Friday free for all
Nope, not gonna happen...me and this shovel won't let it
Despite what my good friend and excellent human being (despite his Detroit Lion's addiction) has theorized and rumored, Steven Spielberg is not, I repeat, NOT going to make a sequel to ET. How do I know this? Well, he said so, for starters. Last month in Empire Magazine, the 'Berg said, and I quote "I’m never going to make E.T. II — E.T. is a closed story. It had a beginning, middle, and a definite ending, and we had nowhere to take it except to go home with him. Nor did I want to bring him back to Earth for a second time." Yes, there was briefly a discussion about ET II after the first one came out, and even a script, called ET - Nocturnal Fears, perhaps the worst title ever conceived. I mean, seriously, doesn't that sound like a movie in which Eliot experiences one of "those" dreams? This rumor first began with an anonymous "source" in the same tabloid that has brought us such stories as "Man gives birth to live shark" and "Is Oprah cheating on Steadman with a Walrus?" (answer: Yes). I know that anything is possible in Hollywood, but Spielberg already tried to ruin his classic once by taking the guns out of the FBI chase sequence and adding in digital walkie talkies (everybody run, the FBI can...um...call for more backup?) in the "special edition" (special meaning special here), so I think he's learned his lesson. So, that rumor is as debunked as a summer camp that's been demolished.
I think Devin at Chud.com is going to think I'm stalking him
How creepy is it that on Twitter you "follow" people. Can't they say "subscribe" or something? "Following" people sounds much more perv-friendly than it needs to. Anyway, the bearded, verbose, opinionated guy at Chud.com has actually engaged in a bit of Twitter banter with me recently about Star Trek, a subject on which he is passionate as hell and on which I am...you know, moderately aroused by. I did love, love, love this last one, but prior to that...let's just say I never had a Tribble chubby. Well, Devin has now posted a list of 5 things Star Trek 2 should avoid, and I wanted to (A) repost it and (B) address it...so let's do that!
5.) Leave Khan out of it
Agreed, entirely agreed. The best way to redeem the new episode's only major weakness (a creepy Space Miner villain....oooooh) is to prove you can create a better one. It shouldn't be too hard, you have all of infinite space to work with. My suggestion: an evil space pipe layer (Devin started it with a "space minor" joke, and I want to keep the Kirk-banging-extraterrestrial-broads joke going).
4.) Leave that bumpy Ewok out of it
Again, agreed. It wasn't too obnoxious, but whatever the hell that gnome thing was could get really cumbersome. We don't need an explanation for why acne-ridden Willow isn't there anymore, you can just dispose of Scotty's sidekick.
3.) Don't tie the next movie in to "Lost"
Disagree. Many, many audience members didn't even get the "Slusho" reference in the first Star Trek. This is akin to saying to Hitchcock "You don't have to appear in your films." JJ knows he doesn't have to make any references if he doesn't want to, but if he does, that's okay. It's his stamp he's putting on this. I know we all think that this is "our" movie, but he's making it, and if he wants to take a second to wink at himself and his friends, that's fine by me. It's nonobtrusive. Now, if it becomes more than a Dharma logo in the background, I agree, but I don't think he's that stupid.
2.) Don't start on Earth
Devin points out that most Trek films do. I personally don't care about this. So...whatever. Start on Gurlork or whatever the hell planet you want.
1.) Leave the original cannon alone
I agree to a point. I think they need to show that they respect the original series, making a few winks-and-nods, but not follow it as though it were a roadmap. Seriously, you don't want to see a tribble? You don't want to see a few reimagined things, just to see what they could look like? I think you shouldn't remake the previous stuff (because many of them were pretty awful) but why not at least acknowledge some of it.
I think if I were to give any advice, it wouldn't be in the "don't" form that Devin proposes, so much as in the "do" form. Really, it's just two things: (1) Be imaginative - Keep the action but also explore things that warp our perceptions (like "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula LeGuin); (2) don't feel the need to give everybody a defining moment - We now know the characters, but if you want to serve each of the 9 members of the crew, you can't....it's "Lost" syndrome. Anyway, I'm eagerly looking forward to this (and not fearing it as some long-time Trekkers are).
Weekend Battle Plan: Angels and Demons is "blockblustery" enough!
This will be short, I am going to go buy a house in a few minutes (wish me luck). Ben Coffman, our esteemed film reviewer, has assured me (in my stead) that Angels and Demons is going to get a B grade from him (his review is forthcoming...probably not until Monday, but whatever). So, I guess that's fine to see if you haven't seen Star Trek. If you haven't seen that one, by God you communist prig, you need to get yourself there NOW!!!
That's my recommendation (told you it would be quick): Get the to Star Trek (again, or for the first time) or, if you've seen that and have some kind of passion for the dead-inside Robert Langdon, you can see that and survive.
On DVD: I haven't seen S. Darko yet, which is what I'm reviewing for the week. I've been a little busy this week, back off. So, I guess you could rent Taken (wherein a giant Liam Neeson protects his teenage daughter...played by distinctly non-teenage Maggie Grace) or try out the direct-to-DVD sequel to Donnie Darko, because it has Elizabeth Berkley in it, so it's not like it can be bad.
Fearless, Flawless Box Office Predictions
Okay, real quick this week. We know that Angels and Demons is number one, and that Trek will go two...but how high for each?! I'm thinking Trek will have a surprisingly sturdy hold and that Angels, like most men who brag about their sexual prowess, underperform decisively. Also, there's a mess for that final position (thanks Wildcard!) let's see if this streak can continue. When I'm busy, you get Haikus, so here goes:
1.) Angels and Demons - $51 million
This could be too low
Then again, no controversy
More cash if pope mad
2.) Star Trek - $42 million
Will hold very strong
Take that Wolverine, you suck
Kirk will bitch slap you
3.) Wolverine - $9.5 million
Hope you had some fun
We will forget you were here
Deadpool? Not so sure.
4.) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - $6.5 million
I don't blame you, Jen.
I blame Matt McConaughey.
I do his voice well.
5.) Obsessed - $3.5 million
Beyonce you suck.
That's not a haiku.
WILDCARD - 17 Again - $3 million
Again? No thank you.
One time is more than enough.
Poor Matthew Perry.
Happy weekend! See you on Monday!
Despite what my good friend and excellent human being (despite his Detroit Lion's addiction) has theorized and rumored, Steven Spielberg is not, I repeat, NOT going to make a sequel to ET. How do I know this? Well, he said so, for starters. Last month in Empire Magazine, the 'Berg said, and I quote "I’m never going to make E.T. II — E.T. is a closed story. It had a beginning, middle, and a definite ending, and we had nowhere to take it except to go home with him. Nor did I want to bring him back to Earth for a second time." Yes, there was briefly a discussion about ET II after the first one came out, and even a script, called ET - Nocturnal Fears, perhaps the worst title ever conceived. I mean, seriously, doesn't that sound like a movie in which Eliot experiences one of "those" dreams? This rumor first began with an anonymous "source" in the same tabloid that has brought us such stories as "Man gives birth to live shark" and "Is Oprah cheating on Steadman with a Walrus?" (answer: Yes). I know that anything is possible in Hollywood, but Spielberg already tried to ruin his classic once by taking the guns out of the FBI chase sequence and adding in digital walkie talkies (everybody run, the FBI can...um...call for more backup?) in the "special edition" (special meaning special here), so I think he's learned his lesson. So, that rumor is as debunked as a summer camp that's been demolished.
I think Devin at Chud.com is going to think I'm stalking him
How creepy is it that on Twitter you "follow" people. Can't they say "subscribe" or something? "Following" people sounds much more perv-friendly than it needs to. Anyway, the bearded, verbose, opinionated guy at Chud.com has actually engaged in a bit of Twitter banter with me recently about Star Trek, a subject on which he is passionate as hell and on which I am...you know, moderately aroused by. I did love, love, love this last one, but prior to that...let's just say I never had a Tribble chubby. Well, Devin has now posted a list of 5 things Star Trek 2 should avoid, and I wanted to (A) repost it and (B) address it...so let's do that!
5.) Leave Khan out of it
Agreed, entirely agreed. The best way to redeem the new episode's only major weakness (a creepy Space Miner villain....oooooh) is to prove you can create a better one. It shouldn't be too hard, you have all of infinite space to work with. My suggestion: an evil space pipe layer (Devin started it with a "space minor" joke, and I want to keep the Kirk-banging-extraterrestrial-broads joke going).
4.) Leave that bumpy Ewok out of it
Again, agreed. It wasn't too obnoxious, but whatever the hell that gnome thing was could get really cumbersome. We don't need an explanation for why acne-ridden Willow isn't there anymore, you can just dispose of Scotty's sidekick.
3.) Don't tie the next movie in to "Lost"
Disagree. Many, many audience members didn't even get the "Slusho" reference in the first Star Trek. This is akin to saying to Hitchcock "You don't have to appear in your films." JJ knows he doesn't have to make any references if he doesn't want to, but if he does, that's okay. It's his stamp he's putting on this. I know we all think that this is "our" movie, but he's making it, and if he wants to take a second to wink at himself and his friends, that's fine by me. It's nonobtrusive. Now, if it becomes more than a Dharma logo in the background, I agree, but I don't think he's that stupid.
2.) Don't start on Earth
Devin points out that most Trek films do. I personally don't care about this. So...whatever. Start on Gurlork or whatever the hell planet you want.
1.) Leave the original cannon alone
I agree to a point. I think they need to show that they respect the original series, making a few winks-and-nods, but not follow it as though it were a roadmap. Seriously, you don't want to see a tribble? You don't want to see a few reimagined things, just to see what they could look like? I think you shouldn't remake the previous stuff (because many of them were pretty awful) but why not at least acknowledge some of it.
I think if I were to give any advice, it wouldn't be in the "don't" form that Devin proposes, so much as in the "do" form. Really, it's just two things: (1) Be imaginative - Keep the action but also explore things that warp our perceptions (like "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula LeGuin); (2) don't feel the need to give everybody a defining moment - We now know the characters, but if you want to serve each of the 9 members of the crew, you can't....it's "Lost" syndrome. Anyway, I'm eagerly looking forward to this (and not fearing it as some long-time Trekkers are).
Weekend Battle Plan: Angels and Demons is "blockblustery" enough!
This will be short, I am going to go buy a house in a few minutes (wish me luck). Ben Coffman, our esteemed film reviewer, has assured me (in my stead) that Angels and Demons is going to get a B grade from him (his review is forthcoming...probably not until Monday, but whatever). So, I guess that's fine to see if you haven't seen Star Trek. If you haven't seen that one, by God you communist prig, you need to get yourself there NOW!!!
That's my recommendation (told you it would be quick): Get the to Star Trek (again, or for the first time) or, if you've seen that and have some kind of passion for the dead-inside Robert Langdon, you can see that and survive.
On DVD: I haven't seen S. Darko yet, which is what I'm reviewing for the week. I've been a little busy this week, back off. So, I guess you could rent Taken (wherein a giant Liam Neeson protects his teenage daughter...played by distinctly non-teenage Maggie Grace) or try out the direct-to-DVD sequel to Donnie Darko, because it has Elizabeth Berkley in it, so it's not like it can be bad.
Fearless, Flawless Box Office Predictions
Okay, real quick this week. We know that Angels and Demons is number one, and that Trek will go two...but how high for each?! I'm thinking Trek will have a surprisingly sturdy hold and that Angels, like most men who brag about their sexual prowess, underperform decisively. Also, there's a mess for that final position (thanks Wildcard!) let's see if this streak can continue. When I'm busy, you get Haikus, so here goes:
1.) Angels and Demons - $51 million
This could be too low
Then again, no controversy
More cash if pope mad
2.) Star Trek - $42 million
Will hold very strong
Take that Wolverine, you suck
Kirk will bitch slap you
3.) Wolverine - $9.5 million
Hope you had some fun
We will forget you were here
Deadpool? Not so sure.
4.) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - $6.5 million
I don't blame you, Jen.
I blame Matt McConaughey.
I do his voice well.
5.) Obsessed - $3.5 million
Beyonce you suck.
That's not a haiku.
WILDCARD - 17 Again - $3 million
Again? No thank you.
One time is more than enough.
Poor Matthew Perry.
Happy weekend! See you on Monday!
posted by Ryan at
8:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home