying to supplant Iron Man because he got screwed over when he used to work for Stark, and it’s up to everyone’s favourite wall-crawler to stop him because there’s only room in this universe for one Iron Boy. Even when Iron Man is dead, he’s still front and centre of the fucking narrative. Here’s a bright idea. How about we make a Spider-Man film that’s actually, you know, about Spider-Man? (Oh yeah, spoiler alert, Iron Man dies in Avengers: Endgame. Not that it’s really spoiling anything because Endgame is a big piece of shit).
Here’s the thing. Everyone is blaming Sony for the deal breaking down, and okay, I’m not going to pretend that Sony aren’t cynical. As much as I love The Amazing Spider-Man movies, I’m well aware the only reason they exist is because Sony desperately wanted to keep the rights. They spent a stupid amount of money on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to the point where it needed to make a billion dollars at the box office in order to make a decent profit (a feat only achieved at that time by Batman with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) and they crammed loads of characters and plot points into an already overstuffed movie in order to rush out their own shared universe to compete with Marvel. When that didn’t work, they went crawling to Marvel and Disney in the hopes that the MCU could bail them out of the shit. I get it. There’s plenty to criticise. But for the likes of Kevin Smith and other idiots to only blame Sony and defend Marvel is really quite galling to me because Marvel and Disney are just as cynical, if not more so.
Does anyone here actually know what the deal was? Basically the agreement was that Kevin Feige would get lead producer credit for any solo Spider-Man films and Marvel and Disney would get five percent of the cut. Meanwhile Spider-Man would be allowed to appear in any MCU film. Also, because Sony still hold the rights to the character, they get the final say on any creative decision regarding Spider-Man. Or at least that’s the theory anyway. In reality that wasn’t the case. Reportedly Marvel and Disney were so anal about keeping the plot of Avengers: Endgame a secret that they didn’t tell the screenwriters of Spider-Man: Far From Home what happens in the bloody film. And considering that the film follows directly on from Endgame, that’s quite a problem. Sony may have creative control over Spider-Man, but Marvel and Disney can still call the shots, deliberately sabotaging Sony in order to boost hype for their own films. Also Sony are actually worse off in this deal because Marvel and Disney are the ones making all the money. Spider-Man has appeared in three MCU films. Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. All three of these films made Marvel and Disney over a billion dollars at the box office. Sony meanwhile have only made two Spidey movies, Homecoming and Far From Home, only one of which has made over a billion and both of which Marvel and Disney get five percent of the profit. Now that Sony have finally got their billion dollar Spider-Man movie, Marvel and Disney had the cheek to propose that Sony share fifty percent of the profits with them. Because it’s not enough for Marvel and Disney to be making shit tons of money off their own films. No. They also want as much money as they can get out of films made by other studios that are only tangentially related to their’s. God forbid a movie studio should be allowed to keep all the profits from their movie.
So yeah, I’m glad Sony have split and are free to make their own movies again. Because Disney have got such a strangle hold on the entire industry that I’m always happy to see any studio or IP slip through their fingers. And I’m not the only one who thinks this. Do you know who else agrees with me? Stan Lee’s own daughter.
In an interview with TMZ, Joan Lee slammed Disney for their lack of compassion when her father passed away:
“When my father died, no one from Marvel or Disney reached out to me. From day one, they have commoditised my father’s work and never shown him or his legacy any respect or decency. In the end, no one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney’s executives.”
She then went on to support Sony’s decision to break the deal with Marvel, saying ‘whether it’s Sony or someone else’s, the continued evolution of Stan’s characters and his legacy deserves multiple points of view.’
And do you know what? She’s right. She’s absolutely right.
While people were celebrating when Disney bought 20th Century Fox because the X-Men and Fantastic Four were finally going to be part of their precious shared universe, I was watching in absolute horror because nobody was actually talking about the ramifications of this. Disney serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when capitalism goes unchecked. Seeing this mega-corporation consume and absorb other major studios like some Lovecraftian monster is both frightening and heartbreaking for me because the industry is going to be so much lesser for it. Less studios means less movies are going to be produced. It also means less variety in the entertainment we consume. Marvel and Disney have already done their utmost to homogenise and dumb down every MCU film to the point where most of them all feel the same, look the same and have nothing unique or creative about them whatsoever. And now we’re on the cusp of seeing that potentially happening to my most favourite superhero in the whole wide world:
Thanks to the Disney buyout, plans for X-Force and Deadpool 3 have been placed on indefinite hold with people reckoning we won’t see the Merc with the Mouth again until Phase 5 (Christ, give me strength) of the MCU so that Marvel and Disney can work out exactly how to fit him into their shared universe. Naturally the R rated nature of the character makes him difficult to integrate into the PG-13 MCU. Some have suggested toning down the character. Even David Leitch, the director of Deadpool 2, said they could make a PG-13 version of the character, which just feels like such a massive betrayal. After literally years of Ryan Reynolds, director Tim Miller, screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, and the fans fighting tooth and claw to get an R rated Deadpool movie green-lit, it sickens me whenever I see people discussing how a PG-13 Deadpool wouldn’t be so bad and that they just want to see him pop up in an Avengers movie.
Here’s a suggestion. If you can’t make someone like Deadpool fit into the MCU, STOP TRYING TO FUCKING DO IT! Let him be his own separate thing! I’ve got no problem with that! But no. Everything has to be connected to this idiotic shared universe, but here’s the thing, I really don’t fucking care. I couldn’t give two shits if Deadpool and Captain America were to meet in a movie. I just want to see X-Force and Deadpool 3. I just want some good fucking movies. Is that really too much to ask?
The MCU, and by extension Disney, are slowly ruining the industry with this shared universe crap and I’m getting so bloody sick of this. Not only does the premise have absolutely nothing new to offer at this point, it’s also ruining the quality of standalone movies. Instead of telling compelling stories with likeable characters, they’re just adverts for more movies to come with nothing unique to offer. Oooooh, can the Avengers stop Thanos and unkill everyone who we know aren’t really dead because they all have fucking sequels planned? Tune in next week to confirm what you already bloody know! I don’t give a fuck what you’ve got planned for me down the road in ten or fifteen movies time. Right now I’m stuck here at a service station and I’ve got no fucking sandwiches.
Off the top of my head, the only MCU films I can think of that I’ve watched in recent memory and I’ve actually enjoyed are Captain America: Civil War and Black Panther. And do you know why? Because they actually have something to say. They’re not focused on teasing the next bullshit spinoff movie. Black Panther in particular has little to no connection with the rest of the MCU. It works as its own standalone piece and has its own unique voice, commenting on how black people are viewed in society. Civil War takes elements from previous films and goes in an entirely new direction with them, exploring the faults in our beloved Avengers and questioning their role as superheroes. It offers something beyond a tease for the next film. It poses thought provoking questions about the characters and forces us to confront some harsh truths about them. But in an environment like the MCU, where everything is pre-planned by committee, there’s no room for creativity or expression, which means the few good movies get stifled. It’s impossible to continue the themes of Civil War because Homecoming exists to contradict everything. Black Panther is an amazing and impactful movie, but its impact is lessened thanks to Infinity War where we see the Wakandans reduced to little more than cannon fodder so that the real heroes can fight the baddie.
It’s frustrating to see people blindly accept and support the poisonous business model of Marvel and Disney because it’s not normal, it’s not benefiting the industry at large and it’s not even financially viable in the long term. Marvel Studios’ success revolves around one franchise. What happens when the shared universe/comic book movie bubble bursts and people eventually stop watching these films? (and it will happen because it always happens. That’s how trends work). They’re going to be up shit street, aren’t they? At least Warner Bros have Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings to fall back on. Their future isn’t entirely dependant on the success of the DCEU (thank God, some might say).
Also it’s worth noting that studios are slowly starting to move away from the shared universe format. Before the buyout, 20th Century Fox were taking risks with smaller budget, standalone movies like Deadpool and Logan. After the disaster that was Justice League, Warner Bros and DC have recently started focusing more on standalone movies to great success. Aquaman and Shazam, while still part of the DCEU, work as their own independent films. We’ve also got Joker being released in a couple of months time, which I think everyone should be paying really close attention to, because if Joker is critically and commercially successful, it could very well serve as the death knell for the concept of a shared universe. Definitive proof that you don’t need twenty movies and interconnecting stories with massive budgets to be successful. All you need is a very good idea.
Even Sony have finally learnt their lesson. They’ve taken a risk with Into The Spider-Verse and received an Academy Award for their trouble. As for Sony’s Universe Of Marvel Characters, they’re already off to a strong start with Venom. And mercifully they’re not making the same mistakes they did with the Amazing Spider-Man 2 or Ghostbusters. They’re not spending ridiculous amounts of money with unrealistic expectations of success and they’re no longer putting the cart way before the horse. They’re focusing on making a good movie first and worrying about potential expansion later. Venom may not be a masterpiece, but it’s a hell of a lot more entertaining and fulfilling than the majority of MCU films because it tells a complete story with a beginning, middle and end and it has well developed characters that we actually like and grow attached to. And if worst comes to the worst and Sony’s next film, Morbius, doesn’t do well, then they have Venom 2 to fall back on. And if that doesn’t work, they’ll still have Spider-Verse. They are no longer putting all their eggs in one basket and that’s good. That’s the smart thing to do.
Can you imagine something like Venom in the MCU? Of course not! Because Venom has its own unique tone and vision. That’s why it was so successful with audiences. Its mix of dark comedy and campy sci-fi horror made it stand out from the crowd. Marvel and Disney want us to believe that there’s only one way to make a superhero movie, when that’s simply not true. And now that Spider-Man is free to find his own unique voice again, hopefully people will begin to see just how creatively limiting and damaging the MCU truly is.
245 notes
·
View notes
Note
I just spent hours going through the search results for ‘meta’ on your blog, and there’s so much interesting stuff there, and it’s way too late at night now, but it was so worth it. Anyway, I love your leverage meta and was wondering if you could talk about the leverage crew interacting/working with others? (ie two live crew job, the last dam job), especially when they’re allies and/or people they’re actively working against in different scenarios (like chaos)
First of all, thank you so much nonny, that means so much to see that you appreciate my meta! I put a lot of thought into it and it gives me such joy to see that others appreciate my rambling and overthinking about fictional characters. Truly, you have made my evening. ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
Second of all, this is such an interesting meta question and I’m excited to answer it!
Oh man, if anybody was in any doubt that the Leverage team are hugely protective of each other, their interactions with their allies would blow that misconception out of the water. Note that I’m not including Sterling in this because that would be a whole post by itself and I personally don’t see Sterling as an ally. He’s been their ally at times but they’ve never really trusted him--he’s more like a comfortable antagonist. But anyway.
When the team has to deal with an ally, or team up with anyone really, they close ranks. Mr. Quinn is a bit of an exception since Eliot has no personal beef with him (more on that later) but Tara, Chaos, Archie? Slamming the fucking door in their faces. Maggie is the only real exception (gonna tackle her last). No matter how many squabbles might be going on, no matter if the rest of the team wants to strangle Nate with a piano wire (in a loving way), once someone else is introduced, they prove what a family they have become by uniting as one and going, and whom the fuckst might you be?
Let’s start with the longest ally relationship they have: Tara
Tara was, I think, a great addition to the team. I think she really challenged them and in ways that they needed. Eliot, Hardison, and Parker all quickly latched onto Sophie as a mom figure (in different ways--Eliot behaves like an oldest sibling with her, he’s old enough not to need her anymore but he knows he can turn to her if he needs her and she’s his ally when they’re making decisions, but Parker heavily relies on Sophie for guidance). Having Sophie ripped away from them forces them to stand on their own two feet more. It forces them to deal with Nate themselves instead of using Sophie as a shield. And Nate, well, we all see how he falls apart without Sophie and tries to blame her when it’s really himself.
The team closes ranks around Tara immediately. Nate doesn’t kick her to the curb for two reasons only: they need a grifter, and Sophie trusts Tara. Tara’s beautifully unapologetic behavior (insisting on getting a profit from their jobs, not babying Nate) doesn’t help in keeping the team at arm’s length, but Tara knows her worth and knows they’ll come around, and sure enough, they do.
Oddly enough, Tara’s really great for the team because they prove to themselves that they really are a family by her being there. Season one’s theme, as stated by the producers/writers, is all about family, and in season two we see the team really internalize that and realize that it’s true, they are a family. Through the adversity of losing Sophie and having to adjust, they recognize what they have truly become.
(I would argue that this is also the season where the OT3 realizes how deep their feelings for one another are as a result, but that’s another post for another time.)
By the end of the season of course we see them accept Tara as a friend and ally even if they’re loathe to admit it because all the members of the team are loathe to admit when they’re wrong about something. But their interactions with Tara show the team how they’ve become set in their ways, in their dynamic, and makes them question why, and makes them realize what a family they are.
Which is why it’s such a beautiful ending with Nate going to jail and the feeling of betrayal when they realize he’s not coming with them--they’ve spent all season going oh shit, we’re a family, we’re really in this together, okay, and then to have Nate make his plan without them and to abandon them even if you can understand that he did it to protect them...
So yes, the team’s interactions with Tara basically show them what a family they have become and set the entire thing up for Nate’s sacrifice at the end of the season, bless you Tara, you queen, I’m single, please call me.
The other ally that the team has that they’re automatically sort of forced to accept (the way that because of Sophie they were forced to accept Tara) is of course Archie.
That motherfucker.
Look Archie is a charming bastard but he’s still a rat bastard and I will punch him in the face if I ever meet him and y’know what he’ll probably understand. The fact that in The Last Dam Job we see him say to his bewildered daughter “that’s my daughter” about Parker, proving that he STILL, after EVERYTHING, hasn’t introduced Parker to his family? Ahaha. We are in a fight, sir, we are in a MASSIVE fight.
Archie only appears in one other episode but like Nate’s dad shows us so much of who Parker is and why she’s the way she is. We’ve got Parker’s family backstory, her asshole father whom she killed, but there’s still a big gap between that and how she became a thief, and Archie fills that gap. And the way the team reacts to him is fantastic because the only one who closes ranks around him is Nate.
Nate, who also has a rough relationship with his father, Nate who treats Parker like his own daughter, Nate who mentors Parker into becoming a mastermind. Nate who was also a father. Nate hates Archie, because Archie should’ve helped teach Parker to become a person, and instead he taught her to become a weapon.
Hardison, Eliot, and Sophie? They are extremely protective of course and they are not fans of Archie, but they are a bit busy getting Parker to safety, they respect how important Archie is to Parker, and they are proud of Parker. They know who and what she is. They know that Archie will see the proof in the pudding.
But Nate, Nate is so goddamn offended, and I think this is the moment he realizes that Parker really is like family to him, and really takes responsibility for her growth. I think this is the episode where Nate goes, oh, she’s going to be my successor. Parker is going to be the new mastermind.
It’s so great to watch as Nate’s the one knocked off-balance by an ally, rather than the OT3, showing his hand more than the others.
Then there’s the other main player during The Last Dam Job: Chaos
Oh Chaos. We all love to hate you. Chaos is absolutely everything that fuckboy nerds often are, the thing that makes women hide their love of geeky things, he is the gatekeeping asshole that thinks nerds are still the most oppressed class and probably goes on rants about fake geek girls.
The seething hatred that Parker, Hardison, and Eliot have for Chaos is hilarious but understandable, but what’s interesting is how nobody in the team seems surprised by what an asshole Chaos is. Sophie and Nate just kind of roll their eyes at him. Eliot’s angry at Chaos for Parker and Hardison’s sake. Hardison feels that his professional pride is offended, that anyone would ever consider Chaos and Hardison to be in the same category, and he’s angry at how Parker is treated by him. And Parker is pissed off by Chaos’s objectifying comments.
But none of them seem surprised.
You know the moments when the team is taken aback in disgust by someone, we see it all the time when a team member realizes just how awful a mark truly is. Even Nate has his moments where you can see him actively wondering if maybe he should just scrap the whole plan and throw the mark out the window. But with Chaos, it’s par for the course.
Because sadly, very sadly, as I said--Chaos represents what we expect nerds to be.
Okay so brief history recap, the whole ‘nerds get bullied’ was a thing that absolutely happened for a period of time back when reading comics and science fiction was considered lowbrow. Comics were for younger children, not high schoolers, fantasy writers were considered hack writers (you can read Ursula K. LeGuin’s excellent essays on the matter), and in fact a lot of parents thought reading comics and science fiction and the like was bad for you. Then when computers first came onto the scene, they were very new and difficult to navigate. Something parents are finding nowadays is how damn easy it is for their young kids to navigate and use electronic devices, and so kids will often, to the horror of their parents, get onto social media sites and see things they shouldn’t because the parents didn’t realize how easily their child could access and learn to use these things. Because back in the ‘80s, it was a lot harder to navigate the internet and computers. So if you were hugely into them, you were an outlier.
But those days of comic books, science fiction, and computers being things that only fringe communities got into are LONG gone. Women have always been a part of those communities although, surprise, nobody wants to mention it, and they’re even more so nowadays. Even when Leverage was being filmed, superheroes were cool! Several Batman movies had been wildly successful, the Sam Raimi Spiderman films had been box office hits, Lord of the Rings had won A MOTHERFUCKING OSCAR. In fact, it SWEPT THE OSCARS.
Geeks and nerds were no longer someone to laugh at and bully, especially straight white male nerds. And yet, these sad excuses for human beings continue to whine and bully and show their true racist, misogynistic, self-centered mindsets by insisting that they are bullied and ignored and can’t get dates because of their “nerdy” interests.
Newsflash: it’s not because of your interests, it’s because you’re assholes.
Chaos represents that. He is the WORST kind of nerd, and unfortunately, probably the kind of nerd that gets into the criminal world because he has a superiority complex and a chip on his shoulder. So if you watch the crew, they’re all pissed off by him, but none of them are surprised by him.
In fact, that’s why they recruit him for their team in The Last Dam Job!
Chaos tried to murder Sophie, he tried to murder Sophie’s old friend, he makes derogatory and objectifying remarks about Parker, and it’s all EXACTLY par for the course for hackers. Hardison is the hacking exception. He’s a gentleman, he’s black, he’s emotionally mature and aware, he’s thoughtful, and his “age of the geek, baby” catchphrase isn’t bitter and plotting “oh how I shall make you all rue the day you bullied me” it’s ecstatic and fun. He knows that the people who don’t appreciate his skills will come around in time. He’s not going to be an asshole about it.
The team recruits Chaos for the job not just because he’s the last person that their enemies will expect but because if they went out to find another hacker, they’d run into people who were just like Chaos in personality and behavior. Chaos is, at least (and ironically given his moniker), a known evil, he’s someone they understand and therefore can to a certain degree control. The team goes damn easy on him during this job. They could’ve taken the opportunity to make his life MISERABLE while he was distracted working for them. But they didn’t. They just roll their eyes and make quips about wanting to kill him.
Note that the other people in the Two Live Crew Job, the hitter and the thief, are treated very much as novelties. Eliot and Parker seem amused by them like they’re shiny new toys, but we also get the impression that they’re glad to see the back of them because the shine of these new toys would wear off rather quickly. Meeting someone who’s exactly like you is fun for a short bit but it can’t last--you’re too alike for any kind of relationship (platonic, romantic, or otherwise) to work long-term.
Chaos is hated by the team and they absolutely close ranks around him. Eliot and Hardison don’t even take their eyes off him and Eliot tells Mr. Quinn to do the same. The whole team works to keep Chaos away from Parker so that she doesn’t even have to deal with his presence. But given the insane revenge that the team has planned against others who’ve tried to kill them, and especially given that the last time someone made Parker upset Eliot and Hardison literally offered to kill the man, it’s unusual that they let Chaos off so easily. And it’s not out of a sense of “you’re our ally” honor. They screw over Sterling when he’s supposed to be their ally as well (although Sterling is also screwing over them, so...) so it can’t be that.
I honestly think it’s that they feel that Chaos is one symptom of a disease. He’s one type of cancer in a long, long line of cancers. Knock him down, and another incel asshole is gonna take his place.
So why bother? Why bother, when instead they can just keep Chaos on a tight leash. Better the devil you know, and thanks to his inability to shut up and his ego, they know Chaos very, very well.
Then we have Mr. Quinn, who is very interesting in that he’s one of those instances where you have to read into Eliot’s silences to get a lot about him. Now, unlike Moreau, I’m not saying that Quinn and Eliot were ever a thing. They could’ve been, sure, but I don’t personally get that vibe from them. What we get from Quinn is a window into how the rest of the criminal world sees Eliot.
Now, we learn in The Girls’ Night Out Job what the criminal world thinks of Parker. “You’re the Parker?” People know of Parker and how crazy she is, even if they don’t necessarily know her gender. We get a lot of what the criminal world thinks of Sophie, from Sterling to British nobility to everything and everyone in between. Hardison doesn’t have as much of a repuatation yet but as I’ve stated elsewhere Hardison is twenty-two at the start of the series, he’s still establishing himself, even in the relatively young game of hacking. But other than Damien Moreau, we don’t really get a huge look into what people think of Eliot (and Moreau isn’t even a proper look at Eliot the professional, he’s a look at Eliot the person, but I’m not recapping my entire goddamn Moreau/Eliot meta it’s under my tag y’all can go find it).
So Quinn is our one foray into how Eliot is seen by the criminal world, and the overwhelming emotion is: respect.
Unlike Chaos, or even Parker and her counterpart from the Two Live Crew Job, Quinn and Eliot respect each other and don’t take anything personally. They sort of accept that they’re on opposite sides out of a sense of honor--staying loyal to the person writing their checks--but it’s nothing personally antagonistic. And we see this with the other hitmen that Eliot tangles with 90% of the time. There’s no personal beef, it’s just doing their job, (and we get hilarious exchanges like Eliot being frustrated with amateurs, “how are you gonna improve,” etc), and that’s extremely fascinating considering how very personally Hardison, Sophie, Parker, and even Nate take it when they’re up against someone of their own field.
It all, for me anyway, harkens back to the talk between Sophie and Eliot in the boxing ring about Eliot’s rage and violence, and how he explains that he doesn’t let it own him and he has it under control. Being a hacker is who Hardison is, being a thief is who Parker is, being a grifter is who Sophie is (and that’s part of what spurs her season two journey to find herself), and Nate, well, we all see for five seasons how Nate struggles with his sense of identity. But Quinn and other hitter allies show us that being a hitter is what Eliot does, it’s not who he is. Eliot is a chef, he’s a boyfriend, he’s a lover, he’s a protector. He separates his identity from the job and it’s incredibly healthy of him and he’s possibly the only one of the team who can do that and I think that’s absolutely fascinating and another way in which the Leverage writing team uses Eliot to deconstruct the trope of the violent small-town white army boy hitman and blow it up to smithereens.
Because normally, Eliot would be the person most married to his job, the person least in touch with his emotions, the person constantly tempted by violence and to lose himself in his role. But instead he can walk away from it. In fact he wants to walk away from it, he wants to distance himself from the violent person he became and the things he did, he wants to become someone new (and did, when he fled Moreau and Toby taught him how to cook).
Mr. Quinn is our key to going, oh huh, hitters and bodyguards, ‘retrieval experts’, they don’t identify themselves with their jobs the way the other roles do, and that sets up a really interesting dynamic and I love it.
Finally, we have arguably the most interesting ally, which is Maggie.
A quick note on Maggie: While she is an ally, Hardison, Parker, and Eliot seem to view Maggie as separate from most of their other allies because she’s Nate’s ex-wife. Tension with Maggie comes more from Sophie and Nate. Eliot does flirt with her and score the date with her but the moment he realizes who she is he seems to go on the date purely for spying purposes for Nate--her being Nate’s former anything immediately puts her in this special category for the OT3 where they’re more excited to watch Nate responding to her than they are anything else. The OT3 don’t see her as any kind of threat--they rightly recognize that any interpersonal issues attached to her are Nate’s to deal with, and the OT3 have always been good about detaching themselves from Nate’s problems, calling Nate out on them, and not taking on Nate’s problems like they’re their own.
And I love how they write Maggie. She’s an ally who’s a civilian and the team treats her differently as a result. The OT3 want her for juicy information on Nate. She’s never once treated like a harpy, like a bitch, as a one-dimensional prop for Nate’s backstory. Sophie likes and respects Maggie. Maggie is a foil to the team because she reminds all of them of Nate’s fallibility, and she really shows them how they’re seen in the eyes of the public. She likes them, she’ll even join them occasionally, but she doesn’t 100% endorse them, and the team knows it, so they use her judiciously. In The Last Damn Job they use her precisely because she’s not a criminal, and you know that the team would welcome her into their lives if she wanted it, but also maintain a distance out of respect. They all adore Maggie, they find her fascinating, and it’s such a delight with the way ex-wives or ex-girlfriends are usually written.
They say that to really know a person, you have to know their friends and their enemies. And that holds true in this show. To see the status of the team, you have to look at how they treat their allies and their enemies, and so through seeing their allies, you see the team better. And I love that. A+ writing.
So those, nonny, are my random rambling thoughts on the team’s allies! Sorry it took me a few days to get to this, I hope you enjoyed it!
223 notes
·
View notes
Text
1980s Science Horror, Body Horror
One might be forgiven for thinking the 1980s was a time of wall-to-wall terrible horror movies. I’ve certainly inflicted plenty of them on @comicreliefmorlock since we started this decade in our film series! The fact is that the 80s were a really unique time, when demand outpaced supply thanks to the eruption of new publishing platforms (direct-to-consumer video sales, multi-screen cineplexes). Much as self-publishing today has created a deluge of questionable ebooks, the film industry of the 1980s was at times a no-mans land of low-budget amateur attempts with, uh, mixed results.
Of course, perhaps the greatest of these was Evil Dead, which I review here. Sam Raimi’s low-budget, high-gore, balls-to-the-wall ridiculous film laid a template for many films to follow, with...mixed success.
Because that’s another thing you see happening with great vigor in the 1980s: When one movie is very successful, you start to see dozens more cropping up to capitalize on the formula, often lacking the heart or soul of what made the original good to begin with. For every Gremlins, there were a dozen inferior Critters, Ghoulies, Beasties, Trolls, Munchies, and so forth.
Of course, this isn’t the only time in history we’ve seen this -- we saw it in the 1930s (when studios were cranking out films by handing titles at random to filmmakers, a-la-Cat People) and in the 1960s (when Hammer was exploiting every well-known property it could think of, and some random unknowns besides). But, perhaps due to their relative modernity, the really terrible shlock of the 1980s seems especially egregious.
All of which is to lay down the framework for this week’s films: One, a terrible direct-to-video B-movie. The other, a genuinely magnificent and effective piece of horror history.
youtube
Nightbeast (1982) is a low-budget indie film created by pulp director Don Dohler and released by Troma Entertainment, a film company that gained notoriety in the 70s and 80s for releasing gory, over-the-top, ridiculously cheesy B-movies. Troma was like the sleazy American cousin of Hammer, fulfilling the same niche.
Nightbeast is extremely simple: An alien spacecraft crash-lands on Earth, the alien goes on a killing spree, and a small-town sheriff has to try to stop it as the body count rises.
It’s a remarkably silly film. The effects are, at best, similar to what you might find in a haunted house built from Spirit Halloween props. At worst, there’s clumsily animated laser beams disintegrating people into pixelated sparkle-dust. Heavy-handed dialogue, awkwardly blocked fight scenes, and acting on the level of soft-core porn come together to create....uh...something.
Of note: This was the first film that J.J. Abrams worked on. At 16, he provided the film’s score, after writing to Dohler about an article in a magazine. The creative world was smaller in those days, I think.
Anyway. Nightbeast is absurd, and good MST3K fodder, as we’ve said of many of our recent films. If you like bad movies, this one’s pretty silly. (personally, I liked the decapitation with the obvious mannequin head the best)
youtube
The Fly (1986) is one of David Cronenberg’s masterpieces. You’ll remember him, surely, from when we watched The Brood. The grand-daddy of body horror, he truly outdid himself with The Fly, which is one of his most expensive and commercial films.
The thing with Cronenberg is that he has a very specific style and thematic hang-ups, so you’ll see a lot of the same issues resonate from one film to the next -- science gone awry, unhealthy interpersonal relationships, transformation, horrifyingly gooey body fluids. (We’re not quite done with Cronenberg, so watch this space for more of his films in the future).
Anyway: The Fly is about a scientist who invents a teleportation machine that disintegrates an object and rebuilds it on the other side. A drunken, emotionally distraught decision sees him testing it on himself, only to experience disastrous consequences when a fly is caught in the teleporter with him.
The story is a very loose adaptation of a short story of the same name written by George Langelaan in 1957. That short story was later adapted into a film starring Vincent Price in 1958. But where that first adaptation was quite close to the source material, Cronenberg’s vision leads in some....more horrible directions.
There are basically two things that make The Fly an excellent film that stands up today:
- Jeff Goldblum’s performance. We’ve established that Goldblum plays essentially the same character in all of his movies, and it’s fine because he’s very good at it (and the character type is quite compelling, if you’re into that sort of thing). The kooky, self-effacing-yet-arrogant charismatic scientist trope is catnip for a certain type of nerdling (hi, that’s me, I’m that nerdling), and his acting in this film is just so, so good, especially the work he puts into expressions and physical acting once the transformation prosthesis start building.
- The effects. Practical effects really did peak in the late 80s/early 90s, and movie magic has never looked better. The CGI that took over by the 2000s has more polish, but animatronics and makeup look real because they are real in a way that computer animation can never hope to emulate. That lack of polish is exactly what makes them so effective. The slow, horrifying transformation into a fly-inspired monster is gooey and spectacular. I suspect Cronenberg may have been somewhat inspired by Lynch’s adaptation of The Elephant Man a few years earlier -- there are some similarities in design -- but the devil is in the details. Teeth and nails coming loose, collections of discarded body parts in a medicine cabinet, ragged bristles of hair emerging from pus-laden wounds -- this is true, exquisite body horror and it’s fucking gross as hell.
But for all its focus on body horror -- and honestly, the horror of transformation is the main drive of the film -- the movie doesn’t lose the humanity at its heart. It strives to keep its central characters complex, flawed, and deeply human, and that grounding elevates it past the B-movie schlock.
I can earnestly and enthusiastically recommend this movie, if you have a strong enough stomach to take it.
(Curiously enough, The Fly not only spawned a sequel -- quite good in its own right -- but a 2008 stage musical produced by Howard Shore. We live in strange creative times, friends.)
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hellboy 2019 is a movie
-I remember when this was coming out, there was talk that the reboot was so this could be closer to the source material, but it’s largely the same tone, themes, and plot points as GDT’s version, just without really any of the charm or heart (at some points, it’s all but a shot-for-shot remake of the first film). The movie hurdles so quickly from one plot point, special effect, and action sequence to the next that there’s no time to get to know the characters, care about them, or have any investment in the proceedings. It’s like they expected the audience to have watched the other movies and already have a working knowledge of the universe, even though this is supposed to be a new take altogether.
Really, it feels like the producers were trying to turn this movie into a Deadpool spin-off, with lots of bloody violence, ADRed smart-aleck remarks, and pop songs. Weird, considering how broody, thoughtful, and atmospheric the comics often are.
For instance, the del Toro movies had this subplot of the monsters being benevolent, or harmless, or beautiful, or awe-inspiring, so you could kinda see their point when they complained about being oppressed by the humans, with the idea still being treated in a pretty nuanced, subdued way. Hellboy ‘19 does the same thing, but like--lobotomized. The monsters are all cannibals, baby kidnappers, or child eaters, so when they complain about being mistreated, it’s like--yeah, I should hope so, you fucking freaks!
And yet, the ‘seductive’ (read: super-boring in design and performance) Nimue just has to say “what if humans aren’t shit?” to Hellboy for thirty seconds and he’s having a shouting match with his father about being forced to kill ‘his brothers’. And with the infamous detail of Hellboy being unable to have sex with human women making one of his primary motivations being to get laid, the whole thing approaches self-parody.
-In fact, between the copious, plasticy CGI and, well, Milla Jovovich, this movie comes off as distinctly low-rent compared to GDT’s work. When they do their version of Hellboy’s origin, it feels like a porn parody next to del Toro doing the real thing. And man, it’s 2019, read the room. Did they really think nerds wanted all the practical effects del Toro lovingly used replaced with lackluster CGI?
youtube
youtube
-I’m irrationally angered by the scene where bad guys are electrocuting Hellboy. He stumbles into a river. They walk into the river and keep electrocuting him. You’d think, by action movie rules, that they’d be electrocuted too, or this would be the set-up for Hellboy cleverly turning the tables on them, but they just... electrocute a guy who’s standing in the same water that they’re in and are totally unharmed.
-There was a shell game when this was being made, with an Asian character being cast with a white man and an Irish character being cast with a black woman, and that going back and forth, and I guess my main thought would be that, as long as they’re playing so fast and loose with the characters... why have Daniel Dae Kim do such a horrendous British accent? Why not just make the character American? It’d make about as much sense as everything else in this movie.
-It’s especially egregious considering that Daimo’s heritage is supposed to be super-important to his character, but as the movie plays it, he pretty much just happened to be bitten by a werejaguar, while Alice’s backstory is all tangled up in the Fae and Irish mythology, but fuck it, she’s a black chav now, as played by an African-American/Maori woman. Nice cultural appropriation there.
-The movie is so rushed and breathless that you get a lot of the characters saying they’re best friends, but not really coming off that way, compared to how del Toro made Hellboy and Abe such good pals, or Hellboy and Liz romantic partners. The stuff with HB and Alice is particularly bad. They insist they’re old, trusted friends, but the way the movie tells it, they met when she was a baby and there seems like no reason they would’ve been in contact at any point since. Hellboy and Manning had more repartee under GDT than the male and female lead have in this version.
-Also, at one point, the villain starts a super-plague devastating London, with a hundred thousand people expected to die within two hours, and people being told to stay inside and avoid any human contact. But later, the Apocalypse starts and there need to be a bunch of civilians going about their day for the demons to menace, so… a bunch of people just walk around in the middle of a pandemic. It’s just shockingly lazy. We need crowds of screaming people for the crowds of screaming people shot, so fuck it, crowds of screaming people!
-There’s a definite air of flop sweat to the movie including three stingers, all promising more crazy adventures and beloved characters to come (like Lobster Johnson! Kids love Lobster Johnson, right?). Uhh... yeah. Why’d they make this new version if they have to end it promising to bring back stuff from the old version?
-I can’t help but think that letting GDT end his trilogy, even if it didn’t make boffo box office, would’ve at least guaranteed some goodwill for the franchise. I can’t imagine the audience being up for the inevitable Netflix show or cartoon or whatever after this reboot kinda slapped them in the face. It’s ironic. They tried to make the Hellboy series more of a blockbuster by making it arguably less accessible--R-rated, more faithful to the comics--and ended up taking it from sleeper hit to outright flop, with neither the movie fans or comic fans being particularly impressed. Like kicking Bryan Singer off X-Men or Sam Raimi off Spider-Man, maybe there’s a lesson in there about killing the goose that lays the golden--or at least silver--eggs.
22 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Bruce Campbell Confirms He’s Done With Evil Dead; Wants To See A Remake Like ‘Evil Dead 2′.
Here’s a quick look at Bruce Campbell’s press conference from San Diego Comic-con.
Bruce Campbell is a legend among horror and cult film enthusiasts. The man has had a long career that spans through the decades and his fanbase has been him following along the way since he swung an ax to kill some Deadites in Evil Dead. The Sam Raimi directed film has been seen a classic over the years and has warranted sequels, comics, video games, a remake, and even a TV series on Starz. Some of the levels of popularity towards the film can be contributed to Campbell’s great acting and comedic timing.
Though the actor has popped in other movies and shows where he’s able to stretch his acting legs, the dude will always be known as Ashely J. Williams, aka The Chosen One, in the hearts of his fans.
The Starz network had decided to allow the chance for Ivan Raimi and Sam Raimi to team up with Bruce Campbell once again in order to bring the story of Ash battling the Deadites in Ash Vs. Evil Dead series. The show was a big hit among the franchise’s fans but unfortunately was canceled after three seasons due to dwindling rating numbers. Since then, Campbell has announced that he was retiring from the character and pursue other ventures.
Never one to stay down for too long, Campbell found himself hosting and producing the Travel Channel’s rehash of a classic show, Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. The premise is to showcase extraordinary people with gifts and certain abilities one would not considering normal but awe-inspiring, nonetheless.
To help promote the show, Campbell was present at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con and Screen Geek was there at the press conference. While there, we could not help but ask the actor his take on a rumor about another Evil Dead movie being made by Raimi or if Campbell considers coming back to the role that made him legendary.
Sam Raimi has said that he’s determined to make another Evil Dead movie or continue the story and you’re retired form the character. Would you ever come out of retirement to play Ash one more time?
Bruce Campbell: It’s really amazing. I knew Sam was out doing PR. He produced a movie, right? Some alligator movie?
Crawl.
Bruce Campbell: Crawl, right. So, he’s out talking to everybody and that question—Sam’s out there you know that question is going to come up. So, he’s spewing all this bullshit, ‘Oh yeah! He might come out of retirement [Campbell]. Oh, we might make it with our without him,’ you know. Yeah, sure. So, the way the wonderful internet and good thorough journalism. ‘Campbell. Maybe coming back as Ash,’ and someone takes that, ‘Campbell says he’s coming back as Ash.’ Raimi says, ‘Yup. Go, go, go on Campbell.’ It’s like the telephone game. The further it gets removed, the more ridiculous the headline becomes.
Campbell continues:
Bruce Campbell: So, I watched a generic interview with Sam saying, ‘Maybe, maybe not,’ come into morph itself back into, ‘I’m starring as Ash.’ We want to keep the series going. To tell the continuing stories of innocent people, who have skills, going up against horrible, basically, very nasty evil spirits and trying to overcome that. To me, it’s still cool.
At least we know that the idea of continuing the world of Evil Dead is still somewhere in the back of the actor’s mind.
Campbell elaborates further:
Bruce Campbell: Whether it’s a woman lead or man lead. Whether it’s serious like the Evil Dead remake of a few years ago. That director did it completely dead straight. That’s a dead straight movie. First Evil Dead is pretty serious. There’s no joke until Evil Dead 2 and beyond.
Interesting take nonetheless from Campbell – but here’s where the actor gives his take on another Evil Dead property.
Bruce Campbell: I’d actually like to see a remake that is sorta like an Evil Dead 2. We let the lead character comment on what the hell is going on and let them be funny. Man or woman, you know.
A remake of Evil Dead 2 has never really been attempted. The remake of the first Evil Dead was to be a jumping-off point for more Evil Dead films. Allowing the comedic element of the original Evil Dead 2 would’ve been welcomed to the proposed remake franchise.
Alas, Campbell states once again his retirement from Ash.
Bruce Campbell: The only thing that is consistent is I’m not gonna put the chainsaw back on. It’s done, you know. We don’t wanna get what I call “The Star Wars” factor here. I’m leaning over a walker and it’s painted green for they can remove it from the show. I think you know what I’m talking about. There comes a time, it’s time. Because of Ash Vs. Evil Dead, we put everything on the table. We put everything on. We got—I got nothing to give. It’s all right there.
The actor proceeded to have a few laughs at his expense regarding his experience while working on the show.
Bruce Campbell: I screwed up my—what’s it called? Cecadian rhythm?
Person #1 in the crowd: Circadian rhythm.
Bruce Campbell: Pardon me.
*room laughs*
Bruce Campbell: Help us explain the circadian rhythm.
Person #1 in the crowd: No.
Bruce Campbell: You pronounced it correctly.
*Person #2 in the crowd explains what the circadian rhythm*
Bruce Campbell: Yeah, for three seasons—in March, Spring forward. Great. Go to New Zealand, three days later, they fall back. So, you’re in all fall. Come home in August, it’s all fall. Go to March, Spring forward. Go to New Zealand, fall back. It’s all fall. Three years of eternal fall will fuck you up so bad—
*Crowd laughs*
Bruce Campbell: I’m telling you. Not even kidding. [Joking] I’m glad they canceled that show.
*Crowd laughs*
Bruce Campbell: For my circadian rhythm. I’ve now repaired my circadian rhythm.
It looks like Bruce Campbell is dead serious about never come back to the world of Evil Dead as Ash. The actor more than deserves the retirement and maybe director Sam Raimi will bring fans of the franchise another iteration of the story. The possibilities are still endless for Evil Dead and people are hungry for more.
Check back here at ScreenGeek.net for all of your film news needs.
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
Thoughts on Song For Spider-Man
Remember that Song of Spider-Man book I bought a while back? The tell-all book by the co-writer of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark? The one that I hoped would be what I’ve wanted since news of that play’s disastrous production started - i.e. an in depth explanation and analysis of the production, detailing every creative decision and disastrous misstep?
Well, it’s not quite that, unfortunately. It’s more of a new piece of the Turn Off the Dark puzzle, rather than completed puzzle that I’ve been looking for. The world has yet to produce the exhaustive documentary on that musical that I crave. But as puzzle pieces go, it is a fairly large and enlightening one, albeit one that’s also deeply biased. It’s the story of a disaster from the perspective of one of the key players in that disaster, and, as you’d expect, is full of “this wasn’t my fault!” explanations and pleas of ignorance. I don’t know how much you can trust the narrative, even though (and honestly, because) it’s an enthralling and emotionally gripping read.
The biggest disappointment about the book for me is that it doesn’t go very deep into the creative journey of the musical, which is the aspect I’m most interested in. Instead it focuses more on the managerial aspects of it, which is admittedly where the drama is. There’s money woes, conflicts of personality, miscommunication, backstabbing, and negligence that leads to a lot of good people getting hurt - the juicy gossipy shit that drew most people in. As trainwrecks go it’s pretty compelling stuff, and the author uses the benefit of hindsight to foreshadow eventual dooms well in advance.
It’s a fun read and sheds some light on how that infamously troubled production became “a machine that teaches humility,” but it’s not the whole story, and as such my lust for the ultimate Turn off the Dark autopsy remains unsated.
Some scattered notes:
Julie Taymor was really only in this to tell the story of Arachne, and in fact was only sold on the idea when one of the producers showed her a page of a Spider-Man comic that mentioned the myth. The Arachne character and plotline was what ultimately got Julie fired, because not only did it shift focus from Spider-Man to an obscure Greek mythological character, but it also was built upon the musical’s worst songs AND required the most complicated set piece that no one could figure out how to accomplish, and yet Julie refused to let it go.
Incidentally, I’m nerdy enough to recognize from the brief description given in this book which Spider-Man comic the Arachne reference came from. It was Ultimate Spider-Man #1, and is made by Norman Osborn, who in the context of that comic is presented as a pretentious ass who uses bullshit philosophy to cover up his delusions of grandeur. There’s a bit of irony here is what I’m saying.
Another “oh god I AM a nerd” moment the book made me have: the writer claims that Green Goblin has used his goblin glider since his first appearance, but, um, ACTUALLY Green Goblin used a flying broomstick in his first few outings, and didn’t get the goblin glider until later. I remember this fact because it was in the Complete Guide to Spider-Man book I got when I was thirteen, and because the picture of the Green Goblin riding a mechanical jet-powered broomstick was delightfully stupid.
The above two facts are why I desperately want to know more about the creative process of this play - on the one hand, it has some obscure elements of the Spider-Man comics in it, like Swarm, the nazi-made-out-of-bees supervillain. On the other, it fucks up key aspects of the story, like having Uncle Ben get killed in a car crash that has nothing to do with Peter Parker whatsoever.
One of the things I gleaned was that most of the people involved - Julie Taymor, Bono, and the Edge specifically - seemed far more familiar withe the Sam Raimi movies than the comics, and also seemed more interested in their vague notion of what a superhero means rather than any actual pre-existing superhero story. There’s an air of condescension towards the source material, but I’m not sure how much of that is my own biased assumptions at work, the author’s definite bias, or an actually true analysis of the creative team. Again, I want a deeper look at what they were thinking!
One part of the creative process that was explained in an illuminating way regarded the music. Apparently, part of Bono’s process in songwriting involves him writing lyrics in “Bonoglese,” where the lyrics are just random words and Seussian things that sound vaguely like words but are actually nonsense, all mixed together in a way that does make a coherent thought at all. This explains why the lyrics in Turn Off the Dark’s songs are either instantly forgettable (and by that I mean you forget what the words were literally one second after they are sung) or, when memorable, are just... really bad, forced attempts at rhymes.
At one point Julie, Bono, the Edge, and the other writer agreed that they weren’t trying to make a musical so much as a “rock and roll circus experience,” which, y’know, is accurate.
The guy they got to replace Julie as director was actually FROM a circus. That’s not a joke, he literally directed a bunch of different circus shows, including ones with live animals and shit. So in some way an aspect of the original artistic vision remained.
As much as I love to make fun of this horrible show, reading the book did inspire some compassion in me. These people were all passionately dedicated to a very grand artistic vision, and they accomplished a lot of stuff that has never been tried in theater before. While a lot of horrible failures occurred, the amount of stuff they got right is still pretty notable, and a part of me wished they could find a way to make it work.
I felt especially bad when the book gets to the initial fan-reaction early in the musical’s production process, where I realized that the fan’s initial criticisms of the musical’s concepts did look kind of shallow and petty. I felt like a bit of a jerk for a moment.
Then another part of me remembered that the one song Julie Taymor refused to cut, comparing the demand for its excision to having a mastectomy, was the song where Arachne tells her minions to go buy her hundreds of shoes so she can seduce Peter Parker, because lol women love shoe shopping and if they had eight legs they’d love it even more AMIRITE? So, y’know, guilt rescinded, we were right to be skeptical.
That said, I am legitimately pissed that the producers adamantly refused to tape a single recording of the first version of Turn Off the Dark, aka Spider-Man 1.0, aka Julie Taymor’s (approximate) vision. Julie herself begged them to do so before and after she was fired and they didn’t listen and that sucks. I mean, it sounds like a trainwreck of a show, but it’s a trainwreck that’s BROADWAY HISTORY. It should be preserved! It belongs in a museum!
The tell-all book draws an obvious parallel between the relationship of Arachne (the brilliant and misunderstood but also megalomaniacal and controlling artist) and Spider-Man (the geeky young man who suddenly has great power and responsibility thrust onto him by the aforementioned older female artist, who he also has the hots for) and the relationship of Julie Taymor and himself. It’s pretty clever but also, like, a huge dick move since it implies Julie Taymor is a tragic villain that the author was forced to destroy just like Spider-Man is forced to destroy Arachne. Good writing, sure, but fucked up man.
“Spider-Man was not a musical, but rather a machine built to teach humility.” A fuckin’ excellent description, even if the account of that machine’s creation is pretty heavily biased.
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
Quibi Quibites the Dust: Why the Streamer Failed
https://ift.tt/eA8V8J
Let’s start off with an important disclaimer. The end of any major company means the loss of jobs and livelihoods for many hardworking people. Hundreds of Quibi employees will likely soon find themselves out of a job amid a global pandemic and a grim economic environment in the United States. We wish them the best of luck in quickly finding gainful employment at other stable entertainment entities.
Having said that, Quibi is dead…Quibi is finally, blissfully dead. Undoubtedly the first big dud of the streaming era came to an ignominious end today when the Wall Street Journal reported that Quibi Holdings LLC will elect to shut itself down in the face of non-existent viewership, mounting debts, and a patent lawsuit or two.
Quibi had previously been searching for a buyer to take on all its assets (and its debt) but had already been turned down by Apple, WarnerMedia, and Facebook – mostly because Quibi didn’t even own much of the content on its own servers. The company is expected to hold a conference call with investors today to discuss the decision to shut down.
The doomed streaming service was the dream of former Walt Disney Studios chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg who wagered that as long as he spent enough money on something, audiences could be convinced to care about it. This turned out to be not quite the case, but not for lack of trying and not for lack of money.
Founded as “NewTV” in August 2018, the concept of Quibi was a novel one. The streaming service would develop content to be consumed as “quick bites” (hence the name Quibi) that audiences would consume in 10 minute increments. That concept made just enough sense to spur a truly stupefying amount of deep-pocketed investors to step in to offer up their money. Before producing even one second of content, Quibi had raised $1.75 billion in pre-launch funding from film studios, telecom companies, banks, and more. That money helped Quibi launch with a truly impressive war chest. The streamer had more than 175 shows and movies lined up for its first year featuring an array of talent such as Chrissy Teigen, Sam Raimi, Sophie Turner, and more.
cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });
All was looking good in Quibi-land…and then Quibi actually launched on April 6, 2020. Within one week of the service’s arrival, it was quickly clear that this would be a once-in-a-generation case of corporate failure schadenfreude. Despite offering a 90-day free trial, Quibi found itself well outside of the Top 50 apps on the Apple app store one week after its release. The service could claim only just over 1 million active users, well below its initial expectations. Meanwhile, social media was alight with cringeworthy clips from Quibi’s shows.
Losing my fucking MIND at this Quibi show where actual Emmy winner Rachel Brosnahan plays a woman obsessed with her golden arm pic.twitter.com/rSfqCv75SG
— Zach Raffio (@zachraffio) April 15, 2020
The problems with Quibi were manyfold and will likely be the subject of media studies for years to come. So let’s just jump the gun on media historians and get into them right now.
For starters, Katzenberg, Quibi CEO Meg Whitman, and Quibi’s investors misunderstood how people engage with content in some breathtakingly arrogant and astonishing ways. While it’s likely true that audiences’ average attention spans have tightened in recent years, Quibi just decided to overlook the existence of hundreds of TV shows and movies that continue to absolutely kill it for other streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max. NBC Universal paid $500 million (or nearly one-third of the entirety of Quibi’s original investments) to secure the rights to The Office alone. And that’s because all evidence, both tangible and anecdotal, suggests time and time again that people are more than happy to binge 22-60 minute episodes.
Not only that, but Quibi was clearly targeted towards younger audiences…while fundamentally not understanding younger audiences. Per ad tracking firm iSpot, Quibi spent a staggering $63.7 million on television advertising to reach the coveted youth demographic, not realizing that that demographic likely wasn’t watching much traditional television advertisements in the first place. Not only that, but those young audiences already had their fair share of “quick bites” available to them, and for free. Mediums like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Tik Tok had mastered the art of short form content and had granted them to eager young audiences for only the cost of their digital soul (demographic information). Any capitalist worth their salt should be very aware that “Free + Sacrificing of Digital Privacy” will beat out “$4.99 a month + Also Probably Sacrificing of Digital Privacy” every time.
Then there’s the fact that Quibi was available only via mobile devices and not on streaming providers like Roku and Amazon Fire. In fact, it’s only this week that Quibi finally found its way to living room viewing devices This is because Quibi could only imagine a world in which people were dying to watch content on their phones and their phones alone. This meant that Quibi watchers couldn’t screenshot, gif, or meme any of the content on Quibi, which in turn created little meaningful social media buzz. Notice how that viral “Golden Arm” bit is recorded on a phone recording another phone.
But Quibi’s biggest downfall (and what makes said downfall so cathartic for so many) was its hubris. A Vulture story about the streaming service released just three months after its launch now reads more like Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias” than a piece of media analysis. It is filled with foreboding dispatches from a company unaware it was already dead. Katzenberg and Quibi CEO Meg Whitman come off as barely caring about television, with Whitman in particular saying “I’m not sure I’d classify myself as an entertainment enthusiast” and offering up only a History Channel special about President Ulysses S. Grant as an example of a TV show she likes.
That article also features the following truly awe-inspiring passage of corporate ineptitude and carelessness:
“When Gal Gadot came to the offices and delivered an impassioned speech about wanting to elevate the voices of girls and women, Katzenberg wondered aloud whether she might become the new Jane Fonda and do a workout series for Quibi. (‘Apparently, her face fell,’ says a person briefed on the meeting.)”
Not only did the folks at Quibi misunderstand the entertainment landscape, they misunderstood how their app was supposed to work in the first place. Quibi launched during the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, which would be a tough beginning for any company. But Quibi was in the streaming business, and should have hypothetically flourished alongside its many other streaming rivals with potential viewers across the world holed up in their houses with nothing but time and boredom to spare. In an interview with The New York Times, however, Katzenberg said “I attribute everything that has gone wrong to coronavirus. Everything.” In the minds of Katzenberg and Quibi’s investors, watching Quibi was a kinetic activity – something that someone would do while waiting in line for coffee or riding the subway.
It’s as though the decision-makers at Quibi bought into their own Silicon Valley Apple commercial bullshit in which a country full of beautiful people commuted to their high-paying jobs via readily available public transportation and just wanted to watch quick bites of other beautiful people entertaining them in 10-minute bursts during the brief downtimes in their exciting lives. Whereas other traditional streaming services continue to grow by presenting hours upon hours of bingeable ‘memberberries for a couch potato to have on in the background while they scroll through Instagram.
Based on Katzenberg’s New York Times post-mortem while the company was ostensibly pre-mortem, it seems as though no lessons will be learned here as well. Quibi is unquestionably the first biggest massive failure of the streaming era and it’s also unquestionably won’t be the last. That’s good news for casual onlookers craving the rightful humiliation of very rich executives and bad news for anyone hoping for the continued health of the entertainment industry post-COVID.
The post Quibi Quibites the Dust: Why the Streamer Failed appeared first on Den of Geek.
from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3jjYiGq
0 notes
Text
The Weekend Warrior Home and Quibi Edition July 17, 2020: WE ARE FREESTYLE LOVE SUPREME, DIRT MUSIC, THE PAINTED BIRD and More!
Apologies for being a day late with this week’s column... things came up.
Since this is a relatively quieter week, at least compared to last week, I want to talk about something that’s been getting a lot of ridicule and unwarranted hatred in recent months, and that is something called Quibi, and so…
IN PRAISE OF QUIBI
You know, I’ve heard a lot of shit-talking about Quibi for one reason or another. I think it’s mostly the “too cool for school” #FilmTwitter kids, who haven’t even bothered to watch half the programming and content on the streaming platform – which has absolutely nothing to do with movies, mind you -- so they honestly have no fucking idea what they’re talking about. Sure, I understand the trepidation… short programs that you watch on your phone? Why would anyone get behind that? I mean, everything needs to be a 3 ½ hour Martin Scorsese movie that needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible, right?
Well, no. You see, CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg saw how successful YouTube was with their model – maybe not necessarily their original programming – and he figured he could do them one better. Instead of following the normal TV model of 22 to 60 minutes episodes, he decided to make every episode under 10 minutes. Maybe this seems weird to many people but if you watch any commercial network television, that’s actually the norm. All programs are broken up into smaller increments to allow for the commercials, and the smart shows time those breaks with mini-cliffhangers that makes the viewer want to return after the commercial break rather than switching the station. For the comedies and dramas, it just means you can watch as many episodes as you want without investing the hours involved with binging most shows. You can watch a lot of a series in an hour or more, and you’ll know right away if it’s for you. (There are some I really didn’t like at all such as Dummy and a few others.)
The big problem is that we really shouldn’t be looking at Quibi as an attempted competitor to Netflix, Hulu or any of the other streaming services. Quibi isn’t meant to be for watching movies or to be watched on the biggest screen possible. It’s quick, short bytes of entertainment similar to what you might normally watch on YouTube, but with actual programming. It’s a service geared towards people who don’t have 8 hours a day to binge-watch shows and maybe just want something to watch on a 5 or 10-minute break from sitting at their computers working. (That’s another good reason why having to be viewed on a phone/tablet makes it a good way to take a break from the computer.)
I totally understand some of the trepidation based on the early programming, because I haven’t found much in the narrative realm that has jumped out at me. I like Will Forge and Caitlyn Olsen’s Flipped, since it stars two of the funniest people on television, and the second story on Sam Raimi’s United States of Horror was far better than the first one. I also found a great guilty pleasure in shows like Chrissy’s Court and Dishmantled, each which put a spin on favorite TV genres, the court and cooking shows, both which are hilarious. I binged both of those series, which are about 10 to 12 episodes in a little over an hour, and Reno 911 and Jason Reitman’s The Princess Bride adaptation have been some great recent additions to the service.
The reason why you should be watching Quibi is for the daily programming, which is every bit on par with anything currently on television, mainly because Quibi has joined forces with some of the best news sources and content creators. For instance, the BBC show, Around the World with host Ben Bland, takes all of the great news from the BBC and puts together a daily six-minute “montage” of the most important news from outside the United States. There’s also NBC’s The Report, which offers two episodes on weekdays – the Morning and Evening Report – and two Weekend Reports, and it’s solid news reporting but also nothing that outlasts its welcome like the normal 24-hour news.
Then there’s so much other great programming, including Answered by Vox with host Cleo Abram, where you can learn about so many relevant and timely topics, and it’s become a particularly beneficial during the COVID pandemic. I have to admit that when I first started watching this, I was kind of amused by Abram’s twitchy interviews where she seemed unsure of herself, but over the course of the last couple months, her bubbly personality has really come out, as she’s tackled topics of special interest to herself. Quibi has rightfully been promoting the heck out of the show by advertising it on other shows. I also am impressed by the topics Shan Boodram covers on Sexology, an extremely candid and honest discussion of what some might consider taboo topics.
Similarly wonderful to watch every day is EW’s Last Night Late Night with Heather Gardner, which sums up the previous night’s late night shows – the best jokes, the best bits from the interviews, performances etc. – and there’s also Rotten Tomatoes’ Fresh Daily with Maude Garrett, which gives you a look at the best things to watch on streaming and digital on a day-to-day basis. (For full transparency, a person I greatly respect and one of the few I genuinely like in the industry, Mr. Simon Thompson, writes and produces the show.) Video game fans may enjoy Polygon’s Speed Run, although it recently changed format and is now three days a week, rather than five, and each episode is now on one subject rather than the segment format previously used. I hope this isn’t a sign of Quibi or these companies trying to save costs because there’s some nervous about the platform lasting.
Personally, I love Quibi, and I didn’t even hesitate for a second to shell out the $5.30 a month (including tax), mainly for the daily programming. Honestly, I really hope that we’ll get more of Chrissy’s Court and Dishmantled, and I hope to eventually get to some of the shows I haven’t watched, as well. (I’ve had a few issues with streaming and buffering in the last week, which I hope Quibi will resolve, because it’s very frustrating to sit down for my daily watches and just get the spinning ball repeatedly.)
Anyway, let’s get to the movies… and is it possible that Hulu may be receiving the coveted “Featured Flick” two weeks in a row? Certainly looks like it. If you’re trying to figure out what to watch after watching Hamilton on Disney+ for the 20th time, how about going back to the very beginning?
Andrew Fried’s doc WE ARE FREESTYLE LOVE SUPREME (Hulu) looks back at how Wesleyan alum Thomas Kail and Anthony Veneziale put together the group of improvisational performers that would include one Lin-Manuel Miranda. I was lucky enough to know about Freestyle Love Supreme way back when they were starting out, since a good friend of mine managed the East Village club, Mo Pitkins, where the group frequently performed. I knew pretty early on how much talent Miranda had from seeing him perform. Make no mistake that this is not a movie only about Miranda, as it’s as much or more about Kail and Venziale’s efforts to keep the group’s shows happening while Miranda is pulled away to do In the Heights on Broadway, and then ultimately doing his magnum opus, Hamilton.
For some reason, I thought this doc would mainly be about the idea of bringing Freestyle Love Supreme back for its limited stint on Broadway, but it goes all the way back to the beginning and how they met and came together, plus how they found new members to fill in for Miranda and Christopher Jackson when they went to Broadway. Freestyle Love Supreme is a pretty amazing group because as the name implies, they’re a bunch of freestyle rappers who improvise every show based on things they get from the audience, but it also allows them to explore their own personal lives and histories and incorporate them into each show. I’m actually a little bummed I never got a chance to see it even though I’ve known about them since the early ‘00s. This doc might feel a little long even at under 90 minutes, but it’s worth sticking with since they’re such an interesting group and the combination of performances and interviews makes it a fine doc about these amazingly talented individuals and how the sum is bigger than the whole of the parts.
Another long-gestating project that has finally seen the light of day is the romantic drama DIRT MUSIC (Samuel Goldwyn), based on Tim Winton’s popular Australian novel that people have been trying to adapt since back when Heath Ledger was still alive. I believe Russell Crowe had been trying to adapt it, too. It stars Kelly Macdonald, who I’ve loved since her first appearance in Trainspotting and who I’m always hoping will find some of those great roles we see other actors her age getting. (Sorry, but Puzzle just wasn’t one of them.) In Dirt Music, she plays Georgie, a woman living with fisherman Jim Buckridge (David Wenham), a widowed father with two sons, although they’re not married. When Georgie begins a relationship with troubled local musician Lu Fox (Garrett Hedlund), it causes problems within the tight-knit community, but instead of getting into a confrontation with Jim, Lu runs off.
I actually quite enjoyed this drama, partially because it marks the return of Gregor Jordan, an Australian filmmaker who has quite a few decent movies under his belt, including an earlier Ned Kelly movie. It is a little hard to figure out what is happening, partially from the accents but also from the decision to tell the story in a non-linear fashion that isn’t always apparent where each of the characters are in the story. Obviously, a major thing to pay attention to is how great Macdonald and Hedlund are in their roles in this possibly unlikely romance. You can totally see Ledger in the role of Lu, and the fact that Hedlund is so good should help you appreciate him more as an actor. Macdonald also still has this youthful energy despite being in her ‘40s, and that gives their relationship something akin to her relationship with McGregor in Trainspotting.
What really captured my attention was the gorgeous music by the Fox family, and I was even more impressed to learn that the actors – Julia Stone, George Mason, Neill Maccoll, and yes, Garrett Hedlund – all performed their own vocals in the songs, which includes a gorgeous version of Tim Buckley’s “Song of the Siren” (famously covered by This Mortal Coil). Frankly, I’m most surprised by the fact that Hedlund had musical talent I never knew about, and you can combine that with the emotion he brings to Lu with very few words, and you have another example of why Hedlund just isn’t getting the credit as an actor he deserves. I really liked the way this story was unfolded and where it ended, and I hope we’ll see more great work like this from Jordan.
I was a little more tentative about Wetlands director David Wnendt’s THE SUNLIT NIGHT (Quiver Distribution), which was adapted by Rebecca Dinerstein from her own novel, but not only because it premiered at Sundance way back in early 2019. If you’ve been reading the past few months of columns, you’ll know that there are a lot of recurring themes of movies that play at Sundance, and this one stars Jenny Slate, who had such an impact at Sundance with the movie Obvious Child, which I really didn’t like. Yeah, I’m not really a fan, even though I like her in smaller roles like her role in Gifted a few years back. In this one, Slate plays Frances, a New York artist, whose parents are about to break up and looking for a change, she accepts an internship with an artist in Northern Norway where the day lasts for months. It’s a pretty obvious “fish-out-of-water” comedy premise like one we may normally see at Sundance, but it never really delivers on
Probably my favorite part of the movie was seeing David Paymer as France’s father, mainly because we just don’t see Paymer in many movies these days, but Zack Galifianakis’ character, one of the Norwegians who has an affinity for Vikings, just doesn’t add very much to the story. While I liked the set-up for the movie and Slate is generally likeable in the lead role, the movie just isn’t funny enough to be deemed a comedy nor enough drama to have much of an emotional impact, and the romance between Slate and a local didn’t do much for me either. By the end of the movie, Sunlit Night had veered too far into the most obvious indie territory, so it ultimately fell short for me. I just wish Dinerstein had more (or anything) to say with this story, and I feel like Wnendt and his cast probably did the best they could with what they had to work with.
A movie that’s finally being released after playing a number of festivals last year is the Czech Republic’s 2019 Oscar selection, Václav Marhoul’s THE PAINTED BIRD (IFC Films), based on Jerzy Kosinski’s novel about a young Jewish boy navigating the landscape of WWII-era Eastern Europe all on his own, ending up in one horrifying situation after another.
While this is a beautifully-told story featuring equally beautiful and quite stark black and white cinematography, I can’t wholly recommend it to everyone, because that beautiful camerawork is used to depict some of the most horrible depravity and violence, all experienced by this young boy who just can’t seem to catch a break.
There is very little dialogue in a film that takes an episodic approach to following this young boy’s journey as he either watches horrifying things or is put through grueling torture and even rape as he’s handed and bartered from one adult to another. The “painted bird” of the title is a literal bird that’s painted to attract other birds that attack it, and it’s clearly meant as an analogy for the boy.
If you’ve watched any Czech films over the years, you’ll know that they’re generally pretty grim (they’re a grim people), and you’ll probably know fairly soon whether you want to sit through the entire 2 ¾ running time to see how this boy fares with everything he faces. (Note: A big deal has been made about some of the more horrifying violence in the movie, but honestly? Being in black and white, it isn’t that gory, and I’ve seen far, far worse. A lot of the worst of it is off-screen and your mind tends to fill in the blanks much like last year’s The Nightingale.)
Barely saying a single word, Petr Kotlár is able to carry the film, and it’s interesting when more familiar actors like Udo Kier, Harvey Keitel, Stellan Skarsgaard, and Barry Pepper are brought into this world Marhoul has created from Kosinski’s book. Like so many other movies right now, it’s a shame this won’t be seen on the big screen where you’re forced to really focus on what you’re watching without distractions.
The Butterfly Effect writer/director Eric Bress’s latest horror film is GHOSTS OF WAR (Vertical) about a group of American soldiers -- including Brenton Thwaites, Sklar Astin and Theo Rossi -- who travelling across France during WWII when they come upon a French Chateau where they decide to hole up. That is, until they learn there’s a supernatural enemy that may be worse than the Nazis they’re hiding from.
The premise for Bress’ latest venture into the supernatural is a fairly simple one, and it’s hard not to watch this movie and not think of the far superior Overlord from a few years back. As soon as the soldiers get to the estate, it’s pretty obvious (mainly from the title) where things are going to go from there, and unfortunately, the bland casting doesn’t do very much to elevate that simple premise, the weak writing, and none of it feels particularly scary. If that general premise doesn’t seem very interesting to you, then Ghosts of War introduces a pretty out-there last act twist that’s either gonna be praised for changing things up or it will be condemned for being so out there. The problem is that the movie just hasn’t built enough good will to earn its twist, and viewers will probably just be even more annoyed by it.
Ghosts of War will be available On Demand, via Virtual Cinema Screenings and digitally after being on DirecTV for the past few weeks.
Down at New York’s Film Forum, you can rent Elizabeth Coffman and Mark doc Flannery (Film Forum), winner of the Library of Congress Lavine/Ken Burns Prize with its look at author Flannery O’Connor. The repertoryVirtual Cinema adds Jean-Luc Godard’s Made in the U.S.A. (1966) and Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Michael (1924), the latter part of the Forum’s “Pioneers of Queer Cinema” program.
Starting on Film at Lincoln Center’s Virtual Cinema this Friday is Koji Fukada’s Mayak (Andreevsky Flah Film Company/Anniko Films), while FilmLinc is also starting its annual Dance on Camera Festival, the 48th edition, although this time virtually.
Available via Film Movement’s Virtual Cinema is Emily Harris’ adaption of Joseph Sheridan le Fanu’s Gothic vampire novella, Carmilla, starring Hannah Rae as 15-year-old Lara who lives in isolation on her family’s country estate with her strict governess Miss Fontaine (Jessica Raine) until a carriage crash brings a mysterious girl into their lives.
Now we’re getting to more movies that I just didn’t find the time to see even though I had screeners for a couple of them, like the latest in Hulu’s popular monthly horror series, INTO THE DARK: THE CURRENT OCCUPANT, which will hit the streamer this Friday. It’s directed by Julius Ramsay and written by D.C. speech writer Alston Ramsay, taking place in a psychiatric ward where a man trapped with no memory, played by Barry Watson, believes that he’s the President of the United States and the subject of a political conspiracy. No, it’s not a documentary.
Over on Netflix, there’s Catrin Einhorn and Leslye Davis’ doc Father Soldier Son, which follows a former platoon sergeant and his two sons over a decade after his return home from a serious injury in Afghanistan, showing the long-term effects of military service on a family.
Dan Wingate’s doc Kaye Ballard - The Show Goes On (Abramorama) will get a Virtual Cinema release this Friday. I actually am not familiar with the actress, singer and comedian but apparently, she’s had a career that has spanned eight decades, starting in the 40s, and her friends include Ann-Margret, Carol Burtnett, Carol Channing, my good pal Red Reed and more, all of whom are interviewed, along with Ballard.
Also out on Digital this week is Steve Ohi’s sci-fi horror comedy Useless Humans (Quiver Distribution) about a ruthless alien who crashes a 30th birthday party causing four friends to team up to save the world. Will Addison’s Easy Does It (Gravitas Ventures), stars Linda Hamilton, as well as Ben Matheny and Martin Martinez, the latter two as friends who want to escape their Mississippi hometown when they learn there’s a cache of hidden loot in California. Hamilton plays their hometown criminal matriarch “King George” who learns of the money and has her bounty hunter daughter (Susan Gordon) chase the friends down.
On Friday, New York’s Japan Society will kick off its annual “Japan Cuts” program of new and repertory Japanese cinema, and like most other festivals and series this year, it’s going on line, beginning with Shinichiro Ueda’s Special Actors (the Opening Night film), Fukushima 50 (the Centerpiece) and Labyrinth of Cinema, for $7.00 each, which is a pretty good deal. (There’s also a new competitive section called “Next Generation” which focuses on new Japanese talent.) And then for $99, you can get an all access pass to watch all 42 films in the festival, which includes a lot of movies you may never have a chance to see in the States otherwise. You can watch a playlist of trailers from the movies here. All 42 films will be available starting this Friday, so make sure to include this in your weekend plans.
In related news, the New York Asian Film Festival (which cancelled this year altogether) and the Korean Culture Center of New York are teaming once again for Korean Movie Night, this year doing them virtually with a new program called “A League Of Its Own,” which focuse on Hit Korean Baseball Movies, plus there’s a bunch of other Korean films you can watch (FOR FREE!) here until July 25.
Also, if you’re anywhere near some of the drive-ins taking part in Amazon’s summer movie program, you can catch “Movies To Make You Proud” Black Panther and Creed on Wednesday night.
Next week, more movies mostly not in theaters!
By the way, if you read this week’s column and have bothered to read this far down, feel free to drop me some thoughts at Edward dot Douglas at Gmail dot Com or drop me a note or tweet on Twitter. I love hearing from readers … honest!
#TheWeekendWarrior#Movies#Reviews#WeAreFreestyleLoveSupreme#DirtMusic#ThePaintedBird#GhostsOfWar#VOD#Streaming#Netflix#Hulu
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
thebestestbat
love is not like anything
picklermemoriallibraryexhi-blog2
History of Adidas Samba
zahidabro
THE OBSERVER
pappy3845
Untitled
pappy3845
Untitled