Thursday, January 31, 2008

Lost - Season 4 Premiere

Woah, what a wait. It's finally over and the series that has been off the air since the end of May is back.

To build up the anticipation of the series I re-watched the show from the start. The show was in its prime in season one, but surprisingly I found the second season a lot better than I had remembered it as being - I did however forget how meddling the middle of it was. No matter, season 3 also had a few clunkers towards the start but soon climbed back up to the quality that I had remembered it as having at the start.

Season 4 should prove to be an interesting situation - as with all other shows on TV - it has been hurt by the writer's strike. Only 8 episodes were completed - so we're stuck with an incredibly short season on our hands. Oh well.

****/*****

On a side note Jericho starts back up in under two weeks.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

McCain 2008

Normally I would shy away from politics, but I figured I'd weigh in after Florida's primary.

McCain has cemented himself as the Republican front runner in this election. The only other person who has even a remote chance to win it would be Romney. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there's just not enough of a chance for him to win the next few states (California and New York are solidly McCain at the moment). The thing that is still going against him is his religion. To many he's "that Mormon" - spouting bigotry like it's 1900. It's just as bad as if someone labeled Lieberman as "that Jew" - it's sick.

I just don't trust Romney. I don't know why but Mitt just comes across just as honest as John Kerry did in the 2004 election. Like a Ken doll that's been dress and manicured for the cameras. This is of course no where close to John "$400-haircut" Edwards, who is nothing but a smile in an empty suit. Making promises to the middle class about health care while being one of many who caused the problem to begin with. One of the many "slip and fall lawyers" who have helped to drive up doctor's costs and insurance costs (they don't want to have the extra liability that's been heaped upon themselves).

Giuliani is a perfect example of why you don't ignore the first few primaries. See ya. It is also an interesting observation that generally the more Liberal Republicans can get a lot of flack from Democrats. Many of the Democrats I know (or so-called "independents" - who are liberal) admit to hating the man. Perhaps they saw him as some unholy mix of Conservative values and their own liberal policies - creating a child that even they would be repulsed at (perhaps because the liberalism was not "pure" enough).

Huckabee has Iowa and Chuck Norris. That gimmick has tired quickly.

Ron Paul? How about I just spam my comments with a typical Ron Paul supporter attack. "RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL gold standard RON PAUL." Enough said.

This all brings me now to Obama. Sure he's good at motivational speeches. He's apparently gotten a lot of people psyched about voting. That's all well and good - but after the 2006 mid-term elections, I've become skeptical about any claims from the Democrats about "bringing people together." This was the same lame language that people like Nancy Pelosi used before the 110th Congress began January 3rd 2007. Immediately afterward they threw any pretense of "civility and bipartisanship" out the window.

Obama apparently stands for "change" and "hope". You just have to count the number of times he uses the words to know that's what he believes in - at least apparently.

Unfortunately, unlike McCain - who has "crossed party lines" or at least worked with Democrats on hammering out quite a bit of legislation, Obama was actually ranked as the "most liberal" voting person in the entire Senate. That's hard to believe, especially since Hillary Clinton was ranked a lowly 16th. I just don't see any "healing" coming from him after finding this out. All I see is just political rhetoric - something that one with so little experience on a national level should be proud about picking up - that is, unless you want to be branded as a "Washington outsider" who "isn't part of the political machine of Washington" - which would be a lie to anyone who's actually in office in Washington D.C. when they make the claim - you're part of the system.

However people can always prove me wrong. If he somehow defeats Hillary and goes on to win the general election I just hope he keeps his words - because his actions don't reflect them.

I'll admit that McCain is old. That isn't to say he's incapable of running for President and doing a phenomenal job while he's at it. At the very least I'd hope he can bring us out of this socialistic-"religious" rut that this lousy current president has gotten us into. Heck, looking back at the last 8 years Bush has honestly been the most liberal president since LBJ. The few thinks blinding people to this is that Bush isn't an atheist, and sets out to cut taxes (trimming excess fat from bloated government bureaucracies is a better way of saving the Taxpayer money). Perhaps that's why he's so hated (although at least he's better off than the Congress' "almost single digits" approval ratings). It is amazing how low the approval rating is for Congress yet the re-election rate is nearly 100%. Heck, no one is saying (at least I hope not) that if you're elected you must attempt to run for 2 terms.

McCain is what America needs to truly mend the fence and turn people back on to politics - and you don't have to agree with everything he says (find me a politician that you do and I'll give you $100). He doesn't need to prove that what he says in his speeches - he's done it for years.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Plan 9 From Outer Space

A lot can be said about a film so derided over the decades as being the "worst movie ever made." A lot of bad can be said and, not surprisingly, not much good.
"Manos: The Hands of Fate" or "Beast of Yucca Flats" generally take the cake for me, but this film comes surprisingly close.

I saw this film two Tuesdays ago at the Washington Psychotronic Film Institute's last hurrah at my favorite local bar, Dr. Dremo's before it's closing this weekend.

Plan 9 is filled with such goodies as cardboard tombstones (that people trip on!), the same stock shot of Bella Legosi walking around, and when he died a man covering his face with a cape to "hide" the fact that this man who was at least a foot taller wasn't Bella at all, sets cloaked in curtains, and dialogue about on par with what you'd expect a 7 year old to write.

Enjoyability factor: ****/*****
Movie quality: 0/*****

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Cloverfield

Cloverfield. Hand-held camera shots. Going away party. *Something* attacking New York City.

For quite some time they've been pimping out this film through viral marketing. There are many people who are obsessed with viral marketing, treating it like some sort of addiction. They can't get enough of it. I however, am not very impressed bi it at all. At times it's interesting, but I lose interest quickly with most of it. If I want puzzles I'll play Myst. If I want frustrating puzzles I'll play Riven. But hey, that's just me.

Cloverfield was intense. The film starts off extremely slow, with about 20 minutes of footage that occurs before the film picks up the action. From that point the film doesn't stop.

The acting is what some might call "amateurish" but it's believable. The actors actually *feel* like they're actually really the people who are escaping a monster attack. The film's atmosphere helps this out to a great extent - limiting all music to the going away party and the end credits.

The film isn't anything like the garbage thrown around about it being like "Godzilla" - unless you think all "monster attacks city" films to be Godzilla. This would include such films as "The Lost World" from 1925, woops.

However, with all the viral marketing, all the ads on TV and the internet, I have a friend who didn't even know what the heck I was talking about when I said I saw "Cloverfield." JJ, you failed us.

I read and agree with someone who said that they felt that Cloverfield is pretty much the longest trailer ever created. The film doesn't delve into many details, and could potentially be a great setup for another installment. And if they do it right - it will be good.

****/*****

Monday, January 21, 2008

Star Trek 2008

Well folks. I saw Cloverfield. The movie will have me thinking and people talking for quite some time. You should all go see it.

Before the film I happened to see the Star Trek trailer. I'm really not sure if I should say I had the pleasure to see it or the misfortune because well, I'm just not sure about it. The film could easily be a success or a complete failure.

It could be Alias season 4 bad. And that's BAD.

JJ Abrams wants to have his cake and eat it too. There has been nothing but doublespeak coming out from him, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and the crew for months about how this film is both a reboot in one interview and that it will be faithful to established canon in another. You can't seriously have it both ways.

The simple solution presents itself. If the architecture is unfilmable, then don't film it, or don't go around claiming that it will "stay true to canon" if it can't even stick to the established (and iconic) visuals.

Either don't do it or do the entire film in a slight tongue-and-cheek way like they did in DS9's "Trials and Tribblations" when referring to "antiquated" things from the original series (sets, costumes).

I'm sorry but they are being completely contradictory. You could make the claim that they're keeping the "essence" of the Star Trek universe in the new film while giving it a completely different look-and-feel (see: reboot), but you can't say that everything will be designed differently (sets, ships) or even think about putting Klingons with ridges into the film (um, canon anyone?).

If the 60's style of the series is "too much cheese" to handle, realize that the costumes in the first two show pilots - "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" - had different, more subtle uniforms and even sets. Aim for dull, more earthy tones that don't stick out like the bright reds that were later added to the main part of the series, especially since this is supposed to take place before "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

The next step is throwing out Roddenberry's optimistic future for a more new-BSG "gritty", "realistic" look. When does it cross the line and stop "being" Star Trek? And by the way I love Battlestar Galactica but the original BSG was garbage compared to the original Star Trek series. One's still looked fondly upon by even new fans while the other has the same, aging fans who have been watching it for the last 30 years.

The biggest problem is that some might think that having a lot of money and talent thrown at it this time round will pay off. Sorry, but no Star Trek film made a huge exceptional amount of money - ever. They were mostly successful, but I have high doubts that it will recoup the 150 million dollars that has been given to this attempt.

Time will tell.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Cloverfield

$41 Million dollars opening weekend.

I saw it tonight and it was much better than I expected. Review will come out soon (I hope).

Monday, January 14, 2008

Cloverfield, Star Trek, and Sarah Connor

Today's been a pretty intense week so far. The premiere of "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" premiered with 18 million viewers.

Sarah Connor Chronicles
The one unfortunate aspect to "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" is that the producers have stated that it exists in a "separate" universe from T3. Why? Why would they open themselves up to this kind of scrutiny and confusion from fans and non-fans alike?

A perfect theory is that Terminator 3 "never" happened. Personally I feel they should have tied it directly into the 3rd film by going about what the 2nd (and 3rd) film was stating - that time is fluid and events can be changed. Why couldn't they have figured out a way to send back agents to stop the T-X and stop Robert Brewster's Skynet system.

There we go! Problem solved. Judgment Day moves to a later date and Sarah doesn't die from cancer. Heck, even a brief overview or exposition scene where the character Cameron Phillips explains this. Heck, they've pulled enough from the 3rd film to the point where they just can't explain it away by saying it "doesn't exist" in the "TV" universe.

The other alternative is that the show will eventually lead to Terminator 3, and thusly negating the entire series existence.

Convoluted? Perhaps. Logical, maybe.

Cloverfield
Cloverfield comes out this coming Friday. I hope to see it opening day or Saturday.

Star Trek
The teaser will be seen during Cloverfield's trailers. If they even show anything of substance we'll quickly see if this will be cinema gold or cinematic crap.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Why so serious?

Photobucket


Nope, this isn't The Dark Knight, it's: Good old engrish

Monday, January 07, 2008

The "war" is over (or that's the way it seems)

As many of you probably know already, Warner Bros plans to drop HD DVD support in May 2008. This effectively gives Sony and Blu-Ray the upper hand in the "format war" which has been raging on for the last two years or so.

The upside of loss

To be honest I'm not disappointed with my purchase at all. I have a high quality DVD player which upscales my standard DVDs. I also have a collection of films that I'll enjoy in HD for years to come. If people still love their Laserdiscs I don't see why I can't do the same.

The one positive aspect is that I'll soon be able to purchase WB films for cheap in the next few months at prices comparable to DVD as they try to clear out their supply. The current nature of the internet also allows me to replace a broken drive quite easily for the next decade or so if I need to.

The only way that I'll get a BluRay system is if it comes standard with one of my new computers or when the drives are less than 100 dollars. My dabbling in HD content has led me to the belief that most high def films out aren't really worth it and that most upscalled DVDs look almost as good.

Is the upgrade really worth the cost?

Yes that's right, I honestly think DVD quality is about as good as what's needed at the moment for the majority of films out there. Some look GREAT in both high def formats, while most look only marginally better (not good enough to warrant the extra 15-20 dollar ticket price).

Listen, to techies the “next-gen” player is a “huge” thing. To be perfectly honest, as I’ve said before, I don’t see most people (such as Joe Schmo) wanting to replace their entire library with something that’s only marginally better for the majority of films out there. Heck, I’m not impressed with some of the "high def" transfers I've seen. Is "Liar, Liar" better on HD? Only marginally. Is it worth 20 more dollars to get that small increase in quality when you can get almost the exact same picture quality with a DVD upscaller? Probably not. 2 or 3 dollars more? Sure - but that's at least 10 years down the road.

BluRay will only be successful with visually impressive films: 2001, Serenity, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Star Trek (at some point) - basically Science Fiction and Action films. Standard comedies and dramas won’t get an real added benefit because it doesn't matter if we can see the pores on Jeffrey Tambor's head in an episode of Arrested Development (though it was only filmed in 720p so it really won't have that much added benefit to a release).

Shilling and doublespeak

As it stood the "war" was silly. It made the most jingoistic person look reasonable by comparison, with anti-Sony people on one side and Sony-fans on the other. I even saw people claim they backed Blu-Ray only because Microsoft backed HD DVD, apparently big mega-corporations that span multiple avenues of business are evil... wait, that isn't Sony too, is it?

There were plenty of shills on both sides (one only needs to look at mediocre director Michael Bay) who would claim that one was superior than the other (in this case he backed Blu-Ray). Let me tell you something, there’s little difference between the two.

Both formats are near exact matches visually unless you have something like an 50+ inch HDTV and if you're investing hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in audio equipment, then you might notice such a small minute increase in the two. Joe Schmo however, won't notice the difference because he won't have the money you have to spend on a "home theater", and if he did he'd probably spend it on paying his mortgage or saving so he can put his kids in college.

"More" is not always better

Until recently Blu-Ray had the upper hand in that, but HD DVD had recently announced a 51 GB stable storage capacity, "trumping" Blu-Ray's 50 GB. Wow, what a difference...

Studios have been selling their media under-utilized for over 20 years, tapes, CDs, VHS, and even DVDs. "More" media sells better, even if they can fit that 70 minute album on one disc they’ll split it in half. A 2.5 hour film got the same treatment on VHS, and television shows on DVD did the same. Don’t ever expect them to ever release anything in the capacity that the format can hold.

What the future holds

The only way that people will start buying HD films exclusively is either to keep confusing the buying public or to stop DVD sales altogether. By the time BluRay films are released with competitive prices compared to DVD - the next Generation media war will start up. People buying either format should have realized that while the media likes to claim the sky is falling on DVDs (not lasting “as long” as VHS), you’re not going to see people replace their hundreds of DVDs for a decade or two.

Personally I think all of this be unnecessary once some company sees the opportunity for "combo players" that will play both media in one single drive. There are already ones out there that are 1000 dollars and the odds are they'll eventually become "standard" (at least for all companies aside from Sony). I'm sure there will be studios against it as well since they will want ignorant people to repurchase the films, though what's the point if you already have a player and the equivalent HD DVD?

DVD sales are dropping off, at a much faster rate than any of the HD formats are being picked up. Factors in this involve the boom of Netflix making it as cheap to rent 15 films in a month as it is to buy only two. Market saturation has also occurred with quite a few releases, with most every popular to cult film released (there are always the few odds and ends that have yet to be released). Many people are only buying new films at this point.

VHS to DVD was a HUGE leap in quality. The benefits of the format were obvious from the very start. This format war was bound to doom both formats because regular old average joes are already turned off by both.

Results

Personally the HD DVD people shouldn't be completely pissed. The odds are some company (and probably Toshiba in a year or so when the last remaining studio contracts end) will come out with a dual format player which will play both BluRay and HD DVD discs, allowing the people who adopted HD DVD players from having to re-purchase the same films in a different HD format. This of course will disappoint studios banking on having people purchase the BluRay version after already purchasing the HD format. In the end it will be no different than the CD+/CD- formats or the DVD+/DVD- formats.

By the time BluRay has "picked up steam" the next-gen will already be here. I like most people will probably stick with their DVD libraries until then. I just don't see the benefit in image quality increase between DVD and the high def discs. The quality increase with VHS was obvious and a major leap in the way the films are made.

Probably the biggest mistake that HD DVD/BluRay did was make the same sized disc that only modified the current technology. Something more drastic would have allowed them to "force" an upgrade like the difference between the VHS/DVD technologies forced people to do. I'd hate that as a consumer but in the end they dug their own graves.

I'm a pretty free market guy but I'd have to say, this is exactly why movie studios should not be allowed to create (or in this case help create) a format that they, for all intents and purposes, control. Are people familiar with "United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc." in 1948, which ended the ability for studios to own their own theaters due to anti-trust laws?

To anyone who reads this, I don't claim to be an expert, just a regular man voicing his somewhat informed opinion

Friday, January 04, 2008

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

A fresh take on "Law & Order"

Tonight was the premiere of the 18th season of Law & Order, the Crime/Law series that has been on the air since 1990.

Law and Order, copyright NBCIn recent years the series has taken a nose-dive both in the ratings and in the quality of the stories themselves. At times the series seemed to get better, only to fall flat. Hey, it happens to series that run 5, 6, 7, 10, 15 years as one only needs to look at the Simpsons to see the see-saw effect that occurs every few years.

Some of the casting since Jerry Orbach left the series wasn't bad per se, but they just didn't have the same chemistry. Elisabeth Röhm as Serena Southerlyn was just too cold and unlikeable compared to her predecessor Abbie Carmichael (played by Angie Harmon). Dennis Farina's character just didn't play well off of Jesse L. Martin's, however he did a great job with Michael Imperioli's short-term character when Martin was off doing Rent.

Based off of just the first two episodes of the season, Jeremy Sisto and Linus Roache are two great additions to the cast. Sisto plays Detective Cyrus Lupo and Green's partner and Roache is Jack McCoy's replacement as district attorney.

Brad Dourif and Michael McKean guest star in the first episode of the season.